Schlaglicht Nummer 20/20, Aktuelles aus israelischen Zeitungen, 16. – 30. November 2020

Downloaden der letzten „Schlaglicht Israel“ Publikation!

Die Themen dieser Ausgabe:

1. Pakt von Pragmatikern: Netanyahu und Mansour Abbas
2. Verteidigungsminister Gantz lässt U-Boot-Affäre untersuchen
3. Iranischer Kernforscher Mohsen Fakhrizadeh ermordet
4. Medienquerschnitt

1.  Pakt von Pragmatikern: Netanyahu und Mansour Abbas

In Israels Parlament zeichnet sich eine seltsame Zusammenarbeit ab. Mansour Abbas, Chef der United Arab List, die Bündnispartnerin der antizionistisch-arabischen Vereinten Liste ist, lobte die Regierung Benjamin Netanyahus für neue staatliche Investitionen im arabischen Sektor. Zudem sprach er sich öffentlich dafür aus, die gerichtliche Verfolgung des Ministerpräsidenten aufzuschieben. Die offene Annäherung zwischen dem Chef der Partei, die sich besonders für islamische Werte einsetzt, und dem konservativen Likud-Vorsitzenden kommt überraschend, denn Netanyahu hetzte im Verlauf seiner Regierungszeit wiederholt gegen die arabische Minderheit und speziell gegen die Politiker_innen der Vereinten Liste. In dem Bündnis der drei arabischen Parteien und der linken Hadash beobachtet man die seltsame neue Freundschaft der beiden Politiker mit großer Skepsis.

Jewish MKs must support Arab colleagues‘ outreach

In recent years, there has been a widespread tendency in Israeli politics to label any discussion, as meritorious as it may be, according through a lens of „Yes to Bibi“ or „No to Bibi.“ This appears also to be the fate of the growing coordination between the ruling Likud and Ra’am, the political party led by MK Mansour Abbas that represents the southern faction of the Islamic Movement and is part of the Joint List coalition of predominantly Arab parties. (…) Abbas is taking unprecedented moves in the framework of Arab politics, focusing on broad cooperation with the ruling party in order to solve the acute fundamental problems of Arab society, most notably crime and violence.

Overshadowing his efforts are critiques from elements of the Joint List, and also from Jewish politicians who have presented him as another „Bibi lacky,“ being used by the prime minister to weaken his political faction without any real intention of solving the problems of the people he represents. The truth is that Abbas‘ actions reflect a much deeper and principled discussion about the path of Arab politics, which seems to have reached a dead end. Abbas himself makes it clear that (…) he is willing to break conventions to promote a response to the plight of Arab Israelis, even if it means cooperating with a government that dismisses the Joint List and the community it represents.  Abbas is not alone in this (…). He has broken out of the pattern of identity politics, which automatically puts all Arabs on the same side of the political map and in the pockets of the leftist camp. The lawmaker has become a relevant and influential actor, characteristics that are in part foreign to Arab politics. (…) the Islamic Movement, with its inherent pragmatism and adaptability (…) has demonstrated a far-reaching capacity for change and ideological flexibility. The ball is currently in the court of Jewish politics and society. Now the Jewish side must also show an ability to change, and especially its willingness to open the gates of the major parties and coalitions to those who approach from the heart of Arab society.

Michael Milshtein, YED, 16.11.20

Netanyahu is not the man teach us morals

Never in the entire history of the universe was there a more cynical and hypocritical person than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The man who ingrained into the political system (…) the notion that under no circumstance should you do business with the predominately Arab Joint List party. The man who led considerable sections of the Zionist left not daring to accept the support of the Joint List, not even in a single vote. But little by little, it turns out that the „unbelievable“ is also the most anticipated thing in the world: Netanyahu himself is doing business with the party’s Islamic faction. (…) if you were wondering why were fines for illegal construction of residential homes were suddenly frozen, pay attention to the astounding fact that every single Joint List lawmaker want this law repealed. (…) Netanyahu cares only about Netanyahu, and every moral or political stance is just a tool in his hands. (…) One day you have to be careful because the sword is on our necks and the Arabs are flocking to the polls, but after a few days, in a blink of an eye, he will use them to serve his interests. The rumors about where the deal between Netanyahu and the Ra’am faction is heading to will make your hair stand on end. (…) they include lowering the electoral threshold with Ra’am breaking off from the Joint List and running independently. Netanyahu will then use the party’s votes to pass a law to stop his corruption trial. (…) Netanyahu will continue lecturing us on what is legitimate and what is not. (…)

