Reactions to the nuclear deal in Israel and Iran

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/20/424702931/parrying-doubts-in-two-capitals-leaders-sell-the-iran-nuclear-deal
http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/07/17/423484372/on-cutting-off-an-interview-subject

As expected, Bibi blew a gasket over the deal and is going all-out with his verbal attacks to potentially sway the US Congress and public (Iran is basically the 4th Reich, etc.). He took his tired Chicken Little routine to NPR (also ABC and others), and forgot that it was an interview vs. a stump speech (2nd link). The host was worried about keeping time, so he had to cut off the PM according to the show schedule. Some pro-Israel Americans felt that was disrespectful to the leader of Israel (because of course that person is special, and commands even more respect than our own president).

However, and unexpected consequence occurred in Iran. If Bibi and Israel are staunchly against something, of course that encourages Persians to think that it's a good thing. There are some hardliners and critics of the deal in Iran, but now it makes it a lot harder for them to make credible arguments that happen to align with the views of Tel Aviv. Of course Bibi is naturally focused on the US audience rather than the Iranian reaction, but it's an interesting example of multiparty cause-and-effect in geopolitics.

Views in Israel are apparently mixed, and some in the security services do not agree that the deal is bad. Also they want their leaders to remember that the nuclear deal is not the only item at play here - their relationship with the US is valuable and is it worth it to strain it further? You can tell that Obama, Kerry, and some other gov't officials are visibly irritated with Israel's reaction compared to most of the rest of the world. Instead, why not partner more with the 5+1 to make sure Iran lives up to its commitments and the deal succeeds? But like the game theory Iran-Israel-US post, our priorities are not aligned, so it might not work out.

It's possible that the extra money in Iran's coffers will exacerbate the other problems that Israel has with Iran (supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, etc.). Maybe it's justified for the US to extend the olive branch and offer enhanced cooperation/support for antiterrorism, and/or temporarily look the other way if Israel gets a little tougher on Palestine and settlements. It's like bribing a kid with a toy for him to eat his vegetables. The veggies are good for him in the long term, but he doesn't see it that way, so you have to offer a side concession?

---

I listened to the interview and Bibi was ranting.  He had talking points that he wanted to get out and the interviewer attempted multiple times to interject with a next question before doing a "rude" cutoff.  If Bibi was talking with him instead of at him that would have been easy to notice.

---

If Bibi wanted to make an uninterrupted persuasive speech, then he could have paid for TV/radio commercial time, or gone to FNC. If he agrees to an interview on NPR, he should expect to be treated like an interviewee. Listening to it again, I actually didn't think he was ranting much and there were no moments of disrespect. Green let Bibi talk a lot in the 1st half of the segment, which was maybe his bad since it led to the need to cut Bibi off later. Bibi said thank you to Green at the end, he didn't protest. Some NPR callers were maybe a little sensitive.

The NPR ombudsman seemed to be OK with Green's conduct too:

Greene was respectful to Netanyahu, apologizing for interrupting. The last question was an important one—asking Netanyahu whether he could "at some point get behind this deal"—and Greene would likely have been criticized had he not asked it. The need to cut him off was regrettable, but with the interview already eating into local station time, it was necessary. Those are the perils of live radio and the constrictions of NPR's clock, which values local news.

Netanyahu's Congressional address on the Iran nuclear deal

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/03/03/congress-netanyahu-speech

I don't want to get into the weeds about how poorly argued and substantiated his speech was (the guests in the interview above do that, but just to give you a sense, Bibi said that Iran is competing with ISIS for global domination). But I don't fault him for trying. Like in game theory, it's all about the payoffs and priorities of each player. And with the same set of facts, rational and smart people can come to wildly different conclusions. From their point of view, they're totally right based on their goals.

Re: Israel-Iran, obviously the priority of a conservative Zionist regime is the preservation of the Jewish State at all costs, and keeping pressure on their enemies in perpetuity. No other cost consideration comes close (some IDF soldiers killed - better than getting nuked, angering the Arab world - they can live with that, upsetting the US and UN - they don't really need us anymore, and there are still enough diehard pro-Israel folks here to almost guarantee indefinite US support). So they will do anything to prevent a nuclear Iran or anyone making concessions to Iran or other enemies (which includes breaking protocol to address Congress).

US presidents and Israeli PMs disagree on stuff, and it can cost the PM his job if the Israeli public perceives that the PM is endangering the US-Israeli special relationship. That contributed to Bibi's ouster the first time around, as he butted heads with Clinton one too many times. But currently, I think the Israeli public is so fearful of a nuclear Iran that US relations are a distant concern (or they take it for granted, hence the persistence on expanding West Bank settlements). Even liberal press in Israel support Bibi's view (but not necessarily his methods) that the US should not give an inch to Iran.

