The moral high ground is always a tenuous piece of property. It is difficult to obtain and is easily lost. It is seen, however, as crucial because most people, all over the world, cannot accommodate the notion that life is composed of shades of grey; they desperately need to see black and [...]]]> by Mitchell Plitnick

The moral high ground is always a tenuous piece of property. It is difficult to obtain and is easily lost. It is seen, however, as crucial because most people, all over the world, cannot accommodate the notion that life is composed of shades of grey; they desperately need to see black and white, good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains, in every situation. Nowhere is this truer than in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

It has become even more important for Israel to fight this rhetorical battle because, while it can always count on mindless support from Washington and from the most radically nationalistic and zealous Zionists around the world, the current escalation and ugliness are going to be very difficult to defend to even mainstream pro-Israel liberals, let alone the rest of the world. The hasbara (propaganda) has been flowing at a rapid pace, even more than usual, as Israel struggles to maintain the treasured hold on the “moral high ground” that its own actions have increasingly undermined.

The Setup

Here is the very simple reality of what is happening now between Israel and Gaza: Israel willfully and intentionally seized upon a crime to demolish the unity government between Hamas and Gaza and, at the same time, significantly downgrade Hamas’ administrative, political, and military capabilities.

Israel, of course, could not have foreseen the kidnapping and murder of three youths on the West Bank, but once it happened, the Netanyahu government went into high gear to press its advantage. Recognizing that it needed to whip the Israeli public into a frenzy, the government put a gag order on the case to avoid revealing that it knew almost right away that the young men were dead. Under the cover of what seemed to be a kidnapping, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was able to attack Hamas in both the West Bank and Gaza, launching a massive military operation throughout the former and increasing its bombing raids in the latter.

Hamas, for its part, didn’t react wisely, but the politics of its situation left its leadership little choice. They had advocated kidnappings too often in the past, and they delayed stating they were not behind this incident. They finally did, and when Israel named the two suspects, it gave weight to Hamas’ denial, as the alleged murderers were part of a powerful Hebron clan that, as J.J. Goldberg put it, “…had a history of acting without the [Hamas] leaders’ knowledge, sometimes against their interests.”

But while it is rather clear at this point that the Hamas leadership had nothing to do with the three boys’ murders, it did support the act, which played well into Netanyahu’s hands. All over Israel and all over social media, calls for revenge popped up, along with cries of “Death to the Arabs,” and horrifying, indeed genocidal, statements by Israeli politicians. Ayelet Shaked of the Jewish Home Party compared Palestinian children to snakes, called for a war on the entire Palestinian people, and said “They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads.” It’s difficult for even the most brazen apologist to see those words as anything other than an incitement to attack civilians without restraint.

Such words bore their fruit when a Palestinian youth of 16 years, Muhammed Abu Khdeir, was burned alive. And here, of course, is where the Israeli rhetoric ratcheted up another notch. Setting out to capture the criminals was an imperative for the Netanyahu government because it made the case that “we prosecute such murderers, while our enemy celebrates them,” a refrain that was uttered continuously in various forms.

“…That’s the difference between us and our neighbors,” Netanyahu said. “They consider murderers to be heroes. They name public squares after them. We don’t. We condemn them and we put them on trial and we’ll put them in prison.”

Not only is that rhetoric dehumanizing, it is also false. For example, the town of Kochav Yair in central Israel is named after the leader of the notorious LEHI, or “Stern Gang,” Avraham Stern, a terrorist who was summarily executed by the British. LEHI, along with the Irgun Z’Vai Leumi (or Irgun for short) was responsible for the massacre of the Palestinian Deir Yassin village in 1948, though this was after Stern’s death. The same group also boasted among its members about future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who was behind, among other things, the 1944 assassination of Lord Moyne, British Minister for Middle East Affairs, while the Irgun was led by Menachem Begin, the first Israeli prime minister from an opposition party. Many streets are named after them.

If that’s not enough, in the settlement of Kiryat Arba one can find the Meir Kahane Memorial Park, dedicated to the late “rabbi” who called for violence against Arabs in Israel (and whose Jewish Defense League often organized violence against African-Americans in the US). And, of course, right across from that park is the tomb of Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinians in 1994. That grave has been turned into a pilgrimage site for radical Jews.

So, Israelis are quite capable of celebrating murderers as well. But it’s important for Netanyahu to conceal this fact for now. During the staged operation to find the “kidnapped” youths, Israel arrested hundreds of Palestinians, many, but not all associated with Hamas. They virtually closed down Hebron and the surrounding area, and entered many Palestinian cities throughout the West Bank, provoking frequent clashes with residents. Several Palestinians were killed and many were injured.