Amichai Attali, YED, 20.11.20

Arab Israelis are joining the new Middle East

(…) We can assume Abbas will be expelled from the Islamic Movement in Israel, which has no room for compromise and flexibility. The movement that was created by (…) adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood doctrine, is no longer right for him. (…) MK Mansour Abbas, the deputy speaker of the Knesset, made a difficult decision stating the Islamic Movement can act as a moderate and conciliatory body that highlights the good values in Islam. (…) He calls for rapprochement between Jews and Arabs and for the Joint Arab List to empower women in political life. This is assuredly not the platform of the Islamic Movement, which is part of the Joint List. (…) Abbas, before the last election, called for the establishment of an obstructionist bloc against Netanyahu (…) the views expressed by Abbas are akin to a sharp dagger in the heart of the anti-Israeli public relations machine that has been built and cultivated over the decades by the Arab MKs whose entire political platform has been predicated on incitement. Abbas is the first sign of a new spring, one that is fundamentally different from the events of the „Arab spring.“ Following his footsteps will be many more Arab Israelis who want to responsibly partake in the state’s affairs. Abbas and many others with him are beginning to realize that a new reality in the region is taking shape before our very eyes. (…)  Abbas will want to change the reality of „two states for two peoples,“ not out of defiance and rejectionism, but out of moderation and compromise. If he continues on this path and isn’t stopped by his faction mates, he’ll likely be a cabinet minister one day. (…)

Moshe Elad, IHY, 20.11.20

We need a centrist Jewish-Arab party more than ever

(…) It’s hard to understand – but it’s not surprising. For 72 years, Israeli Arabs have been participating in Israeli democracy as an independent, isolationist unit, and their parties represent people who didn’t vote for them in Libya, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, Nablus, and the Gaza Strip. They formed alliances with the Israeli Left, but voted against peace accords, refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, and missed every opportunity to enlist on behalf of Israel’s Arab citizens. (…) they glorified isolationism, sanctified divisiveness, embraces those who wished Israel ill, kissed the terrorists who murdered innocent people, and are standing at the front of the campaign to delegitimize Israel, which they define as an apartheid state to be boycotted. But now, given the expanding regional peace, the need for a far-reaching, deep-seated change is becoming clearer than ever. We need an Arab-Jewish party that will operate as a centrist party. A party that won’t be the mouthpiece for haters of Israel and will aspire to an egalitarian Israel obligated to righting historic wrongs in the Arab sector and making immediate improvements to its life: personal safety, infrastructure, employment, education, higher education, and yes – integrating into Israeli society by serving in the military or through civilian national service. (…) Israel needs a Jewish-Arab party that sees the Arabs of Israel and the Jews of Israel as equal partners in a single purpose: ensuring that Israel develops, flourishes, and grows, as a Jewish democratic state that protects the national identity and culture of every sector. (…) A Jewish-Arab centrist party would bring hope to our shared lives in the country we love and whose economy, society, and military we want to strengthen. A country where what its Jewish and Arab citizens have in common is greater than what keeps them apart. (…)

Nael Zoabi, IHY, 24.11.20

Israel’s Arabs are finally waking up

The winds of peace and reason that have been blowing between the State of Israel and the Arab Gulf and moderate Sunni Arab states are quickly drawing closer to Israel’s Arab citizens, many of whom are coming to see that, for decades, they have been held hostage in the service of the Palestinians. (…) Israel’s Arab citizens are entitled to equality, just like every other citizen. (…) Israel’s governments throughout the years have made remarkable efforts to ensure equality, but these efforts have not been fully realized and there are signs of discrimination against the Arab sector. The greatest obstacle to realizing these rights is the political leadership of Israel’s Arabs, a leadership that convinced many Israelis that their allegiance lies with the Palestinian narrative, even when it leads to suicide attacks, bombs on buses, ramming attacks, and stabbing attacks. Arab states have recently declared that the Palestinian narrative is a sham. The time has come for Israel’s Arabs to admit the same. (…) A historical revolution is now underway; Israel’s citizens from the Arab sector are beginning to wake up. Mansour Abbas, the chairman of the Ra’am party, now a member party of the Joint Arab List, has wisely and bravely internalized the trap his voters are in and has decided the time has come for Israeli Arabs to worry more about themselves and less about the recalcitrant Palestinians. (…) should he persevere in this process, a great many of Israel’s Arabs will support him, and the treatment of this sector will undergo incredible change. (…) support for Abbas will ultimately lead to an agreement with the Palestinians as well.

Haim Shine, IHY, 26.11.20

Netanyahu has paved way for new Jewish-Arab alliances

Any improvement in relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel is to be commended, and not least of all, a political alliance. But Benjamin Netanyahu’s new relationship with the Islamic Movement southern branch, a part of the predominately Arab Joint List Knesset faction, should not be confused with a change in the prime minister’s opinion of any political cooperation with Arab legislators that could one day result in a coalition to unseat him. Netanyahu has always demonized the Joint List and labeled any political alliance with it as no less than treason, citing its members‘ support for the Palestinian national cause and accusing them of backing terrorism. His budding friendship with Mansour Abbas, leader of the Ra’am faction of the Joint List alliance, is motivated by the desire to win votes outside his natural right-wing coalition. (…) Abbas is the most moderate of all Arab MKs when it comes to cooperation with the government (…). Unlike others in the Joint List alliance, Abbas‘ party does not hold nationalist or anti-Israeli positions and any success in swaying the other factions to a more moderate approach would be a welcome change. (…) The Arab sector is in the midst of a debate on the new direction Abbas appears to have taken, bringing him closer to Netanyahu and even being willing to supply votes to push through laws that would not otherwise have a majority in the Knesset. Netanyahu has built his political base (…). And now he is opening the door for other Jewish and Arab politicians to cooperate. It may not have been the prime minister’s intention, but it would be a step in the right direction for the country at large.

Ben-Dror Yemini, YED, 26.11.20

The Joint List? The Confused List

(…) Benjamin Netanyahu is an ace when it comes to dividing and ruling. (…) Odeh is worried about the collapse of his party and the loss of its hefty political power (…), which the representatives of the Arab public obtained by uniting, despite their ideological differences. But disputes were there before the arrival of Netanyahu, and they’ll remain after him. The same applies to the leftist camp: The great confusion among its members allowed Netanyahu to completely break it apart. We shouldn’t mock the left’s confusion or try to conceal it behind a tall and gentlemanly candidate. It’s a real disorientation (…) it is tightly linked to the Jewish-Arab question. The alternative to Netanyahu broke down due to the inability of some of those who were part of it to form a government that relies on Arab votes. (…) the internal debates among Israeli Arabs also ultimately revolve around the issue of cooperating with Jews. (…) Abbas (…) has more in common with the right than with the left. If he wants the freedom to make political maneuvers regarding LGBTQ issues, does the fact that he’s Arab oblige him to be in the liberal left-wing camp despite his being religious and conservative? On one hand, we could say that only in a world that’s embraced liberal values could he, as a member of a minority group, garner the sufficient political clout that enables him to deliberate between two camps, which is why he’s actually sawing off the branch he’s sitting on. On the other hand, the ultimate realization of his political power resides in his freedom to choose which camp he belongs to, while representing the values of his voters. This question is relevant not only for the Arab minority, but for any group that has attained political power. (…)

Carolina Landmann, HAA, 29.11.20

2.  Verteidigungsminister Gantz lässt U-Boot-Affäre untersuchen  

Nach Beratungen mit hochrangigen Mitarbeitern aus dem Justiz- und Verteidigungsbereich strebt Israels Verteidigungsminister Benny Gantz eine Untersuchung der U-Boot-Affäre an, in die auch Regierungschef Benjamin Netanyahu mutmaßlich verwickelt ist. Die Verfahren zum milliardenschweren Kauf deutscher U-Boote und Fregatten der Thyssenkrupp AG für Israels Marine sind von dem Verdacht der Korruption überschattet. Innerhalb von vier Monaten soll eine Untersuchungskommission ihre Ergebnisse vorlegen. Der israelische Generalstaatsanwalt ermittelt bereits im Fall der in Kiel hergestellten U-Boote. Netanyahu gilt zwar nicht unmittelbar als verdächtig. Er wurde jedoch wiederholt in der Affäre polizeilich verhört, weil er das U-Boot-Geschäft gegen den Willen von Militär und Verteidigungsministerium durchgesetzt haben soll. Israel hatte zunächst sechs – statt wie von führenden israelischen Militärs empfohlenen fünf – deutsche U-Boote bestellt, die zum Teil aus deutschen Steuergeldern finanziert wurden. Kurz nach der Ankunft des fünften U-Boots im Jahr 2016 wurde der Korruptionsverdacht im Zusammenhang mit dem Kauf von drei weiteren U-Booten bekannt. Diese sollten ab 2027 die dann veralteten Exemplare der ersten Lieferung ersetzen. Außerdem hatte Israel 2015 einen Vertrag mit der Thyssenkrupp AG zum Kauf von vier Fregatten abgeschlossen, nachdem eine von der israelischen Armee ursprünglich veröffentlichte internationale Ausschreibung annulliert worden war.

Gantz’s Submarine Affair probe just the tip of the iceberg

If, as they say, only one-tenth of an iceberg is visible above the water while the other nine-tenths remain submerged, so is Israel’s so-called Submarine Affair. We only know the scant details that lie above the surface, but there is clearly much more to be revealed before we can fathom the full story. That’s why Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s announcement (…) that he was establishing a ministerial committee to investigate the affair is a (…) welcome development. There has been a cloud over this matter for far too long (…). Mandelblit, who has said there is no proof that Netanyahu knew about the submarine scheme, and that at most, he pushed for buying the vessels under suspicious circumstances, responded to Gantz’s announcement by saying he would propose guidelines about which areas the committee should focus or stay away from. Mandelblit’s concern is, apparently, that the committee’s work should not interfere with the pending criminal cases against several former top Netanyahu aides and ex-navy officers. (…) It should be acknowledged that because the committee can only investigate within the Defense Ministry and cannot force Netanyahu or his associates to testify, its mandate and powers are limited. Its recommendations are also not legally binding. (…) Gantz is flexing his muscles. By ordering an investigation and publicly challenging Netanyahu, he is also making clear that he is serious about his other coalition demands, such as passing the state budget and approving new ministerial appointments.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the response of the Likud, the party headed by Netanyahu, was so harsh. (…) The public need to know what happened with the submarine deal to ensure that agreements of this kind are always made with only the country’s security interest in mind. (…)

Editorial, JPO, 23.11.20

Gantz’s flurry of distractions, mere background noise

(…) Defense Minister Benny Gantz appointed Hod Betzer as chief of staff of the alternate prime minister’s office. The appointment was part of a secret deal with Benjamin Netanyahu – and the subject of considerable criticism. Gantz mainly concealed the deal from Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn, a member of his Blue and White faction. The justice minister is the driving force behind the militant line in Blue and White. It was important for Gantz to neutralize him. In closed-door discussions, Gantz has said he would have no issue with Nissenkorn up and leaving. Quite the opposite, it would make it easier for him to stay in the coalition. The move to alienate Nissenkorn is a real move. The formal investigation Gantz ordered – into the allegedly tainted procurement of German submarines and other naval missiles – is background noise. Its entire purpose is to quell the criticism over the superfluous Betzer appointment. (…) Gantz has other tools at his disposal to deafen and distract us. He will apparently have to use them, too, when the time comes, to blur and disguise the monumental capitulation he has been planning for weeks – over the national budget. (…) Gantz is threatening, interviewing, and using harsh language, not just to mask his concession but also to prepare for the very real possibility that ultimately, despite everything, an early election is inevitable. (…)

Mati Tuchfeld, IHY, 24.11.20

Analysis: Is Deri looking for a way out of his pledge to Gantz?

One of the cornerstones of the current, deeply divided government was a guarantee reportedly given by Shas chairman Arye Deri to Blue and White leader Benny Gantz that he would ensure that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would fulfil the prime ministerial rotation agreement with his rival when the time came. But (…) Deri blasted Gantz’s decision, said he had desecrated the “holiness” of the defense establishment, and warned that the government was in the last chance saloon (…) the relative strength of the political blocs has (…) changed significantly, with the right-wing, religious bloc widely predicted to defeat the center-left and be able to form a government by itself – without need for Gantz, Blue and White or anyone else. Perhaps, reading these polls, the wily and mercurial Deri no longer sees a political need to be in Gantz’s good graces or to court his good will. The coalition is not cohesive, but is disparate, fractious and frequently at war amongst its two camps. (…) might Deri be willing to dump the man he promised would be prime minister? (…) Deri might well believe that changed political circumstances could allow for a reshuffling of the political cards. (…)

Jeremy Sharon, JPO, 24.11.20

The real task of Benny Gantz’s panel

(…) What’s so terrible about reviewing the security establishment’s acquisition of the Saar 6 warship and submarines, and investigating the work relations between those involved in the deal? (…) Indeed, this is the mandate of the governmental panel of inquiry. There is not a word in it about the prime minister, no mention of corruption or attack on his ethics. (…) The fuss should be about the reactions to the establishment of the inquiry panel. The stench of a deal between the prime minister and his alternate, Gantz, arises from this story. This deal overshadows the exchange of the director general of the Prime Minister’s Office for the Finance Ministry’s accountant general.

Netanyahu gained another opportunity to whine and portray himself as the victim. (…) The decision to appoint an inquiry panel will make it harder on the justices to simultaneously order the establishment of a commission of inquiry, all the more so to direct Mendelblit to order the investigation of Netanyahu as a suspect in the affair. A toothless government panel of inquiry is a hundred times more convenient for Netanyahu than a state commission of inquiry that has authority to question witnesses as suspects. Gantz, for his part, fulfilled his obligation to his constituents for an investigation of the submarine affair. Perhaps establishing a commission of inquiry will succeed in dispersing the brave demonstrators who stand outside his home nightly and spend their evenings in detention. (…) In any event, this commission of inquiry has already filled the primary role intended for it. It has contributed to extending the life of the government most dangerous to Israeli democracy ever seen.

Akiva Eldar, HAA, 27.11.20

Full transparency needed in probe into submarine affair

(…) Netanyahu prepared the ground for a total rejection of the commission’s findings, should they include even the slightest flaw in his conduct in the purchase of submarines and patrol boats. That means that not only Netanyahu but also a large number of Israelis are likely to view the conclusions through the lens of their political affiliation, irrespective of the facts, the evidence and the explanations in the report. (…) only maximum transparency regarding the commission’s work will lead the public to trust its conclusions. (…) When one political camp is convinced that the opposition, the judicial system and the media have conspired against the prime minister in order to oust him, and the other is positive that the submarine affair is the most egregious corruption scandal in Israel’s history, it is imperative that nothing be left to the public’s imagination. It is important that the sessions be open not on account of the public’s right to know, but rather because that is the only way the public can draw its own conclusions. (…) It is not enough for the commission to get to the truth; it is no less important that its conclusions are granted public legitimacy.

Editorial, HAA, 30.11.20

3.  Iranischer Kernforscher Mohsen Fakhrizadeh ermordet  

Der iranische Atomphysiker und Raketenspezialist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh ist Ende November einem Mordanschlag zum Opfer gefallen. Berichten zufolge soll der 63-Jährige in einem Vorort von Teheran auf offener Straße durch Schüsse zunächst schwer verletzt worden und kurz darauf im Krankenhaus gestorben sein. Die iranische Führung beeilte sich, Israel für den Anschlag verantwortlich zu machen. Aus Jerusalem kam zunächst keine Stellungnahme. Israel gilt als Drahtzieher für eine ganze Serie von Mordanschlägen auf iranische Atomwissenschaftler_innen. Fakhrizadeh gehörte den iranischen Revolutionsgarden an. Israels Regierungschef Benjamin Netanyahu ging im Verlauf einer Pressekonferenz vor zwei Jahren auf die besondere Rolle Fakhrizadehs im iranischen Atomforschungsprogramm ein. „Merken Sie sich diesen Namen“, forderte Netanyahu damals auf. Im Iran rechnete man offenbar mit einem Anschlag des israelischen Auslandsgeheimdienstes Mossad. Dennoch konnten auch erhöhte Sicherheitsmaßnahmen den Kernphysiker nicht schützen.

The meaning and consequences of Mohsen Fakhri Zadeh’s elimination

The elimination of Mohsen Fakhri Zadeh, who is widely regarded as the father of Iran’s nuclear program, is an important milestone in the campaign against Iran’s nuclear program. Zadeh (…) has been a key figure in Iran’s nuclear efforts (…) the knowledge that existed in Zadeh’s head from his time as head of the Amad project was unique and priceless, and this fact, together with the deterrent dimension of the elimination that should warn every element in Iran not to lend a hand to such a move, should help achieve this goal. (…) However, it is important to note that Iran’s nuclear program does not rise or fall on Mohsen Fakhri Zadeh. Iran’s enrichment system is a large and well-established program (…) and eliminating a single individual, important as he may be, cannot harm that. Furthermore, the disclosures following Israel’s raid on Teheran’s nuclear archive proved that Iran’s nuclear knowledge is extremely broad, and certainly does not reside in the mind of just one person. (…) The chances (…) of Iranian retaliation for this elimination are high because failure to respond could severely damage the regime’s security image. (…) the Iranians (…) are likely to do so through the clandestine cells they operate around the world mainly in the areas where they operate with relative ease, whether it’s Asia or South America. Their likeliest targets will be diplomats, embassies and scientists. Either way, if Iran chooses this kind of response, it cannot carry it out immediately because of the logistical complexity, so we have tense weeks ahead of us. Iran can also decide to carry out its response through her proxies (such as Hezbollah) but history shows that in these kinds of events Iran prefers to carry out the response itself from different locations. (…)

Danny Citrinowicz, TOI, 28.11.20

Killing of Iranian scientist is a dangerous provocation

A moment before the transition of power in Washington, President Donald Trump presumably gave his blessing to the assassination of the father of Iran’s nuclear program, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, in Absard, northeast of Tehran. The goal of the operation, which has the potential to ignite a regional escalation, is to take advantage of the final moments of Trump’s term in order to constrain the President-elect Joe Biden and thwart a U.S. return to the international nuclear agreement with Iran. (…) Iranian leaders have already threatened harsh retaliation. (…) This intoxication with power may well lead not only to a dangerous military conflict with Iran, but also to Israel’s first diplomatic crisis with the Biden administration even before it enters office. (…) instead of striving to preserve this strategic alliance, which is vital also for the struggle against Iran, Israel is only widening the rift. (…) Few ask how Israel would respond were Iranians to carry out a hit on a senior official on Israeli soil, much less one of its best scientists. And too few ask what has happened to diplomacy, why has it been removed from the toolbox. There is a balance of terror between Israel and Iran, an arms race to obtain deterrence without any solution on the horizon. Diplomatic solutions, rather than only military ones, to an escalation must be considered. This issue currently divides Democrats and Republicans in the United States, yet in Israel any discussion of it has become completely taboo.

Editorial, HAA, 29.11.20

Between a rock and a hard place

Iran is both furious and embarrassed by the assassination of its nuclear chief. (…) Desire to exact revenge over the killing of a key official aside, Iran’s threats of a devastating reprisal reflects more than anything else the colossal embarrassment the assassination has caused the Iranian security apparatus, which has again emerged as helpless. Fakhrizadeh was one of the most secured individuals in Iran. (…) But they were unable to protect him. Determined to retaliate, Iran now faces a three-pronged dilemma: First, they have to decide on a target for their wrath. (…) Tehran believes that Israel wasn’t working alone. Reports in Iranian media hedged that the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, an Iranian militant organization that recently made explicit threats against Fakhrizadeh, was involved. Other reports name the Saudis as co-conspirators (…). And, of course, Iran believes US President Donald Trump has something to do with it, especially given reports that his advisers convinced him not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. This brings us to the Islamic republic’s second dilemma: What type of retaliation to mount. Do they target an Israeli embassy? Order Iran’s Lebanon-based proxy Hezbollah to fire a missile on the Golan Heights? Target Saudi oil facilities? (…) The third dilemma focuses on the consequences of Iranian retaliation. (…) A major concern for Iran is that even a limited military response on its part would be seized by the US and Israel as an opportunity to unleash a wide-scale response against it. (…)

Oded Granot, IHY, 29.11.20

Iran’s revenge for slain nuclear scientist could include missiles on Eilat

The tone used (…) by leaders of the Islamic Republic, following the assassination of Iran’s leading nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was concerning. (…) the regime is now forced to calculate its next move carefully. (…) If Iran’s revenge is to be successful in deterring Jerusalem from further attacks and satisfying the vengeful needs of the Islamic Republic, it would require time and planning. A far-reaching Iranian response, however, one that might cause fatalities in Israel, would compel Biden to postpone any plans to remove the crippling sanctions placed on Tehran by his predecessor. As a result, as long as there is the slightest chance that the incoming administration will lift sanctions, Iranians will refrain from a response that would deteriorate the bilateral relations any further. (…) the Iranians (…) have an infrastructure in place in cities across the world, from which to launch attacks against Israeli and Jewish institutions, like their attack on the Jewish community building and the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in the 1990s. (…) They may attempt to target Saudi Arabia’s oil production, as they had done in 2019  when a well-coordinated strike that included missiles, drones and suicide bombers, halted half of the Gulf kingdom’s ability to produce oil for many weeks but exacted no human toll. Should Iran opt to attack Israel in a similar matter, they would have to carry out such a strike from a base closer to Israeli borders. They would also likely use proxies so as not to leave their own identifying prints on such an operation. Since the regime in Tehran understands they are compromised in terms of intelligence inside their own borders as well as in Syria and Iraq, an attack – should one be planned – would likely come from the south, probably using the Houthi rebels in Yemen to carry it out, perhaps targeting an Israeli vessel in the Red Sea or even launching a ballistic missile at the southern city of Eilat. Iran’s leaders have proven their ability to be patient and calculated in their responses. (…)

Ron Ben Yishai, YED, 29.11.20

Assassinations and sanctions aren’t working: Why America and Israel need a new Iran strategy

The U.S. and Israel have two problems with Iran: its regional meddling and its nuclear aspirations. Their current approach, which devolves to bumping off senior officials, imposing extraterritorial sanctions, and abandoning negotiated agreements isn’t working, and seems unlikely to work in the future. (…) assassination doesn’t solve the underlying problem. It does, however, incur risks both in the near term and down the road. (…) More generally, killings of this kind are legally questionable, and lower the barrier for other states that might want to get in on the game. (…) There’s a better way to deal with these underlying problems. On the nuclear side, the U.S. could go back to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), assuming the Biden team can successfully engage an Iranian leadership that has little reason to trust Washington. (…) On the regional security side, however, an alternative strategy might be easier to apply. And that would be to direct Arab financial and commercial prowess to outbid Iran wherever it tries to get a foothold – or increase its influence – within the region. This approach might also clip the wings of an increasingly authoritarian and aggressive Turkey. From both an American and Israeli perspective, mobilization of Arab resources to compete with Iran is simply more practical than the use of U.S. power or Israeli covert operations to subjugate or weaken it. (…)

Joshua Landis, Aiman Mansour, Steven Simon, HAA, 29.11.20

Israel and Iran’s atomic two-step

(…) Iran’s desire to avenge the killing of the head of its nuclear program Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, coupled with the regime’s wish to salve its wounded pride, could lead us down a murky path. (…) it is a safe bet that any retaliation for the death of Fakhrizadeh will be carried out on foreign soil. (…) One should assume that Israel is currently taking precautions against any actions by Iran targeting its institutions and individuals abroad. Meanwhile, the Iranians are now most likely to make use of any sleeper cells within the West Bank or even inside Israel’s own borders. Israel’s guiding principle in its war against the Iranian nuclear program is to constantly be on the offensive. While Jerusalem knows there is not one single action it can take to decimate Iran’s entire nuclear program, Tehran also knows there is not one element of that program that is immune to Israel’s attempts to thwart it. This includes physical strikes and cyber attacks on nuclear facilities, as well as targeting its human factor – the scientists, managers and aides. (…) Some Israeli officials have begun, either directly or indirectly, to claim credit for covert operations, thereby eliminating any plausible deniability and almost inviting our enemies to respond.

Alex Fishman, YED, 29.11.20

4.  Medienquerschnitt

Protest gegen Berufung von Effi Eitam zum Direktor von Yad Vashem

Effi Eitam is a deplorable choice to head Yad Vashem

(…) There is always a very clear, moral line that cannot be crossed in any way, otherwise, you are not a leader but rather an opportunist who has lost his own soul. A clear example of crossing the clear line is the nomination by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Minister Ze’ev Elkin of Effi Eitam as Chairman of Yad Vashem. (…) the post of chairman of Yad Vashem is not just another public position. Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center, is a symbol; it is a holy place. (…) Effi Eitam has a personal history that disqualifies him for this special position (…) because of his actions and his rhetoric. Under his command in the Givati Brigade ​​in 1988, four of his subordinates were on trial for the murder of a prisoner. (…) After his discharge from the army in 2000, Eitam lectured on the need to reoccupy all of Judea and Samaria and to expel overnight the entire Arab population from there. He said the army has the ability to do so, it just lacks the will. He has called several times over the years for the expulsion of all or some Arabs from Judea and Samaria. Of the Arabs within the State of Israel, Eitam said they were “the ticking bomb beneath the whole democratic Israeli order.” He called these Israeli citizens an “elusive threat” that “by their nature resemble cancer. (…) Yad Vashem has become a major force in the global fight against genocide and ethnic cleansing even without this being part of its exhibitions and outright agenda. (…) Eitam’s views, expressed in his speeches and declarations, support what is defined in the world as ethnic cleansing. It is no wonder the great Holocaust scholars and many survivors are shocked by what they call the appointment that will turn Yad Vashem “into a mockery and a disgrace.” (…)

Rabbi Michael Melchior, TOI, 22.11.20

Jonathan Pollard darf ausreisen

Pollard – What Is There to Celebrate?

(…) It is (…) difficult to work up empathy for the released convict when his crime, for which the defendant entered a guilty plea in court, was the despicable offense of espionage against the elected government of his own country—a robust democracy, not a repressive totalitarian regime. When that crime seems to have been motivated at least in part by a desire for personal profit, the criminal’s actions reach the level of heinous. What is there to celebrate, then, about Jonathan Pollard’s intent to move to Israel now that he has been released from his parole restrictions 35 years after he was caught selling top secret documents? He apparently spied at least as much for the money as for Israel. (…) Press reports cite US intelligence officials as saying that Pollard also sold documents to Pakistan, South Africa, and two other countries they declined to identify. (…) Pollard modeled treasonous behavior toward a democratic country, and in doing so he also caused grievous harm to the status of American Jews in the eyes of American public officials and the American public. (…) America’s Jews had spent centuries trying to put to rest accusation of dual loyalty. After an American Jew admitted to offering to spy for Israel and did what the US Defense Department described as enormous damage to American national security, those who questioned the loyalty of America’s Jews were provided with ample arguments. (…) Pollard is not another Sharansky, not a refusenik whose brave defense of human rights and Zionist commitment led to his persecution by a tyrannical regime. (…)

Peretz Rodman, TOI, 24.11.20

Besuch des scheidenden US-Außenministers

The last days of Pompeo

Mike Pompeo chose to end his term as secretary of state with a tour of solidarity with Israel’s extreme right, while spitting on decades of pre-Trump U.S. foreign policy, on the norms of international law and on justice. (…) It’s a good thing that he will soon leave office. (…) Pompeo announced that the State Department will regard the international boycott, divestment and sanctions movement as antisemitic and called the movement a “cancer.” With that, the secretary of state embraced the false propaganda of the Israeli government, according to which anyone who supports a boycott of the settlements or of Israel over the occupation is an antisemite. This dangerous position constitutes an anti-democratic silencing of free speech. (…) Sanctions and boycotts are internationally accepted tools against unjust regimes, and so long as the Israeli occupation persists and the Palestinian people is not free, there will be more and more calls to use these tools against Israel as well as the settlements. (…) It would seem that the only thing that still remains for Pompeo to do during his visit is to approve Israel’s annexation to the Yesha Council. These are the last days of Pompeo. How good it is that this is the case.

Editorial, HAA, 20.11.20

HAA = Haaretz
YED = Yedioth Ahronoth / Ynetnews
JPO = Jerusalem Post
IHY = Israel HaYom
TOI = Times of Israel
GLO = Globes

Veröffentlicht im: Dezember 2020

Verantwortlich: Dr. Paul Pasch, Head of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Israel
Redaktion: Susanne Knaul, Judith Stelmach