Even if Iran's leadership is more moderate now, and with the proposed controls it's highly unlikely that they can develop and test weapons covertly, Israel can't even tolerate a 0.1% chance. So they will bomb if they need to, which will trigger a regional war of course - which I bet they think they can win (might be right, but what about the consequences to other parties?). Or they will try to derail the current negotiations, which in their opinion won't curb the nuclear development, but will ease sanctions and enable Iran to get stronger. They're in the mindset that Israel's enemies are insane genocidal religious fanatics who can't be trusted under any circumstance. So there's no point to negotiate - you know, the typical justification between enemies.

The irony is that the hardliners in Tel Aviv and Tehran want the same thing - no detente, no talks, and just cold/hot war (it reminds me of the plot of Star Trek 6). The talks were kicked off by the moderate/reformist regime of Rouhani (secret overtures to the Obama admin.), but he is on a short leash and has rivals. The nuclear program is one of their few trump cards, and it's by far their best card. He banked his political survival on this, so the hawks want his efforts to fail so they can assume power again - and fight the infidels their way. That is not a great outcome for anyone, especially the Iranian people.

Apart from the hawks, I'm not really sure what Iran's priorities and goals are. I know they want to get their economy going, and the people want to be part of the global scene (and they want better relations with the US and West). I guess the gov't still wants to keep tight control and develop a nuclear program for their prestige/leverage. But I don't know what their official stance is on foreign policy. Are they truly imperialistic as Israel claims? I think the problem with diagnosing aggression is that it's often rooted in fear/defense. Very few regimes just want to conquer and kill everyone (ISIS may be an exception, but they're not a state with leaders who are held accountable to anyone). We ostensibly invaded Iraq to make the world safer. It's possible that Iran supports Hizbullah and other Shia militias because they fear the Sunni and Western enemies all around them, not because they want to dominate the region. And even if Iran wants to become the most prominent power in the Mideast, the goal could be regime preservation in the face of potential aggression against them, not necessarily continued global expansion. But to Iran's enemies, of course they want to assume the worst motives. I wonder what the Iranians think the US and Israel want.

For the US, obviously we have an interest in the strength and survival of Israel (and the defeat of Islamist groups), but we also want to broker a 2-state solution and have Arab/Persian-Israeli peace. Or at least the absence of war, which would be disruptive to energy markets and global stability. Yes, some factions in the US want war in the Holy Land to bring about Armageddon, but I am not sure how prevalent and influential they are. We don't want Iran to nuke anyone, but we have a little more faith in their restraint than Israel does (esp. with the right incentives and threats in place). So the payoff we get from taking a chance on negotiation is maybe worth it to avoid isolation and escalation to war (which seems inevitable as long as hardliners are in power in Israel and Iran). So where does that leave us?

(#s are guesses for demo purposes)

ISRAEL

Negotiate -3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) 5

Fight Now 1

IRAN MODERATES (currently in power)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -3

Fight Now -5

US (5+1 nations)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -1

Fight Now -5

I am not sure how officially involved Israel is in the talks, but their goal is probably to change the 5+1's payoffs so that Negotiate becomes the least favored option (hence the references to Hitler and whatnot). Bibi actually said we should "make a better deal" (better for Israel of course), but that means he wants us to be more of a hard-ass. Though we know Iran won't just cave (this is their best card to play as I said, and they expect top dollar); they may walk away if our demands are too extreme. That would sink Rouhani and the reformers, and lead to the hardline war-is-likely outcome that some parties want.

6 former Shin Bet (Israeli FBI) heads speak out about Israeli occupation

"[Shin Bet leaders] are practical. ...They have used all the measures — in order to suppress any kind of terrorist activity. These are the guys... that have conducted targeted assassinations, tortured people in order to get intelligence ... and at the end of the day when they look at the Israeli society and they are saying in a loud and clear voice, 'Enough of the occupation. We cannot win this battle. We have to try to compromise. If we try to eat the whole cake and not share it we will lose.' And this fact surprised me completely, because you don't think this is what a security official will think." - Filmmaker and former IDF soldier Dror Moreh

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/28/172706218/the-gatekeepers-offer-candid-assessment-of-israels-security

Shin Bet is Israel's anti-terror national security agency. Their retired leaders are not leftists, but probably center-right. They are proud of and have no problem with the tough tactics they practiced in the name of protecting Israel. But use them when necessary, and as part of a larger intelligent strategy. They criticize the out-of-touch right-wing leadership that is misusing the security services and not making Israel safer in the long run.

