Netanyahu and Dagan

On Sunday (January 9 2011), Yediot’s Itamar Eichner reported [emphasis mine; full translation here]:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is furious with outgoing Mossad Director Meir Dagan because of the briefing Dagan gave journalists last Thursday. In the course of that briefing, Dagan shared with the reporters the Mossad’s assessment that the Iranians would be unable to develop a nuclear bomb before 2015.

Yedioth Ahronoth has learned that Dagan’s statements infuriated Netanyahu, who advocates taking an aggressive approach vis-à-vis Iran. According to a high-ranking political official, Netanyahu reprimanded Dagan and said that his statements had undermined Israel’s efforts to fight against the Iranian nuclear program by means of the international community.

In an op-ed published on the same day, Sever Plocker, a senior editor at the paper, expresses wonder at the scant attention Dagan’s statement recieved [full translation and Hebrew original at the bottom of this post]:

One of the most historically important statements to have been made in the past ten years in the State of Israel made headlines in the Israeli media on Friday for a single day. It elicited a few reactions and a few brief analyses — and disappeared.

Plocker, hardly a knee-jerk leftist (see this recent critique of the Israeli left and the prospects for peace with the Palestinians, for example,) explains the drama [emphasis mine]:

Dagan, a suspicious super-cautious individual who routinely prefers to err on the side of pessimism…The Iranian nuclear threat died. It keeled over. Because, if the director of the State of Israel’s Mossad is prepared to risk saying that Iran won’t have even a single nuclear bomb “at least until 2015,” that means that Iran is not going to have a nuclear bomb. Period.

He also helps us understand Netanyahu’s is fury [emphasis mine]:

For more than a decade, Israel has been living under the thickening cloud of the Iranian nuclear bomb. The military, economic and even the social agendas in Israel have been directly influenced by it. The election of Netanyahu as prime minister (and Barak’s joining the coalition) were explained by the need to place at the head of the state and the security establishment people who would be capable of leading the people and the army in this decisive year in dealing with Iran. From time to time, in light of the foolish things that the two of them have done, public opinion was asked to be forgiving of them because of the weight of the Iranian threat that lay on their shoulders.

The op-ed ends with a call to move on:

Dagan’s statement about the lifting of the Iranian nuclear threat frees Israel from the clutches of a nightmare that we were either conscious of or not, but which cast a giant black shadow over all of us. Farewell, Iranian bomb. In your absence, the time has ripened to place other issues at the top of our agenda. And there is no lack of other issues.

Indeed, Israel’s diplomatic isolation and the rapid evaporation of what remains of its democracy would be a good place to start.

—-

The day there is no bomb

Op-ed, Sever Plocker, Yediot, January 9 2010 [Hebrew original here and at the bottom of this post]

One of the most historically important statements to have been made in the past ten years in the State of Israel made headlines in the Israeli media on Friday for a single day. It elicited a few reactions and a few brief analyses — and disappeared. The statement was ascribed to (and was not subsequently denied by) the outgoing Mossad director, Meir Dagan.

Dagan, a suspicious super-cautious individual who routinely prefers to err on the side of pessimism, was quoted as having said: “Iran will not have nuclear military capability at least until 2015.” The reason cited for this:  technical difficulties and malfunctions, which have stymied Tehran’s efforts to get its military nuclear program off the ground. For the sake of accuracy, and the Mossad relies on accuracy, the above-cited “technical difficulties and malfunctions” have already caused that initiative a few years’ worth of setbacks.

For more than a decade, Israel has been living under the thickening cloud of the Iranian nuclear bomb. The military, economic and even the social agendas in Israel have been directly influenced by it. The election of Netanyahu as prime minister (and Barak’s joining the coalition) were explained by the need to place at the head of the state and the security establishment people who would be capable of leading the people and the army in this decisive year in dealing with Iran. From time to time, in light of the foolish things that the two of them have done, public opinion was asked to be forgiving of them because of the weight of the Iranian threat that lay on their shoulders.

That was the case up until Friday, January 7, 2011. On that day, the world order was changed.  The Iranian nuclear threat died. It keeled over. Because, if the director of the State of Israel’s Mossad is prepared to risk saying that Iran won’t have even a single nuclear bomb “at least until 2015,” that means that Iran is not going to have a nuclear bomb. Period.

What happened? Only future generations will possibly know the answer to that. Until that happens, people are going to have to make do with legends. And the legends tell about unprecedented cooperation among the most secret branches of the most secret agencies in the world, with the goal of disrupting, delaying, sabotaging and destroying the Iranian nuclear program. The legends tell about nuclear scientists who either vanished or were disappeared, about raw materials that were either never delivered or were delivered contrary to the order placed, about electronic components and other pieces of equipment that fell apart at the critical moment of operation, about computer programs that were infected with lethal viruses and about the fear that has come to grip the entire nuclear community in the country called Iran.