Hamas eventually took responsibility for some rockets that had been fired at Israel, and the situation continued to deteriorate. Eventually, Israel launched the current operation, which was dubbed “Solid Cliff” in Hebrew; their marketing people felt that “Protective Edge” sounded better in English.

Since then, over 100 Palestinians have been killed, many of them civilians and minors. Houses have been targeted and destroyed, hundreds of people injured. United Nations human rights officials have warned that Israel may be committing war crimes by targeting private homes while the United States performs its usual task of preventing the Security Council from issuing critical statements about Israeli actions.

While the US works that task, both its president and its ambassador to Israel are reassuring Israel with total support. In a stunning example of double talk, President Barack Obama offered to broker a cease-fire, but Netanyahu bluntly stated he doesn’t want one. So, naturally US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro responded by saying the US would back a ground invasion of Gaza.

War of Choice

Israeli military leaders, whose role in deciding defense strategy has become increasingly, if quietly, marginalized under Netanyahu, are not enthusiastic about the current Israeli onslaught. They understand that Hamas is not going to be defeated militarily and that this action is further degrading Israel’s standing in the world. They also understand that the impetus for this action was not security, but politics.

Netanyahu is meanwhile not striking a blow for security, or even revenge. The purpose of all this, from the deception of the Israeli people and the world about the fate of the three murdered youths, the mass arrests and provocative behavior during the staged “search” for the boys, and the following attacks on Gaza were directed not at Palestinian terrorists, but at Palestinian political leaders. While it’s true that Netanyahu envisions no exit strategy (he never does) for this operation, he does have objectives; three of them, in fact.

The first is obvious: to deliver a blow to Hamas. He is well aware that the group is already struggling financially, even more than usual, and these attacks are diverting resources toward fighting Israel and creating greater needs among Gazans.

The second is to humiliate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Netanyahu is absolutely furious that Abbas acted without Israel’s permission by joining international treaties and forming a unity government — two things which, actually, are not only Palestine’s right, but Abbas’ duty. Netanyahu is showing Palestinians how ineffective Abbas is: the PA president can do nothing but sit on the sidelines. This is a stupid thing for Netanyahu to do, of course, because it undermines the man who has been keeping the West Bank quiet for Israel, but when has that ever stopped him?

Finally, and most importantly, the goal that probably spurred all of this was Netanyahu’s desperation to dismember the Palestinian unity government. Bibi knows that while a unity government might not make progress in securing Palestinian rights, the split between Gaza and the West Bank makes it utterly impossible for there to be any progress toward ending Israel’s 47-year old occupation. From the day the unity agreement was signed, Netanyahu has been enraged about it and obsessed with undoing it. He hopes that the current violence will either increase international pressure on Abbas to dissolve his partnership with Hamas or that Hamas will grow so angry at Abbas that it will walk away.

Given that the West Bank has remained largely quiet, thanks entirely to Abbas’ security forces clamping down on any protests, let alone any action against Israel, it is entirely possible that Hamas will indeed bolt from the unity arrangement. This is rather remarkable because Netanyahu continues to demonize Abbas publicly and no one wants to compliment him on maintaining order because he is doing so at the expense of enraging his own people. Most Palestinians in the West Bank see their relatives being slaughtered in Gaza while their own president not only sits by helplessly but prevents his people from even protesting.

That is Netanyahu’s agenda, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping Israelis safe and secure. Indeed, as has always been the case, far more Israelis are threatened and injured when Israel attacks than at other times.

To even maintain this thin façade, Israel must continue to make the false case that it has the moral high ground. While Hamas could be easily assailed because they only target Israeli civilians, Netanyahu has still found a way to be even more criminal, Machiavellian and ruthless, and ultimately the most culpable villain here by far.

Make no mistake about what the United States is backing here. This is as pure a war of choice as any. Netanyahu has set up this fight, and has waged it. And, as always, it is the people of Gaza who pay the heaviest price. But Israelis too will bear the cost of this ruthless escapade in the long run. And the United States can only look at itself in shame as it supports this murderous and reckless endeavor.

Photo: Five people were reported killed in an air strike on Rafah, southern Gaza, on July 11. Credit: AP

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu marked Sept. 11 with “an unprecedented verbal attack on the U.S. government,” according to Barak Ravid ofHaaretz.

Netanyahu told reporters on Tuesday that “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to [...]]]> via Lobe Log

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu marked Sept. 11 with “an unprecedented verbal attack on the U.S. government,” according to Barak Ravid ofHaaretz.