Since the 1970's, they have had to investigate Jewish terrorists too - usually settler religious fanatics who want war to fulfill scripture (so they fight the peace process and do things to provoke the Palestinians to violence, which would justify Jewish reprisals). This culminated in the assassination of Rabin, which opened the flood gates to much more illegal settlement activity by Israel's fringe right wing (great idea to allow the most radical, uncompromising Jews to live in occupied lands among angry Palestinians, huh?). Every time there is talk of abandoning settlements and such, these extremists rise up and even burn mosques and kill Palestinians. Shin Bet found it difficult to investigate and punish them though (and many were released due to political pressure from pro-settlement leaders). They stopped a plan to bomb the Dome of the Rock (one of Islam's holiest sites) which would have incited a global religious war, only to watch the smiling perpetrators get released to cheering crowds (that did not represent the Israeli mainstream).

Former PM Sharon was the "father" of the Israeli settlement program, but as the more centrist Likud leader, he saw that they were now a liability and hurting Israel's future. He pulled Israel out of Gaza and wanted to do the same in the W Bank (as part of a larger peace deal), but suffered a stroke and his leaderless party lost. Then right wing Bibi took power and peace was off the agenda. Sharon had the credibility to broker the deal because of his former hardline rep, but actually the extreme right in Israel was the biggest roadblock. There were plots to kill Sharon (and not by Hamas), maybe even more than those against Rabin.

One of the Shin Bet leaders, Avraham Shalom, grew up in pre-WWII Austria. He was almost beaten to death by his Austrian classmates for being Jewish. Now in old age, he compared the IDF occupation of Palestine with the German occupation of Europe (not the Holocaust, but the military occupation). "We have become cruel." That means a lot coming from a Jew who experienced the worst racism and occupation. 

Israel's blockade of Gaza

"Despite claims of self-defense, Israel has not defined a definitive purpose for the blockade, the achievement of which would indicate its end. Official Israeli goals have ranged from limiting Hamas's access to weapons, to seeking retribution for the pain caused to Israeli civilians, and to compelling the Palestinian population to overthrow the Hamas government" - N Ekrat

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/when-will-the-economic-blockade-of-gaza-end/265452/#

I guess we have the ceasefire to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. But when the stronger, richer neighbor nation imposes a clearly illegal, definitely immoral, and seemingly endless economic embargo (not even a military embargo), I think Hamas and the 1.7M Palestinian Gazans (some of the poorest people on the planet per capita) have actually shown great RESTRAINT in not responding with violence more often. I am not justifying their actions (though violent resistance against an oppressor is sanctioned under the rules of law), but the choice almost seems rational: fire rockets now and then to try to get revenge and some international attention, or starve to death silently and slowly, while the developed world is preoccupied with other matters. The IDF has even been known to shoot at aid workers and emergency responders during their clashes in Gaza.

Like most cases in history, the oppressing party imposes sanctions in the hope that the people suffer and get so fed up with the gov't that they overthrow it (but we've tried that for decades with Cuba and Iran with no results). Instead, could Israel change the policy to something like: they lift the embargo and allow the Gazans to have some semblance of human life, if Hamas agrees to honor the ceasefire and not stockpile rockets. Then they appoint neutral Arab League or UN monitors to inspect and patrol the streets, and alert the IDF of any suspicious military activity. If they or other surveillance pick up anything fishy from Hamas, the IDF can bomb those suspected sites to the Stone Age. But leave the innocent people alone for F sakes.

Some rough estimates on the 8-day conflict:

Palestinian rockets fired into Israel: 900 (their air defenses intercepted 300)
IDF air strikes in Gaza: 1,500 (and mind you Gaza is just 20 miles long)
Palestinian casualties: 100 (with probably 10X wounded)
Israeli casualties: I had troubling finding info on this, but I think on NPR it was under 20 dead, not sure how many injured

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20391558

--------

As of Wednesday, the number of Palestinian deaths was over 140.  There are some grim photos of children from this latest attack.

As far as Israel hoping the Palestinian people overthrow their govt.:  didn't they just elect Hamas?  And, what government from Gaza would be favorable to Israel?  You think they'd elect Netanyahu?  I think that would be the only satisfactory govt. for Israel.

This whole thing is about a land grab, clearing beachfront property for people born and raised in Long Island.  They have a  right of return to land they never lived on.  Meanwhile, people born and raised there are never allowed to return to Palestine.

--------

Thanks, L. Yeah that sure seems like what is going on. Make life so miserable that they just give up and disappear. But where do they go? Jordan and Lebanon have been housing Palestinian refugees since the 1947 partition. They can't take any more, especially now that there are more Syrian and Iraqi refugees to absorb.

So what choice do the Gazans have but fight to the death, if they're going to starve to death anyway? That's why I find the Israel's blockade so infantile and un-strategic. There are better ways to protect their Gaza border and encourage the Palestinians to reject Hamas. They could have supported Abbas more, improved conditions in the West Bank, free prisoners, etc. to show Gaza "the carrots" that await them if they vote Hamas out. But they treat the Fatah Palestinians like shit too (though clearly much better than Gaza): increased settlement building, roadblocks, demolitions, etc. that even Israeli courts have declared illegal. So Hamas actually look like heroes as the only ones with the guts to stand up to Israeli oppression. And I guess you can see that manifest in the Arab world, with the Turkish and Egyptian leaders expressing support, criticizing Israel, and visiting Gaza during the siege, when before they probably wouldn't have been so bold.

Israel is legitimizing their arch enemy. But the cynical side of me thinks that is the plan all along. Israel doesn't want peace. There is no scenario where they can lose to Palestinians, and no Arab state will go to war vs. Israel in the foreseeable future (much less win). Iran is the only existential threat, and even that is way over-hyped and premature. They can't defeat Iran unless they use their own nukes, which is probably why they want to trick the US into fighting the war for them (they fire the first shot, and then we have to intervene to "assist our ally" and make sure the region doesn't implode).

But getting back to Gaza, it seems like a Gulf of Tonkin situation. They are not even that diligent about preventing rocket smuggling. Probably because they know that the rockets are not a real threat to them (very few strikes result in fatalities, and their Iron Dome defenses seem to be able to shoot down 1/3 of them). But fear over rockets is a great political lightning rod to get the Israelis behind military aggression. They prod and provoke Hamas into launching rockets now and then, so of course the IDF is then justified to bomb them to the Stone Age or even engage in a ground invasion (a way disproportional "defensive" response). They get to flex their muscles and weaken Hamas by destroying infrastructure and assassinating leaders (not to mention send signals to Iran and others), so that is worth a dozen or so Israelis dead from rockets. The US is fine with this too ("Israel has the right to defend itself"), because we dislike Hamas and then our Sec of State gets to go over there and broker a ceasefire, making us look relevant. I don't think the US is serious about the peace process either. We had our chance in the '90s and now it's gone. Obama is not kowtowing to Israel at least, but he's definitely not showing them the necessary tough love either (well, domestic pressures make that virtually impossible). 

---------

Just a disclaimer that these comments refer to the Israeli government and IDF, and are not a reflection on the Israeli/Jewish people as a whole. I realize that I have described their actions as "scheming" and "treacherous", which may play into some negative historical stereotypes about Jews. That is not my intention, but I call their gov'ts actions the way I see them. Actually I have a lot of respect for the risks taken by the peace movement in Israel, as well as the IDF deserters who refused their gov'ts illegal orders to bomb Gaza civilians or bulldoze West Bank homes.

Adelson's money affecting politics in Israel too

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/18/162816525/sheldon-adelson-shakes-up-israeli-newspaper-market

Adelson started a right-leaning daily in Israel in 2007 called Israel Hayom, ostensibly to challenge the established left-leaning Ha'aretz and centrist Ma'ariv. It's a similar theme to Berlusconi, Citizens United, and Murdoch I guess. Except Adelson undercut the competition by setting ad rates below market for Hayom, and also made it FREE for readers (I still don't know how Hayom balances its books with that structure though - it's not like it's online only). The paper actually has a decent staff, so it quickly became the most popular in Israel and crashed sales for the others. And like the traditional US journ. titans, Hayom's rivals have an old bloated cost structure (because they are in the business of news, not profits) and can't compete - especially vs. free.

I am not sure how the laws are in Israel, but there are actually employees at Hayom who are also paid a side salary by Bibi Netanyahu's government. Maybe they missed the memo that free press doesn't refer to the cost of the paper, but the objectivity of the journalists! Obviously Hayom overtly supports Bibi vs. his challengers, and is his personal Fox News. I wonder if Hayom's rise has anything to do with the recent shift to the right in mainstream Israel, and lack of appetite for a peace deal with the Palestinians. Bibi is expected to win the next election in a landslide.