#tamir pardo

[vyorei]

Oh shut up

[hero-israel]

What do you think about Tamir Pardo and his recent words about apartheid?

I'm confused because according to pro-palestinian activists, apartheid is the fact that for Israelites and Palestinians the Israeli justice system has a different approach, so two legal systems. According to pro-israelis, there is no apartheid, because both Arabs and Jews live together and shame same public spaces. So it seems like both sides are using different definitions of what apartheid is.

Former Mossad director Tamir Pardo - who served in the Sayeret Metkal under Yonatan Netanyahu - said in September that he believes Israel is enforcing an apartheid system in the West Bank. High-ranking Israeli officials have been warning for years that such a thing could happen. Pardo is probably the most important to say that, by his estimation, they are there now.

Pardo didn't say that a mere four months earlier, in May, when he co-wrote this op-ed that I agree with down to the letter.

What changed in the administration of the West Bank in those four months? Nothing.

My perspective on the "apartheid" term is written in more detail here - and please read through the comments because it is fair to include viewpoints from an actual Israeli like @kwippo. Pro-Palestinians as a rule consider every inch of Israel to be "apartheid," that it is "apartheid" to have Yom Kippur be a bank holiday or for postage stamps to have a menorah on them. That is to be dismissed out of hand. I would not hesitate to stack 1949-armistice-line Israel's treatment of minorities favorably against literally any other country in the world.

The occupied West Bank has a differential system based on nationality, not race, because that's what happens during a military occupation. This distinction used to matter to certain people, and by "certain people" I mean the likes of Human Rights Watch, which spit fire at Israel all through their 2010 report but included a long aside about how the occupation of the West Bank is not apartheid. Once again, nothing changed since then in the administration of the West Bank. Not in the last four months. Not in the 11 years between that report and another by HRW that said "actually nevermind it's totes apartheid after all." Not to this day. So I reject using a change in terminology motivated not by any change in materially lived experience but rather by fear of the future and dissatisfaction in the lack of progress. The current parlance of the Extremely Online Left is to vindictively say that the very step that could make a 2-state-solution possible - having separate systems along the footprints of separate states - is somehow "apartheid," and the only thing that can stop this "apartheid" is to erase those very distinctions and erase Israel too.

The current ultra-extremist fringe government in Israel is saying - frequently - that they WANT to change the administration of the West Bank. That is scaring basically everyone who hears it who doesn't live in the West Bank already.

With all due respect to Pardo, he is still acting as a political figure in this context and political figures exaggerate to make their points. I love Joe Biden and am relieved every day that he is president, and in 2012 Joe Biden said the Republican Party - under Mitt Romney - wanted to put African-Americans "back in chains."

[mounadiloun]

Un antisémite chargé de lutter contre l'antisémitisme à Harvard?

On se souvient de la chasse au sorcières qui a visé des présidents d’universités aux Etats Unis, accusés de laxisme face à l’antisémitisme qui caractériserait les  manifestations croissantes de solidarité des étudiants avec la Palestine. Les principales cibles de cette chasse aux sorcières ont été trois femmes présidentes d’universités parmi les plus prestigieuses des États Unis Liz Magill…

[forgetimabluedreamer]

I watched a video the other day of a young Jewish American woman discussing the pro-Zionist propaganda she was exposed to in Hebrew school when she was younger. How in one instance students were asked what their first thought was when thinking about Israel, to which she responded with the word war. This train of thought was then immediately shut down. But it stuck out to me because my answer to this question was the same. More specifically my first thought has always been their military.

Even before the terrible and horrific events that have occurred this month, before more attention was brought to what is happening in Palestine, since I was a child and the only thing I knew about it was what my mother would discuss with me when talking about history (at the time she was my only source of information because I was all of nine). They don’t teach you these things in school, nothing about the occupation and apartheid that is instituted in Palestine. Nothing about the genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Whenever I would happen to hear about Israel, any off handed remark, I would think about their military. When I was a child it was a strange concept to wrap my mind around the idea of mandatory military service. I knew it was different from the draft and that it was mandatory for all Israeli citizens, men and women, to serve in the IDF once they were of age. There are countless countries that implement mandatory military service, to different degrees and within specific circumstances but my entire life, living on an entirely separate continent, this was a nation I knew to be renowned for it. I have seen this notion be disseminated through popular culture and news without any of the historical context, or if so there were firmly assigned roles between who was the hero and who was the villain.

I still remember when I was in elementary school all the headlines and commotion that occurred when a model refused to serve in the IDF back in the early 2000’s (not that it was for any altruistic reasons or condemnation of the occupation of Palestine, made that much more obvious by her current instagram posts 16 years later) and the widespread condemnation she received. I have seen countless movies and television series were a character is mentioned having a background of serving in the IDF (or Mossad as western media treats them as interchangeable) as explanation for their fighting prowess and capability. Consistently and without fail, this idea of the supremacy of the Israeli army has been perpetuated throughout the years. Since before I was born. In none of those instances were the Palestinians ever mentioned aside from being the foe that threatened Israel. Nothing of the slaughter, occupation, and discrimination that they have faced for the better part of a century. Always implied to be a religious fueled aggression on their part when in truth it has everything to do with territory and resources. With extreme nationalism and the far right.

It is horrifying to watch the rate at which misinformation is being spread through the news and social media. Israel has had more than fifty years to perfect their propaganda methods, to weave this tale that what they are doing is just and right. Condemning anyone who criticizes their actions as antisemitic. They have the backing of countless western politicians, businesses, and celebrities because at the end of the day they only care about the bottom line. It’s why the American government has given Israel billions of USD in aid to Israel with Biden promising billions more. Why former chief of Mossad Tamir Pardo was slammed for saying that what is occurring in Palestine is apartheid. Why so many news outlets have reported outright lies, and why you continue to hear journalists repeat the same question “Do you condemn Hamas?” over and over again. All the while Palestinians are without resources, shelter, clean water, no military whatsoever, no means of defending themselves from this annihilation.

[howieabel]

Israel is enforcing apartheid in the West Bank, says former Mossad spy chief Tamir Pardo

[solo1y]

Is Israel An Apartheid State?

Almost every international human rights organisation has explained why Israel is an apartheid state, including the United Nations and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, who all conducted comprehensive reviews.

Zionists and their friends often accuse these organisations of bias or even antisemitism, that the reason they accuse Israel of being an apartheid state is because they hate Jews. This is ridiculous, but let's operate inside the delusion.

The Israeli Jewish-run human rights group, B'Tselem, has produced many reports explaining how the apartheid system works in the occupied territories. Here is one called The Occupation In Its 51st Year. There are more such documents on their site.

The Israeli Jewish-run human rights group, Yesh Din, has produced many reports explaining how the apartheid system works in the occupied territories. Here is one called The Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid. There are more such documents on their site.

The Israeli Jewish-run paper of record, Ha'aretz, has published many articles about the apartheid system in Israel. Here is one called Israel is an Apartheid Regime. There are more such articles on their site.

And it's not just humans rights and media organisations.

Amiram Levin, who headed the IDF Northern Command said there is "absolute apartheid" in the West Bank.

Yossi Sarid, a former Israeli cabinet minister and ex-leader of the opposition said, "it is apartheid".

Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel, said if "millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state" and that Bibi Netanyahu and his friends are "undermining the foundations of Zionism and Israeli democracy".

Israel’s former attorney general, Michael Ben-Yair, said, "We established an apartheid regime..."

In 2021, 25% of American Jews agreed outright that "Israel is an apartheid state".

Former prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, said in 1976 that if Israel did not evacuate the entire West Bank of Palestinians, "I don’t think it’s possible to contain over the long term, if we don’t want to get to apartheid". (The Israelis have not yet evacuated the West Bank, although they're giving Gaza a pretty thorough sluice.

Tamir Pardo, the former director of Mossad (Israeli national intelligence agency), said, "There is an apartheid state here."

In 2015, another former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, said that Bibi's policies would lead to either a binational state "or an apartheid state".

There are many more.

At what point does your insistence that you know more than every international human rights organisation, Jewish Israeli human rights agencies, the Israeli paper of record, ex-prime ministers, ex-heads of the IDF and Mossad and a large number of Jews themselves become antisemitic?

[kspp]

Promoting Gender Diversity and Integrating the Gender Perspective in Indian Intelligence Agencies.

Promotion of Gender Diversity and Integration of Gender perspective has recently received much attention across domains, but IndianIntelligence Agencies seem to be an exception. Indian Intelligence agencies have failed to become a major part of this discourse. There have been reports and talks around the reforms in intelligence agencies like the IDSA Task Force report “A Case for Intelligence Reforms in India” by R. Banerji and the Bill for Intelligence Reforms introduced by Mannish Tiwari in 2011, but they have all failed to incorporate the gender dimension. Also, though India supports UN Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda, there seems to be a dissonance between India’s international display by contributing female peacekeepers to UN peacekeeping missions and the situation back home (Seth, 2022).

Promoting gender diversity in intelligence institutions is of significance for various reasons. Individuals recruited from diverse backgrounds with different skills, expertise, problem-solving approaches, ideas, perspectives, and cultural experiences will help improve the productivity and quality of engagement and lead to innovation and creativity in intel agencies. Seeing the issue from a gender perspective will strengthen intelligence products and help better decision-making (“Foreign Territory: Women in international relations,” 2019). The options for recruiters will improve as more applicants can apply, attracting the best talent. The intel workforce should reflect the diversity in society, gender diversity is crucial. Inclusion will enhance public trust and confidence in these institutions. Such an approach will also empower the disadvantaged genders.

If we specifically focus on women, some studies and opinions highlight that some skills women possess are most needed for intel jobs. One of the former female agents at the CIA argued that women are better at people skills, i.e., they can read people better, which includes determining their motivations and vulnerabilities; they’re street smart, i.e., they can easily read the potential danger and escape threats proactively; they are better at training foreign assets and are better listeners on the job (Zeigler, 2012). Thoughassociating certain skills with a specific gender can be seen as a perpetuation of stereotypes, it can be viewed as a result of the gendered structures that have been around for centuries, which we strive to change. Tamir Pardo, the head of Mossad, in one of his interviews, said that female agents have a distinct advantage in secret warfare because of their better ability to multitask and suppress their ego to attain goals vis-à-vis men and contrary to the stereotypes, women are good at deciphering situations and their abilities are superior to men in terms of understanding the territory, reading situations, spatial awareness (Zeigler, 2012). The ‘UN Security Gender and security Toolkit’ elaborates that WPS Agenda is important for intelligence agencies as it promotes gender inclusion and advocates using gender analysis for conflict impact, resolution, and recovery, and talks about how women can play a significant role in reducing the harm of gender-based violence and discrimination. UNSCR 2242 calls for the integration of gender in the counterterrorism approach and emphasizes developing gender focussed evidence-based policies to deal better with the impacts of violence on women by conducting gender-sensitive research (DCAF, OSCE/ODIHR, UN Women, 2019).

Seeing the growing number and changing nature of security challenges, adopting a gender-inclusive approach in India’s security and intelligence policy has become far more relevant. India must soon develop a policy with a broad vision for gender inclusion in security and intelligence. A gender-diverse expert committee to review after such a policy is drafted is a must. I doubt if our traditional institutional structures are fully capable of gender-inclusive policymaking. Implementing the provisions of such a policy will need a strategy, resource management, political will, and moving away from systemic inertia. A multi-pronged strategy focussing on recruitment-promotion of diverse genders at all levels, across all intel functions – intelligence collection, collation, control, analysis, and research, and from diverse educational and cultural backgrounds with a gender-inclusive workplace can be deployed. Such a reform, along with other suggested reforms in intel agencies, is in our larger strategic and geopolitical interest. It will impact India’s foreign policymaking and better integrate humanitarian aspects in security and crisis response situations.