Netanyahu told reporters on Tuesday that “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

Netanyahu seems to be having a hard time keeping a lid on his temper these days. But the White House may also be losing patience with Netanyahu. A few hours after Netanyahu’s rant, the White House declined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request to meet with Obama during a UN conference in New York in late September. A White House official said that Obama’s schedule does not allow for a meeting during the two and a half days Netanyahu will be in the United States. Ravid considers the White House’s response as marking  “a new low in relations between Netanyahu and Obama, underscored by the fact that this is the first time Netanyahu will visit the US as prime minister without meeting the president.”

From another perspective Bradley Burston points out:

…it’s not every day that the prime minister of an Israel whose very security depends on close cooperation with the White House, appears to work angles to try to see an incumbent president defeated – for example, announcing just at the climax of the Republican convention his intention to go to the UN to tell the world of the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program.

Only, in the case of Benjamin Netanyahu and his staff, it has been literally every day.

On August 14, the Israeli news daily Ma’ariv reported that Netanyahu had given Obama a deadline of September 25 to announce to the world that the US would be taking military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Israel would agree to defer a military attack on Iran if Obama publicly declared — at the UN General Assembly or any other public venue of his choosing — that the US will launch a war on Iran as soon as the US election results are in. No further elaboration — or corroboration — of the Sept. 25 “deadline”, which coincides with the eve of the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, has since appeared in Israeli or US press.

Then, Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers revealed that during his visit to Israel in late August, when he expected to discuss “intelligence and technical issues” with the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu was “at his wit’s end” and lashed out at US Ambassador Dan Shapiro over the Obama administration’s Iran policy. During a radio interview Rogers described the meeting to WJR’s Frank Beckmann as “Very tense. Some very sharp… exchanges and it was very, very clear the Israelis had lost their patience with the [Obama] Administration.” Rogers, a Republican who had issued a pro-Romney statement on July 25  declaring that “America’s national security officials should never allow politics to interfere with their vital work of keeping the American people safe,” nevertheless very publicly took the Israeli Prime Minister’s side against the US president, implicitly criticizing an ambassador for being a  diplomat and downplaying the altercation.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Bloomburg Radio that  the objective of the sanctions was “to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good-faith negotiation” and that the US is “not setting deadlines.”  But Netanyahu  insisted in an interview on Sunday that Israel was discussing red lines with the United States. Netanyahu chose a  press conference with Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov on Sept. 11 to vent his rage.

“Now if Iran knows that there is no red line. If Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it’s doing. It’s continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs,” he said.

Burston views Netanyahu’s Sept. 11 outburst  as a response to Obama’s resurgence in the polls, which has short-circuited Netanyahu’s scheme for keeping the US president under his thumb by exploiting his ostensible political vulnerability:

As long as the Obama campaign seemed to be sputtering, there seemed no downside to hectoring, lecturing, and loudly, if indirectly, ridiculing the Obama administration for being soft on Iran. As long as the incumbent president seemed on the ropes, as he did after the sweeping Republican gains in the 2010 midterm elections, Netanyahu could view brinksmanship with the White House over Iran as a sure thing.

Take Netanyahu’s demand that the White House set red lines and deadlines, beyond which the United States would be committed to unleashing a military onslaught against Iranian nuclear facilities.

If President Obama failed to agree, Republicans could paint him as weak and open to appeasement. If, on the other hand, Obama did agree, both Netanyahu and the Republican Party could claim victory, taking Obama to task for lacking the leadership they themselves had shown.

That strategy, however, may be backfiring. Burston notes that a growing number of current and former Israeli security, diplomatic, nuclear and intelligence experts have voiced their opposition not just to a unilateral Israeli offensive, but to any attack on Iran. Even Israel’s hawkish Defense Minister Ehud Barak appears to have backed away from supporting an Israeli attack, and is urging that differences of opinion between the US and Israel regarding how to deal with Iran be settled “behind closed doors.”

Furthermore, for several weeks Israeli pundits have been warning about the possible consequences of Netanyahu’s open hostility towards Obama if Obama wins re-election. While no US president can or will sever military ties to Israel or allow it to be “wiped off the map,” there are ways that an American president can show his displeasure that in no way jeopardizes the survival of the Jewish state, but can bode ill for the political fortunes of an Israeli leader who isn’t nearly as popular at home as he is among low-information and right-wing American Jews.

As for red lines, Burston (who lives in Israel) has this recommendation for the Israeli Prime Minister:

If immediate red lines are in order, Benjamin Netanyahu would be well advised to set them for himself, and the malice and abuse and disrespect he has heaped on the president. If deadlines are in order, he might consider his upcoming U.S. visit – and the White House rejection of a meeting with Obama – as an opportune moment to shut down entirely the verbal centrifuges he has set spinning in attacks on the president, the secretary of state, and other administration officials.

Weekly Reads/Watch: