Israel Matzav

Surprise: Ehud Barak tells biographers Israel canceled plans to attack Iran in 2010, 2011 and 2012

Israel's Channel 2 television obtained recordings of former Defense Minister (and Prime Minister and IDF Chief of Staff) Ehud Barak telling biographers that Israel planned to strike Iran in 2010, 2011 and 2012... and then called off the strikes because someone in the IDF (Gabi Ashkenazi) or the cabinet (Boogie Yaalon, Yuval Steinitz) objected . You can watch a CNN report about the recordings here.

Here in Israel, there is outrage over the report. Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Lieberman is accusing Barak of giving away state secrets.

Liberman told Army Radio that he was “more than surprised” at Barak, and said statements such as those given by the former minister would ultimately strengthen Iran.

“I think that when moves and discussions that should have been closely guarded state secrets are discussed by the press, it relays that you are a talker, that you aren’t serious, that you’re unreliable,” he said.

“That is why, among other reasons, Iran is being coddled by the international community, and we have been backed into a corner… These things should only have been discussed in closed forums.”

Asked whether he believed Barak was guilty of revealing state secrets, Liberman responded that he had “no doubt” that was the case.

And the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee is opening an investigation... into how the tapes got out.

Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Tzahi Hanegbi (Likud) said on Sunday he intends to investigate whether information divulged by former Defense Minister Ehud Barak regarding a possible Iran strike was properly cleared for publication, and if so, why.

...

Speaking to Israel Radio on Sunday, Hanegbi said such publications do not serve Israel's security interests. When asked if Barak harmed Israel's security, Hanegbi refuse to answer, but said that as the head of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee he plans to summon officials from the censor's office and hear their explanation.

Barak spoke of the plans in conversations with his biographers, Dani Dor and Ilan Kfir. Excerpts from the recordings were aired on Israel Channel 2’s weekly news magazine on Friday.

Channel 2 said Barak did not want the material released, but the IDF military censor approved the publication.

Hmmm.

Labels: Avigdor Lieberman, Binyamin Netanyahu, censorship, Channel 2, Ehud Barak, Gabi Ashkenazi, IDF, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Moshe Yaalon, Tzachi Hanegbi, Yuval Steinitz

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:35 PM 3 comments

Criminal sanctions for Haredi draft avoiders... in exchange for Tzachi HaNegbi

Arutz Sheva blows the lid off what ought to be a huge scandal: The Likud voted in favor of criminal sanctions against Haredi draft avoiders in return for Yair Lapid and Yesh Atid agreeing that Netanyahu protege Tzachi HaNegbi (left) would be named chair of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Exclusive sources revealed the deal to Arutz Sheva Tuesday afternoon, explaining that the move allowed the criminal sanctions - a clause Yesh Atid insists must be included in the Equal Burden of Service Law - to pass in the Shaked Committee, and for Hanegbi, who is a member of Netanyahu's own party, to be placed in a government position strategically important for the Prime Minister. 

MK Ofer Shelah (Yesh Atid) was also due to serve as head of the key committee, but only toward the end of the current Knesset term. A rotation agreement was worked out after Netanyahu refused to immediately promote Shelah to the position, when it was vacated by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman.

Last week, Prime Minister Netanyahu spontaneously ordered the vote over sanctions to be frozen after conflict erupted between the hareidi parties and the rest of the Committee board.

That conflict, over hesder yeshiva service, was in direct response to the criminal sanctions bid. As a United Torah Judaism MK explained to Arutz Sheva, the hareidi community views the clause as a threat. "You push us, we push back," he declared. 

Opponents to the move to enact criminal sanctions warn that the proposal has already alienated the hareidi community, noting that the Shas party quit the Shaked Committee over the move.

There's something else implied here: That Yesh Atid and the Likud combined to sell out hesder (whose soldiers saw their active service increased from 16 months to 24). I'm sure Jewish Home party leader Naftali Bennett is pleased with his brilliance.... Sara Netanyahu is probably pleased too.

And by the way, remember how Netanyahu spontaneously ordered the vote frozen? Sure you do: He told Tzachi HaNegbi to walk out....

Labels: Ayelet Shaked, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jewish Home party, Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Likud party, Naftali Bennett, Tzachi Hanegbi, Yair Lapid, Yesh Atid party

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:11 PM 0 comments

Tzachi Hanegbi plays dumb

Tzachi HaNegbi (left, with Livni and Olmert) posts on his Facebook page that he was contacted by Im Tirtzu's Ronen Shoval and urged not to attend the J Street convention next month (link in Hebrew, translation mine).