Other countries of the world have made significant progress in this regard. USA’s Intelligence Community Diversity and Equal Opportunity Report 2020, UK’s Diversity and Inclusion in the UK Intelligence Community Report 2018, Australia’s ONA Diversity Action Plan 2015-2018, and New Zealand’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2017–2020 reflect this progress. Mossad has 40% females in its staff, with 24% in key senior roles, and is seeking to add more women. Learning from them, India must take concrete steps with necessary modifications in this direction. The best practices employed in other sectors like corporates for gender diversity can also be explored. Indian Intelligence, Security and Foreign policy, thus, need to undergo a structural gender overhaul.

Bibliography

DCAF, OSCE/ODIHR, UN Women (2019), “Intelligence and Gender”, in Gender and Security Toolkit, Geneva: DCAF, OSCE/ODIHR, UN Women: Gender and security toolkit

Foreign territory: Women in international relations. (2019, July 9). Lowy Institute: FOREIGN TERRITORY: WOMEN IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

IDSA Task Force. (2012). A case for intelligence reforms in India. Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses: A Case for Intelligence Reforms in India

ORF: Bill on Intelligence Agencies Reforms

Seth, S. (2022, June 10). India’s inconsistent adherence to the women, peace and security agenda. Lowy Institute: India’s inconsistent adherence to the Women,Peace and Security agenda

Zeigler, M. (2012). Why The Best Spies in Mossad and The CIA Are Women. Forbes: Why The Best Spies in Mossad And The CIA Are Women

[abfindunginfo]

Gaza-Israel-Katastrophe

"Was führte zur Gaza-Israel-Katastrophe? Der Alptraum nach 50 Jahren gescheiterter Militärpolitik" lautet ein Artikel von Dr. Dan Steinbock. "Gaza-Israel-Katastrophe" fiel nicht aus heiterem Himmel Die "Gaza-Israel-Katastrophe fiel nicht aus heiterem Himmel. Sie kann auch nicht über Nacht beendet werden, schon gar nicht mit gewaltsamen Mitteln. Diese Ansicht vertrat Dr. Dan Steinbock, in einem Artikel auf The World Financial Review am 19. 10.2023. "Der Hamas-Israel-Krieg ist nicht aus heiterem Himmel entstanden. Und er ebnet nicht nur den Weg für die Zerstörung der Hamas oder einen höllischen Bodenangriff. Er zielt auf die Verwüstung des Gazastreifens ab und könnte im Laufe der Zeit zu Vertreibungen im Westjordanland führen. Der Krieg wird die Gewalt in und um Israel anheizen. Er könnte in der gesamten Region eskalieren. Er spiegelt das Scheitern von 50 Jahren amerikanischer Geopolitik in der Region wider und wird die globalen wirtschaftlichen Aussichten weiter verschlechtern. Weder Apartheid noch Gewalt können im frühen 21. Jahrhundert einen dauerhaften Frieden sichern. Was wir brauchen, ist multilaterale Zusammenarbeit und multipolare Diplomatie in der Region - bevor es zu spät ist." Von den westlichen Politikern und Medien wird vor allem der brutale Überfall der Hamas am 07. 10. 2023 verurteilt. Deshalb habe der israelische Staat das Recht auf Selbstverteidigung. Das widerspiegelt sich auch im Abstimmungsverhalten in der UN-Vollversammlung am 27. 10. 2023. Mit einer Mehrheit von 120 Stimmen forderten die UNO-Mitglieder eine „sofortige humanitäre Waffenruhe“ im Gazastreifen. 14 Staaten stimmten dagegen, 45 Staaten enthielten sich - darunter auch Deutschland. Bundeskanzler Scholz begründete die Stimmenthaltung laut Tagesschau vom 30. 10. 2023: "Eine brutale mörderische Aggression der Hamas, die viele Menschen, Kinder, Babys, Großväter und Großmütter getötet hat", betonte Scholz. "Das kann nicht akzeptiert werden und wir werden Israel ganz deutlich dabei unterstützen, seine eigene Sicherheit zu verteidigen." 0520318331:leftLassen wir dahingestellt, ob das eine Stimmenthaltung zur Forderung nach "sofortiger humanitärer Waffenruhe" rechtfertigt. Steinbock lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit vor allem darauf, dass der Hamas-Angriff eine willkommene Rechtfertigung für die rechtsextreme Regierung von Benyamin Netanyahu darstellt. Der israelische Staat habe die Unterdrückung der Palästinenser verschärft, seit sich die internationale Aufmerksamkeit auf den Stellvertreterkrieg in der Ukraine konzentriert. Dass sei für Netanjahu "ein Geschenk des Himmels". Denn seit den 90er Jahren habe Netanjahu selbst zur Gründung der Hamas beigetragen. Die seit mehr als fünf Jahrzehnten anhaltenden strategischen Spannungen wurden seit Ende 2022 "durch das rechtsextremste Kabinett in der Geschichte Israels noch beschleunigt". Kräfteveränderung im israelischen Kabinett Seine Begründung für diese Wertung stützt Steinbock u.a. darauf, dass im Juli der ehemalige Mossad-Chef Tamir Pardo Premierminister Benjamin Netanjahu vorwarf, er habe Parteien in seine Regierung geholt, die "schlimmer als der Ku-Klux-Klan" seien. Dafür ständen beispielsweise der Minister für die Nationale Sicherheit Israels Itamar Ben-Gvir, der Finanzminister Bezazel Smotrich (siehe auch hier oder hier) und der Minister für nationale Infrastruktur, Energie und Wasser Israel Katz. Netanjahus "Justizreform", mit der die Befugnis des Obersten Gerichtshofs zur richterlichen Überprüfung eingeschränkt und der Regierung die Kontrolle über die Ernennung von Richtern übertragen wird, verstoße gegen die Gewaltenteilung in einer Demokratie und löste einen politischen und verfassungsrechtlichen Aufruhr aus. Siedlungspolitik gegen Palästinenser Inbesondere die Siedlungspolitik seit 1967 wurde zwar "mit nationalen Sicherheitsinteressen legitimiert und durch den massiven Waffenhandel und die 'Big Defense' der USA angeheizt". Doch trotz der Friedensbewegung und Kritiken der internationale Gemeinschaft setzten die Falken unter den Verfechtern der nationalen Sicherheit die Siedlungspolitik durch. "Nach dem Sechstagekrieg von 1967 besetzte Israel das Westjordanland, einschließlich Ost-Jerusalem, den Gazastreifen und die Golanhöhen. Seitdem hat Israel seinen Bürgern erlaubt, in diesen Siedlungen zu leben, und sie sogar dazu ermutigt, oft aus religiösen, ultra-ethnischen und ultra-nationalistischen Gefühlen heraus, die mit der jüdischen Geschichte und dem Land Israel verbunden sind... Nichts hat die stetige Expansion der Siedler seit den späten 1960er Jahren und die Expansion der Israelis in Ostjerusalem gestoppt". Die terroristische Siedlungspolitik verfolgten besonders aus den USA stammende und geförderte Politiker. Steinbock schreibt: "Nach einem Treffen in Jerusalem Mitte der 70er Jahre mit dem in den USA geborenen Rabbiner Meir Kahane, dem rechtsextremen ultranationalistischen Politiker und späteren Mitglied der Knesset bis zu seiner Verurteilung wegen Terrorismus, hatte ich keine Zweifel mehr an diesen extremistischen Bestrebungen. Nachdem er in den USA die rechtsextreme Jewish Defense League mitbegründet hatte, gründete Kahane in Israel die ultra-radikale Kach. Beide setzten Terror ein, um ihre Ziele zu erreichen. In den späten 1950er Jahren hatte Kahanes fanatischer Antikommunismus ihn zu einem 'Informanten' des FBI gemacht. In den 70er Jahren befürwortete er die ethnische Säuberung der Palästinenser. Damals sagte er: 'Jeden Tag kommen die Araber in Israel der Mehrheit näher. Israel sollte sich nicht zum nationalen Selbstmord verpflichten. Warum sollten wir zulassen, dass Demografie, Geografie und Demokratie Israel näher an den Abgrund bringen?' Ich hatte noch nie jemanden getroffen, der so voller Hass war, und erwartete, dass Kahane gewaltsam sterben würde." "Israelische Friedensbewegung" gegen Siedlungspolitik Doch die israelische Bevölkerung stehe nicht einhellig hinter dieser Siedlungspolitik. Zudem zeigten die Bürgerproteste gegen die "Justizreform" zunehmende Differenzen zwischen Regierung und Teilen der Bevölkerung. Die Differenzen in der israelischen Bevölkerung reichen viel weiter zurück. Steinbock erinnert sich an die Entwicklung der israelischen Friedensbewegung: "Zu den führenden Köpfen der Friedensbewegung gehörte die Schriftstellerin Yael Dayan, die Tochter des Generals Moshe Dayan und spätere Labor-Politikerin und Feministin. Wie schon 1973 sagte Dayan kürzlich, dass 'es keinen echten und dauerhaften Frieden gibt und geben kann, der sich mit der massiven Kolonisierung der besetzten palästinensischen Gebiete vereinbaren lässt'. Nach Gesprächen mit ihr schloss ich mich der Bewegung und den Protesten an. Ich sah in den Siedlungen eine Zeitbombe, die die israelische Demokratie untergraben, die jüdischen und arabischen Bürger Israels und die Palästinenser gefährden, sich zu einer Apartheid entwickeln und einen Zyklus von 'ewigen Kriegen' mit den arabischen Nachbarn auslösen könnte." USA-Israel-Bündnis Nach dem Jom-Kippur-Krieg im Oktober 1973 rückten die USA in die Position des stärksten Förderers und Unterstützers Israel auf, besonders auf militärischem Gebiet. "Die wirtschaftliche und militärische Hilfe der USA stieg erst nach dem Krieg von 1973 sprunghaft an. Bis 2002 war Israel der größte Empfänger von US-Hilfe, und mit dem Irak, Afghanistan und der Ukraine gehört es weiterhin zu den drei größten Empfängern. Die USA haben Israel über 260 Milliarden Dollar an Militär- und Wirtschaftshilfe und weitere 10 Milliarden Dollar für Raketenabwehrsysteme zur Verfügung gestellt." Mehrere Jahrzehnte properierte Israel wirtschaftlich. Nunmehr hätten sich auch hier wie in den USA und anderen westlichen Ländern die Tendenzen verschoben und die Polarisierung verschäft. Das Wirtschaftswachstum verlangsamte sich schon vor dem Angriff der Hamas. Die Inflationsrisiken stiegen an. Beide Risiken spitzen sich weiter zu. "Schlimmer noch: Aufgrund der neoliberalen Wachstumspolitik, die Netanjahu seit langem befürwortet, ist die Ungleichheit in Israel im Vergleich zu anderen OECD-Ländern relativ hoch ... Im Mai warnten 280 hochrangige Wirtschaftswissenschaftler, dass die Haushaltszuweisungen der Regierung an die ultrareligiösen Haredi-Gruppen im Gegenzug für ihre Unterstützung der Koalition 'Israel langfristig von einem fortschrittlichen und wohlhabenden Land in ein rückständiges Land verwandeln werden'. Die mit der vorgeschlagenen Justizreform verbundenen wirtschaftlichen Rückwirkungen haben sich bereits in einer massiven Kapitalflucht und einem starken Rückgang ausländischer Investitionen manifestiert, was zu einer Währungsabwertung, einem trägen Aktienmarkt, einem Rückgang der Steuereinnahmen und einer steigenden Staatsverschuldung geführt hat." Die Netanjahu-Regierung und die hinter ihr stehenden Finanziers spekulierten wohl darauf, dass die Verwüstung des Gazastreifens zu einer Massenausvertreibung der Bewohner des Gazastreifens führe. "Daher die Vorliebe für die Dahiya-Doktrin, die der ehemalige IDF-Chef Gadi Eizenkot im Libanon-Krieg 2006 und im Gaza-Krieg 2008/9 skizzierte. Sie basiert auf der Zerstörung der zivilen Infrastruktur von 'feindlichen Regimen'. 'Was 2006 im Dahiya-Viertel von Beirut geschah, wird in jedem Dorf geschehen, von dem aus Israel beschossen wird... Wir werden dort unverhältnismäßige Gewalt anwenden und großen Schaden und Zerstörung anrichten. Aus unserer Sicht handelt es sich nicht um zivile Dörfer, sondern um Militärbasen... Dies ist keine Empfehlung. Dies ist ein Plan. Und er ist genehmigt worden.'" Völkerrechtler bezeichnen die Dahiya-Doktrin als "Staatsterrorismus" bezeichnet. Sie führe im Gaza-Streifen zunehmend zu einer Katastrophe historischen Ausmaßes. Geheimdienstversagen oder zielgerichtete Politik? Für Steinbock ist weder ein "Geheimdienstversagen" Israels noch eine Erzfeindschaft zwischen Israel und Hamas hinreichend überzeugend. Videobeweise aus den letzten beiden Jahre würden zeigen, dass Hamas-Kämpfer für die brutalen Angriffe an mindestens sechs Orten im Gazastreifen und in Sichtweite der stark überwachten Grenze Israels trainierten. Vielmehr vergleicht er Israels Strategie mit der Operation Cyclone: "So wie die Operation Cyclone die USA dazu veranlasst hatte eine Generation islamistischer Fedayeen in Afghanistan auszubilden, zu bewaffnen und zu finanzieren Afghanistan, darunter Osama Bin Laden, auszubilden und zu finanzieren, dachten die Israelis, sie könnten die Hamas nutzen; nicht, dass die Hamas sie nutzen könnte. Außerdem dient der Krieg in Gaza als Eskalation der Siedlerausbreitung und der Gewalt im Westjordanland Westjordanland, von dem Netanjahus rechtsextreme Minister hoffen, dass es zu einer Annexion und Vertreibung der Palästinenser führen würde." Die Entwicklung im Gazastreifen diene aber auch der Rechtfertigung, mit denen die Falken in den USA ihre Kriegspolitik gegen den Iran aktivieren. Steinbock verweist in dem Zusammenhang auf die TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term)-Kriegsplanung, die nach 2003 von der Bush-Regierung entwickelt wurde. Zudem diene die ebenfalls nach 2003 weiterentwickelte "Global Strike"-Strategie (CONPLAN 8022) dazu, den Einsatz von Nuklearwaffen zu erwägen, wenn die Abschreckung kurz vor dem Scheitern stünde. Für Netanjahus Regierung wäre eine Ausweitung des Konflikt zwischen den USA und dem Iran willkommen. Sie lenke die Aufmerksamkeit von Gaza und dem Westjordanland ab. "Vor einem Monat schwor Netanjahus Mossad-Chef David Barnea parallel zu den Turbulenzen am Obersten Gerichtshof, die 'höchste Ebene' des Irans ins Visier zu nehmen, falls israelische Juden durch Terror verletzt würden. Auch die Regierung Biden hat der Versuchung nicht widerstanden, den Krieg und ihre 'Solidarität mit Israel' als Demonstrationseffekt für andere Krisenherde zu nutzen ... Es ist der liturgische Begriff, den das Weiße Haus im Zusammenhang mit Japan, Taiwan, der Ukraine, den Philippinen und anderen wichtigen Nicht-NATO-Verbündeten der USA verwendet hat, die sich zu gemeinsamen Verteidigungszielen, Militärbasen und Waffenkäufen von US Big Defense, wie Raytheon, Austins ehemaligem Arbeitgeber, verpflichtet haben." Gaza-Israel-Katastrophe beenden Steinbock schließt seinen mit zahlreichen Fußnoten belegten und lesenswerten Artikel: "Ein halbes Jahrhundert der Kriege, der Kolonisierung und der Apartheid wird der Region niemals Frieden bringen, sondern mit Sicherheit für mehr Verzweiflung, mehr Kriege und mehr tote und verletzte Zivilisten sorgen. Was wir in der Region brauchen, ist multilaterale Zusammenarbeit und multipolare Diplomatie. Es ist an der Zeit, Frieden und Entwicklung eine Chance zu geben - bevor es zu spät ist." B09G383MRX:right Wie aufschlussreich fanden Sie deisen Artikel? Lesen Sie den ganzen Artikel

[jhavelikes]

A former head of the Mossad intelligence agency has said Israel is imposing a form of apartheid on the Palestinians, joining a growing number of prominent Israelis to compare the occupation of the West Bank to South Africa’s defunct system of racial oppression. But Tamir Pardo’s views will have added impact because of the high regard for Mossad in Israel and because they come at a time when far-right members of Israel’s government are moving to kill off any prospect of an independent Palestinian state. Pardo told the Associated Press that Israel’s mechanisms for controlling the Palestinians, from restrictions on movement to placing them under military law while Jewish settlers in the occupied territories are governed by civilian courts, matched the old South Africa. “There is an apartheid state here,” he said. “In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state.”

Israel imposing apartheid on Palestinians, says former Mossad chief | Palestinian territories | The Guardian

[delectablywaywardbeard-blog]

L’ex capo del Mossad: “Energia nucleare e questione palestinese. Ecco gli ostacoli all’accordo tra Israele e Arabia Saudita”

Tamir Pardo, ex capo del Mossad, il servizio segreto israeliano, sottolinea la complessità degli sforzi americani per migliorare le relazioni con l’Arabia Saudita. Pardo, oggi settantenne, individua due ostacoli principali. Il primo e più significativo è la richiesta che i sauditi rivolgono agli Stati Uniti: vogliono aiuto per strutturare un programma nucleare civile che comprenda il diritto di…

[mbti-sorted]

Tamir Pardo

Anonymous asked:

Tamir Pardo? He's interesting because he comes across as sort of sensitive and like an enfp while his former job was as director of Mossad.

[arielfi]

Israelin hallitus heikentää maansa puolustuskykyä [Op-Ed]

The former intelligence official said that Israel: “Does not need a nuclear bomb to be destroyed… our state has decided to experience a self-destruction method.” (Ex-Mossad Chief Tamir Pardo) Israelin hallituksen jatkaessa oikeudellista uudistuspolitiikkaansa ja sen vastaisten massaprotestien jatkuessa eri puolilla maata on Israelin turvallisuus ja puolustuskyky heikkenemässä kolmen eri tekijän…

[eretzyisrael]

2010-2015: The Obama-Biden Administration's Repeated Leaks to the Press About Israel In 2010, the Obama-Biden administration – determined to do everything in its power to turn public opinion against a possible Israeli military strike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities – leaked information about a covert deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, whereby the Saudis had agreed that they would allow Israel to use their airspace in order to wage an attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities. On March 22, 2012, the Obama-Biden administration leaked to The New York Times the results of a classified war game which predicted that an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities could lead to a wider regional war and result in hundreds of American deaths. Institute for National Security Studies analyst Yoel Guzansky interpreted the motives behind the Obama-Biden leaks as follows: “It seems like a big campaign to prevent Israel from attacking. I think the [Obama-Biden] administration is really worried Jerusalem will attack and attack soon. They’re trying hard to prevent it in so many ways.” In a May 29, 2012 column in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, longtime defense commentator Ron Ben-Yishai noted that the leaks would “make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, [would] erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.” On April 8, 2012, the New Yorker reported that according to information leaked by the Obama-Biden administration, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was helping to fund and train the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). This revelation was intended to portray Israel as being unwilling to negotiate in good faith with the government in Tehran, and to thereby undermine any moral authority that Israel might claim in the event of a future military strike against Iran. In early May 2013, two Obama-Biden administration officials leaked classified information to the media indicating that Israel was behind a May 3rd airstrike against a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles at the airport in Damascus, Syria. Israeli security analysts said that the leak could not only endanger any Israeli agents who were still on the ground in Syria, but could also increase the likelihood that Syrian President Bashar Assad would retaliate against the Jewish state. Again, the purpose of the leak was to paint Israel as an unnecessarily aggressive, bellicose nation. For similar purposes, in early November 2013 an Obama-Biden administration official leaked to CNN the fact that Israeli warplanes had attacked a Syrian base in the port of Latakia. The planes were specifically targeting Russian-made SA-8 Gecko Dgreen mobile missiles, so as to prevent their delivery to the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Israeli officials called the leak “scandalous” and “unthinkable.” In January 2015, the Obama-Biden administration -- which opposed the notion of imposing any new economic sanctions against the Iranian regime -- leaked information indicating that an unnamed Mossad official had recently acknowledged that the enactment of such sanctions would be akin to “throwing a grenade into the [nuclear negotiation] process.” The leak's implication was that the Mossad official was privately opposed to sanctions. But approximately 12 hours later, that official – Mossad leader Tamir Pardo – stepped forth and, by means of a written statement issued by his office, clarified exactly what he had said and meant:

Contrary to what has been reported, the head of the Mossad did not say that he opposes imposing additional sanctions on Iran.... Regarding the reported reference to 'throwing a grenade,' the head of the Mossad did not use this expression regarding the imposition of sanctions, which he believes to be the sticks necessary for reaching a good deal with Iran. He used this expression as a metaphor to describe the possibility of creating a temporary crisis in the negotiations, at the end of which talks would resume under improved conditions.

[bountyofbeads]

Qassim Suleimani, Master of Iran’s Intrigue, Built a Shiite Axis of Power in Mideast

https://nyti.ms/36l1n3r

Qassim Suleimani, Master of Iran’s Intrigue, Built a Shiite Axis of Power in Mideast

The commander helped direct wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and he became the face of Iran’s efforts to build a regional bloc of Shiite power.

By Tim Arango, Ronen Bergman and  Ben Hubbard | Published Jan. 3, 2020 Updated 8:37 a.m. ET | New York Times | Posted January 3, 2020 |

He changed the shape of the Syrian civil war and tightened Iran’s grip on Iraq. He was behind hundreds of American deaths in Iraq and waves of militia attacks against Israel. And for two decades, his every move lit up the communications networks — and fed the obsessions — of intelligence operatives across the Middle East.

On Friday, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the powerful and shadowy 62-year-old spymaster at the head of Iran’s security machinery, was killed by an American drone strike near the Baghdad airport.

Just as his accomplishments shaped the creation of a Shiite axis of influence across the Middle East, with Iran at the center, his death is now likely to prove central to a new chapter of geopolitical tension across the region.

General Suleimani was at the vanguard of Iran’s revolutionary generation, joining the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in his early 20s after the 1979 uprising that enshrined the country’s Shiite theocracy.

He rose quickly during the brutal Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. And since 1998, he was the head of the Revolutionary Guards’ influential Quds Force, the foreign-facing arm of Iran’s security apparatus, melding intelligence work with a military strategy of nurturing proxy forces across the world.

In the West, he was seen as a clandestine force behind an Iranian campaign of international terrorism. He and other Iranian officials were  designated as terrorists by the United States and Israel in 2011, accused of a plot to kill the ambassador of Saudi Arabia, one of Iran’s chief enemies in the region, in Washington. Last year, in April, the entire Quds Force was listed as a foreign terrorism group by the Trump administration.

But in Iran, many saw him as a larger-than-life hero, particularly within security circles. Anecdotes about his asceticism and quiet charisma joined to create an image of a warrior-philosopher who became the backbone of a nation’s defense against a host of enemies.

He was close to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who on Friday issued a statement calling for three days of public mourning and “forceful revenge,” in a declaration that amounted to a threat of retaliation against the United States.

“His departure to God does not end his path or his mission,” he said.

The first years of General Suleimani’s tenure in the late 1990s were devoted to directing the militant group Hezbollah’s effort against the Israeli military occupation of south Lebanon. General Suleimani, along with Hezbollah’s military commander, Imad Mugniyah, drove a sophisticated campaign of guerrilla warfare, combining ambushes, roadside bombs, suicide bombers, targeted killings of senior Israeli officers and attacks on Israeli defense posts.

At the end, the price for Israel was too high, and in May 2000 it withdrew from Lebanon, marking a major victory for General Suleimani, his Quds Force and Hezbollah.

The Arab Spring in the Middle East, and later the fight against the Islamic State, turned General Suleimani from a shadow figure into a major player in the geopolitics of the region, said Tamir Pardo, a former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service.

“Suleimani’s professional life can be divided into two periods,” he said. “Until the Arab Spring, he is commander of a force that has branches in various parts of the world, active mainly in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, but at the end of the day is a secret operational organization whose main purpose is terrorism.”

“From the shock that befell the Middle East following the rise of ISIS, he is changing course,” Mr. Pardo continued. “He becomes a kingpin regional player, knowing with great talent how to exploit the secret infrastructure he has established for so many years, to achieve noncovert objectives — to fight, to win, to establish presence.”

In recent years, the man whose face had rarely been seen became the face of Iran’s foreign operations.

In Syria, he oversaw a massive operation to shore up the government of President Bashar al-Assad, whose own troops had been depleted by widespread defections and fierce fighting with rebels seeking to topple the government since 2011. His command of Arabic helped put local commanders at ease as he welded them into a support network for Mr. al-Assad.

Over a number of years, Iranian operatives guided by General Suleimani recruited militia fighters from countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, who were airlifted to Syria to back up Mr. Assad’s forces in key battles.

Many of these militia fighters received training at military bases in Iran or on the ground in Syria by operatives from Lebanon’s Hezbollah, an organization General Suleimani had helped develop over the years.

When Iranian and Iranian-backed forces became major combatants against ISIS after the group took over roughly a third of Iraq in 2014, pictures of General Suleimani, often photographed on the battlefield in fatigues, began being widely shared on social media. The publicity spawned rumors that General Suleimani was trying to widen his fame for a possible run for Iran’s presidency; he denied them, saying he always saw himself as just a soldier.

That conflict, from 2014 through 2017, was a rare instance of Iran and the United States nominally fighting on the same side. On a number of occasions, Americans were hitting Islamic State targets on the ground while General Suleimani was directing ground forces against the militants.

It was unclear what direct role General Suleimani played in Yemen. But Iran’s patronage of the country’s Houthi rebels, which intensified when Saudi Arabia intervened against them in Yemen’s war in 2015, had all the hallmarks of the Suleimani playbook: above all, to support local militants as a way of expanding Iranian influence and foil Saudi Arabia, the region’s Sunni power.

Iran had long offered similar support to the Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, creating decades of new security headaches for Israel. And with the support of the Quds Force, Hamas was able to take over the Gaza Strip, capable of firing rockets that can reach into most of Israeli territory.

Previous American administrations had resisted striking General Suleimani directly, either because of operational concerns or out of fear that killing him could destabilize the region further and lead to all-out war between the United States and Iran.

At least once, though, Israeli officials ran the possibility of attacking him up their command structure. That was in February 2008, while Israeli and American intelligence operatives were tracking Mr. Mugniyah, the Hezbollah commander, in the hopes of killing him, according to senior American and Israeli intelligence officials. Operatives spotted the Hezbollah commander talking with another man, who they quickly determined was Mr. Suleimani.

Excited by the possibility of killing two archenemies at once, the Israelis phoned senior government officials. But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied the request, as he had promised the Americans that only Mr. Mugniyah would be targeted in the operation.

Perhaps more than any other individual, General Suleimani was the foil for American plans in Iraq, which like Iran is predominantly Shiite.

After the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Iranian militiamen and their Iraqi allies fought a clandestine war against American troops, launching rockets at bases and attacking convoys. The militias also played a large part in inflaming sectarian tensions that led to Iraq’s sectarian civil war in 2006 and 2007 between Shiites and Sunnis, leading President George W. Bush to order a troop surge there.

General Suleimani and other leaders of his generation were shaped by the brutal war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, a conflict so cruel, with trench warfare and chemical weapons, that some compared it to the devastation of World War I. Nearly a million people died on both sides, and General Suleimani spent much of that war on the front lines.

For him and his fellow soldiers, the war was a “never again” moment. Ensuring that Iraq was weak and unable to again pose a threat to Iran became the primary goal of Iran’s policy toward Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, whom the United States supported during its war with Iran in the 1980s.