This week, in light of my anticipated participation on a panel of six Knesset members at the annual convention of the American Jewish group J Street, I was approached  by Ronen Shoval who heads the Im Tirtzu organization.

According to Shoval the organization is an "explicitly anti-Zionist organization that works against the interests of the State of Israel," and therefore it would be proper to refrain from granting it legitimacy.

I set up a meeting with Im Tirtzu in order to better understand their viewpoint. Even so, I find it difficult to accept an approach that prefers boycotts to dialogue. The official website of the American organization defines its member as "American Zionists, pro-Israel and supporters of peace, who are acting out of love and deep concern for the future of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." I too, like the overwhelming majority of Israel's citizzens, am a pro-Israel Zionist who supports peace. The argument between me and J Street, as with all other supporters of the Left, relates to the red lines on which we must insist during negotiations. It is important that the Likud's voice be clearly and unequivocally heard by them.

I don't believe in boycotts. Our camp was boycotted from the State's early days when Ben Gurion set a principle that was invalid at its core: Without Herut and Maki [two of the former parties that made up the Likud]! This is not our way. I prefer dialogue, strong arguments and mutual listening, especially when we are talking about part of our people.

Either Tzachi has no clue what J Street is, or he is playing dumb. As you can see by the title of this post, I believe that he is playing dumb.

Here are some of the things that Tzachi didn't bother to learn about J Street:

3. J Street joined with the pro-Iranian lobby, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), to oppose congressional efforts to impose sanctions on Iran. Ben-Ami and NIAC director Trita Parsi co-authored an anti-sanctions article titled “How Diplomacy Can Work with Iran” in Huffington Post in June 2009. At the Knesset, J Street Director Ben Ami lied and said that J Street had never opposed sanctions against Iran.

4. J Street received large contributions from one of NIAC’s directors, Genevieve Lynch of New York. She serves on J Street’s Finance Committee, and her J Street PAC contributions exceed $10,000 per year.

5. J Street’s PAC received tens of thousands of dollars from one of the leaders of the Arab American community, Richard Abdoo. J Street’s relationship with the Arab American Institute is very tight.

6. J Street PAC repeatedly took contributions from a Turkish American, Mehmet Celebi of Chicago. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign dropped Celebi in 2008 when they discovered he helped produce Valley of the Wolves, a viciously anti-American and anti-Semitic Turkish film.

7. J Street recently sponsored a speaking tour for John Ging, head of UNRWA in Gaza. The raison d’être of UNRWA is to perpetuate the Palestinian refugees’ status, thus encouraging their “right of return.”

8. J Street’s visit to Israel in February 2010 was cosponsored by an anti Israel group called Churches for Peace in the Middle East, an organization which supports the boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) efforts against Israel.

...

11. Anti Israel Career U.S. Arabists are attracted to J Street, sitting on its advisory board or contributing to J Street’s PAC. These include Ray Close, contributor to the J Street. former CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia and then advisor to the head of Saudi intelligence; Lewis Elbinger, contributor to the J Street PAC a State Department foreign service officer who had been stationed in Saudi Arabia but now serves as deputy political advisor seconded to Gen. David Petraeus at CENTCOM; Nicole Shampaine, contributor to J street PAC director of the State Department’s Office for Egypt and the Levant; Amb. Ted Kattouf, members of the J Street Advisory Board, former ambassador to Syria and the United Arab Emirates; Ambassador Robert Pelletreau,member of the J Street Advisory Board. former ambassador to Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain; and Ambassador Philip Wilcox, member of the J Street Advisory Board, former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem and president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.

...

15. In January, J Street in Jerusalem held a special meeting to honor Israeli soldiers who refused to obey orders.

16. In March, J Street lobbied the US Congress against a resolution that condemned the blatant incitement in Palestinian school books and Palestinian media, while J Street refuses comment on the curriculum of the PA which openly promotes the violent struggle to liberate all of Palestine.

More here.

Their money isn't Jewish either.

Another lie that was exposed by Eli Lake on Friday was the claim that most of J Street's money came from small donations by American Jews. In fact, aside from the 15% that came from George Soros, 50% came from a woman in Hong Kong named Consolacion Ediscul.