“For Qassim Suleimani, the Iran-Iraq war never really ended,” Ryan C. Crocker, a former American ambassador to Iraq, once said in an interview. “No human being could have come through such a World War I-style conflict and not have been forever affected. His strategic goal was an outright victory over Iraq, and if that was not possible, to create and influence a weak Iraq.”

Sometimes, American officials secretly communicated with General Suleimani in an effort to ease tensions in Iraq. In 2008, the American general, David Petraeus, was trying to find a truce in a fight that American forces and the Iraqi Army were waging against Shiite militias loyal to Iran. In Mr. Petraeus’s  telling of the story, he was shown a text message directed to him: “General Petraeus, you should know that I, Qassim Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Afghanistan.”

Years later, General Suleimani personally, and mockingly, addressed another American leader: President Trump, who in July 2018 warned Iran’s president not to threaten the United States.

“It is beneath the dignity of our president to respond to you,” General Suleimani declared in a speech in western Iran. “I, as a soldier, respond to you.”

“We are near you, where you can’t even imagine,” he added. “We are ready. We are the man of this arena.”

For years after the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran railed against what it saw as American aggression in the region, worried that the United States would turn its attention to regime change in Iran after Mr. Hussein was gone.

American officials have blamed Iran for killing hundreds of American soldiers during the war, many with sophisticated, shaped-charge bombs that could slice through American armored vehicles.

As the United States sought to negotiate a deal with Iraq that would allow American forces to stay in the country past a 2011 deadline, it was General Suleimani who relentlessly pushed Iraqi officials to refuse to sign, using a mixture of threats and the promise of more financial and military aid, American and Iraqi officials say.

On his orders, Iraqi construction crews in 2014 began building a roadway for Iranian supplies and militiamen, a small piece of what was perhaps the general’s most important project: establishing a land route from Tehran to the Mediterranean, across Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, where Iran has long supported Hezbollah, a primary threat to Israel.

One telling episode that illustrated the depth of Iranian control came in 2014, when the Islamic State was rampaging across Iraq. General Suleimani paid a visit to Bayan Jabr, then the country’s transportation minister.

According to a collection of Iranian intelligence cables published recently  by The Intercept and The New York Times, General Suleimani came to Mr. Jabr with a demand: He needed to use Iraqi airspace to fly planeloads of military supplies to support the Syrian government of Mr. Assad. Despite lobbying by the Obama administration to close Iraq’s airspace to the flights, Mr. Jabr quickly said yes.

“I put my hands on my eyes and said, ‘On my eyes! As you wish!’” Mr. Jabr told an Iranian Intelligence Ministry officer, according to one of the cables. “Then he got up and approached me and kissed my forehead.”

The same trove of documents contains evidence that General Suleimani is not universally admired within Iran.

A bitter rivalry between his Quds Force and the other main Iranian intelligence agency, the Ministry of Intelligence, played out over the course of the cables. Many criticized General Suleimani’s proxy campaign in Iraq, and the way his militia allies abused the Sunni population there, as weakening Iran’s long-term interests in the region.

“This policy of Iran in Iraq has allowed the Americans to return to Iraq with greater legitimacy,” one cable read.

In others, ministry case officers portrayed General Suleimani as a relentless self-promoter who used the battle against the Islamic State to bolster his potential political aspirations in the future.

Iran watchers sounded alarm that General Suleimani’s death would unleash unpredictable regional mayhem from Syria to Iraq that would be difficult for the United States to contain. Several Iranian diplomats said that the prospect of diplomacy with the United States, being quietly negotiated through Japan and France, was effectively dead. The talk was now of revenge, not negotiations, they said.

“This one life lost will likely cost many more Iranian, Iraqi, American and others,” said Ali Vaez, director of Iran program for International Crisis Group. “It is not just Suleimani’s death, but likely the death knell of the Iran nuclear deal and any prospect of diplomacy between Iran and the U.S.”

Qassim Suleimani was born in 1957 in Rabor, in eastern Iran, and later moved to the city of Kerman. He was the son of a farmer, and began laboring as a construction worker at age 12. His highest level of education was high school, and he later worked in the municipal water department in Kerman, according to a profile published by the Iranian state media.

According to a 2012 profile in The New Yorker, General Suleimani’s father became burdened with debt under the Shah. When the revolution came he was sympathetic to the cause, and joined the Revolutionary Guards soon after. He was married and had children, although there were conflicting stories in the Iranian news media about how many.

Within Iran, he was widely seen as exerting more influence over the country’s foreign policy than even the country’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif.

General Suleimani, in death if not in life, appeared to have united Iran’s rival political parties to rally behind the flag. Iran’s expansionist policies in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon have been contentious at home among ordinary Iranians and some reformist politicians who saw money and resources diverted from Iran to fund General Suleimani’s missions.

But on Friday, there was only praise and grief. Iranian officials across the political spectrum issued statements of condolences and condemned the United States.

The powerful Revolutionary Guards, of which the Quds Force is a component, said plans were underway for a huge public funeral.

“He was so big that he achieved his dream of being martyred by America,” wrote a reformist politician and former vice president, Mohammad Ali Abtahi.

General Suleimani had received the country’s highest military honor, the Order of Zolfaghar, established in 1856 under the Qajar dynasty. He became the only military commander to receive the honor in the Islamic Republic.

Ayatollah Khamenei pinned the medal on General Suleimani’s chest last February, and in remarks that now seem prophetic, said: “The Islamic Republic needs him for many more years. But I hope that in the end, he dies as a martyr.”

______

Tim Arango reported from Los Angeles; Ronen Bergman from Tel Aviv, Israel; and Ben Hubbard from Beirut. Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Washington, and Farnaz Fassihi from New York.

[howieabel]

Israel is enforcing apartheid in the West Bank, says former Mossad spy chief Tamir Pardo