The group's 990 forms -- which I've also obtained and put online for the first time here -- show the group's single largest contribution, in the odd sum of $811,697 coming from one Consolacion Ediscul of Happy Valley, a Hong Kong suburb. Ediscul, whose name is Filipino, has no presence on Google or Nexis aside from this story, and people I spoke to in Jewish groups left and right had never heard of her.

According to a source in Hong Kong, Esdicul is J Street donor Bill Benter's secretary.

Someone needs to get to Tzachi and explain to him that J Street is not made up of or supported by American Jewish peace loving Zionists who are going to advance the one thing he cares about - his career. It's made up of people who are trying to destroy us. And he is about to help them.

Labels: Bill Benter, Consolacion Esdicul, George Soros, Iran, J Street, our friends the Saudis, Tzachi Hanegbi

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:33 AM 1 comments

Tzachi HaNegbi doesn't get it and neither does his boss

Likud MK Tzachi HaNegbi defended his Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to send him to the J Street convention in September.

The conference in September will feature left-wing MKs Zehava Gal-On (Meretz), Merav Michaeli and Stav Shaffir (Labor), Meir Sheetrit (Hatnua), Ruth Calderon (Yesh Atid), and a rare speech in English by opposition leader Shelly Yacimovich along with Hanegbi and Shas MK Yitzhak Vaknin.

There will be leaders of far left organizations like Molad, Betzelem, Gisha, the Geneva Initiative, and American Friends of Peace Now and journalists from Al-Jazeera, Ha'aretz, and Channel 2.

Hanegbi said he would not speak at the event, only represent the right on a panel with other MKs. "It is important to have all sides in a debate," Hanegbi said.

"J Street's views are not mine or those of the government, but I am not afraid to answer tough questions and I can hold my own."

By showing up there, you're giving them credibility, moron. Oh wait. Of course HaNegbi doesn't get it. He has no credibility either. Would you believe the word of a convicted perjurer?

Shabbat Shalom everyone.

Labels: J Street, Tzachi Hanegbi

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:53 PM 1 comments

J Street wins, Israel loses

Whenever you see Tzachi HaNegbi, pictured here with his former party, you have to ask how much he's being paid. HaNegbi will become the first member of the Likud to attend a J Street convention later this year, giving the pro-'Palestinian,' pro-Iranian organization an undeserved dose of credibility as representing the broader Jewish community.

Also participating will be Yitzchak Vaknin of Shas. Given that Vaknin already attended a convention of the Geneva Initiative two years ago, and given that Leftist Aryeh Deri seems to have pushed out the more right-leaning Eli Yishai for the party's leadership, this is less surprising than HaNegbi.

This is from the first link.

Hanegbi’s participation at the J Street conference, a result of outreach efforts conducted by the lobby’s office in Israel, is viewed by organizers as a mark of success. It is a sign, said Jessica Rosenblum, the group’s director of media and communications, “of the growing acceptance of J Street and the growing recognition of the common purpose,” of advancing a two-state solution.

J Street’s founding in 2008 was initially met with a cold shoulder by the Israeli government. Officials refused to meet with the lobby’s activists and the Israeli embassy boycotted its events. Since, however, the group established working relations with the embassy and an Israel senior diplomat delivered a speech at last year’s conference gala dinner. Hanegbi’s participation will signal yet another step by J Street away from its lefty image and closer to the Israeli mainstream.

Another first at this year’s conference will be the participation of Yitzhak Vaknin of Shas at the event. Shas, a Sephardic ultra-Orthodox party has supported in the past Israeli-Palestinian negotiations but has since shifted to the right. Currently it is not a member of the Netanyahu governing coalition.

Labels: Geneva initiative, J Street, Likud party, Shas, Tzachi Hanegbi

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:26 PM 3 comments

Putting one family above the nation

Did 70% or more of Israelis support the terrorists for Gilad deal? Or were some of those Israelis persuaded to put the interests of one family ahead of the nation's interests, or at least to keep their mouths shut until the deal was done?

You may recall that last week, opposition leader Tzipi Livni suddenly claimed to have been against the deal all along but to have been 'persuaded' to keep her silence until the deal went through. Were there others in prominent positions who did the same? Yes, writes Evelyn Gordon, in an article which is behind the paywall, but which she shared with me by email.

One of the most disturbing revelations of the past two weeks is that some Knesset members who opposed the ransom deal for Gilad Schalit nevertheless acceded to his family’s request to keep silent until the deal was concluded.

On October 21, for instance, former MK Tzachi Hanegbi, of Kadima, wrote the following in these pages:

A few years ago, I got a call from Zvi Schalit, Gilad’s grandfather. He was upset by a radio interview I had given that morning. At the time, I was chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and I detailed the “red lines” of the security and political establishment over a prisoner exchange with Hamas.

Zvi Schalit sought to persuade me that the state should not draft tougher principles on negotiating with terrorists until his grandson was safely returned to his family.

I couldn’t agree, but my heart went out to the grandfather’s plea. At his request, I pledged not to worsen the family’s pain by making my position public. And I kept my word.

Two days later, Kadima chairwoman Tzipi Livni announced that she, too, opposed the Schalit deal, believing that it undermined Israel’s deterrence and strengthened Hamas, but kept silent until it was concluded at the request of Gilad’s father, Noam.

Livni and Hanegbi are almost certainly not alone; many politicians, journalists and other public figures likely made the same choice for the same reason. And I can understand their motives, because I, too, received that heartrending phone call from Zvi Schalit, after publishing a column in this paper in 2009 opposing the deal as it stood then. It’s very hard to say “no” to a thoroughly decent man going through hell and begging you not to add to his agony. And while I couldn’t retract what I’d already published, I ended the conversation thinking that had he called before I wrote the article, I might well have decided there were enough other things to write about; I didn’t need to pour salt in the Schalit family’s wounds.

Nevertheless, Hanegbi and Livni were wrong to let their compassion overrule their judgment. Livni herself gave the best argument for why.

“The people of Israel forced the government to free Gilad Schalit,” she charged, correctly, when she finally broke her silence. But did she really expect the people to do otherwise when they were deluged, day after day, with arguments in favor of the deal, while those who opposed it largely kept silent out of compassion for the Schalits? You can’t win a battle of ideas by abandoning the field.

And while private individuals have the right to eschew the fray, MKs do not, because they have a fiduciary duty to the public: They are elected to serve the people, and they owe those they serve their best judgment. By placing the good of one family over what they themselves deemed to be the national interest, Livni and Hanegbi betrayed the people who elected them.

This dereliction of duty was compounded by the fact that they were uniquely well-poised to influence the public debate, since their positions gave them access to information the general public lacked. Hanegbi chaired the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee for four and a half years of Schalit’s captivity; Livni was foreign minister during the first three years and leader of the opposition thereafter. All three positions grant their occupants access to information that isn’t in the public domain.

No official statistics, for instance, have ever been published on what percentage of freed terrorists returned to terror; the estimates I saw in the press during the years of Schalit’s captivity ranged from 13 to 80 percent – a variance so enormous the public couldn’t possibly assess the magnitude of the danger the deal posed. By virtue of their positions, Hanegbi and Livni could have demanded that the security services provide real data and then publicized it, thereby facilitating such an assessment. Instead, they chose to keep silent.

Six weeks ago, I wrote a column criticizing MKs who seem to think their job begins and ends with making public statements, rather than trying to turn their ideas into legislation. An MK who is nothing more than a pundit is useless; punditry can be done just as well from outside the Knesset.

But refraining entirely from public statements is no less problematic because, in a democracy, public opinion influences governmental decisions. Hence elected representatives have an obligation to try to shape public opinion on the burning issues of the day. That some MKs (and again, I doubt Livni and Hanegbi were alone) instead sat out the public debate on a deal they considered dangerous to the country is thus deeply troubling.

Speaking against the Schalit deal would certainly have caused the Schalits great pain. But if causing pain is a reason for silence, no public debate could ever be held. Did the Gazan settlers slated to be thrown out of their homes not feel pain when MKs lobbied for the disengagement? Did the victims of post-Oslo terror not feel pain when MKs praised Mahmoud Abbas as a “peace partner” even as Abbas lauded their loved ones’ murderers as heroes? Did Livni and Hanegbi ever seriously consider not pursuing these policies out of consideration for one particular family’s pain?

Their silence over Schalit is yet more evidence that far too many MKs seem not to understand the most basic responsibilities of their office. And then they wonder why only one-third of Israelis retain any trust in what ought to be democracy’s flagship institution.

Indeed.

The silence in this country on so many issues is appalling. And coincidentally (not!) it always policies that are favored by our mainstream media.

Labels: Evelyn Gordon, terrorists for Gilad trade, Tzachi Hanegbi, Tzipi Livni

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:33 PM 0 comments