That is what the legends tell. There are also facts. A symposium that was held last week in the Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv University hosted dozens of experts, all of whom spoke in a uniform tone of voice and had identical news for us: the sanctions that the world imposed on Iran in response to UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which was passed in the spring of 2010 — economic, political, military and cultural sanctions — have dramatically weakened the Iranian regime and, for all intents and purposes, have forced the Iranian state to its knees. As a result, the Iranian military nuclear program has become an unbearably heavy burden for the Iranian economy and society to bear: its cost exceeds its benefits many times over, particularly since the “technical mishaps” have annulled most of the benefits.

The participants at the symposium said they anticipated that Iran would try to pretend in the near future that it was in the possession of a nuclear weapon, which it would be prepared not to use in return for a hefty price: the removal of all the sanctions and the restoration of the Islamic Republic to the family of nations. But its threats are idle threats. The bag with the bomb is just an empty bag, and the bomb is just a drawing on a piece of paper. There is no reason for the world to cut a deal with Ahmadinejad. There is good reason for making a deal, a deal of give and take, with his successors.

Dagan’s statement about the lifting of the Iranian nuclear threat frees Israel from the clutches of a nightmare that we were either conscious of or not, but which cast a giant black shadow over all of us. Farewell, Iranian bomb. In your absence, the time has ripened to place other issues at the top of our agenda. And there is no lack of other issues.

—–

Netanyahu

As Israel’s diplomatic position erodes and the Palestinian Authority’s campaign for the unilateral recognition of a state in the 1967 borders gains ground, the demand for “direct negotiations” has become a central talking point of  Israeli government spokespeople. Here’s the latest example, from a January 2 Associated Press report:

He [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] said he was ready to sit with Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, for “continuous direct one-on-one negotiations until white smoke is wafting,” an allusion to the Vatican’s custom for announcing a new pope.

“If Abu Mazen agrees to my proposal of directly discussing all the core issues, we will know very quickly if we can reach an agreement,” he said.

This morning’s [January 3] Maariv questions the sincerity of this proposal [full translation at the bottom of this post]:

In the past weeks, Israeli representatives, including Netanyahu, have repeatedly rejected official documents that their Palestinian counterparts have tried to submit to them, with details of the Palestinian positions on all the core issues.  The Israeli representatives are completely unwilling to discuss, read or touch these documents, not to speak of submitting an equivalent Israeli document with the Israeli positions…This completely contradicts the Israeli position, according to which everything is open for negotiation, and Netanyahu is willing to talk about all the core issues and go into a room with Abu Mazen in order to come out of it with an arrangement.  If this is the case, there is no reason for the Israelis not to willingly accept a review of the Palestinian positions in order to present counter-papers that will make it possible to start bridging the gaps.

Of the examples cited by diplomatic affairs analyst Ben Caspit, one is unambiguously ”direct”:

in a meeting that was held between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Abu Mazen, in the prime minister’s official residence in Jerusalem.  It has now become apparent that in this meeting, Abu Mazen brought an official Palestinian document for Netanyahu, consisting of two printed pages, with the proposed Palestinian solution on the two issues that the sides were supposed to discuss at the first stage: Security arrangements and borders.  Netanyahu refused to read or discuss the document.  Abu Mazen is said to have left the document at the Prime Minister’s Residence (so that Netanyahu could read it later).

Another, more recent, incident reveals something of the motivation for the Israeli rejections [emphasis mine]:

in the latest meeting that was held between the two negotiators, Dr. Saeb Erekat from the Palestinian side and Attorney Yitzhak Molcho from the Israeli side.  The meeting was held in Washington a few weeks ago, in the presence of the American mediators.  During the meeting, Erekat surprised Molcho, took an official booklet out of his briefcase bearing the logo of the Palestinian Authority and tried to hand it to Molcho.  When the Israeli inquired as to the content of the booklet, Erekat said that this was, in effect, the detailed and updated Palestinian peace plan, with the detailed Palestinian positions on all the core issues.  Molcho refused to take the booklet or examine it.  According to sources who are informed about what took place there, he said to Erekat, and to the Americans, that he could not touch the Palestinian booklet, read it or take it, because as soon as he would do so, “the government will fall.”

—-

Rejectionist front

Ben Caspit, Maariv, January 3 2010 [front-page; Hebrew original here]

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced yesterday that he was willing to discuss all the core issues with Abu Mazen in closed meetings, and said that if he were to go into the room with the Palestinian leader he would sit down and discuss all the issues with him “until white smoke rises.”  Ma’ariv has found that in reality, the situation is the complete opposite: In the past weeks, Israeli representatives, including Netanyahu, have repeatedly rejected official documents that their Palestinian counterparts have tried to submit to them, with details of the Palestinian positions on all the core issues.  The Israeli representatives are completely unwilling to discuss, read or touch these documents, not to speak of submitting an equivalent Israeli document with the Israeli positions.

The most striking case took place in the latest meeting that was held between the two negotiators, Dr. Saeb Erekat from the Palestinian side and Attorney Yitzhak Molcho from the Israeli side.  The meeting was held in Washington a few weeks ago, in the presence of the American mediators.  During the meeting, Erekat surprised Molcho, took an official booklet out of his briefcase bearing the logo of the Palestinian Authority and tried to hand it to Molcho.  When the Israeli inquired as to the content of the booklet, Erekat said that this was, in effect, the detailed and updated Palestinian peace plan, with the detailed Palestinian positions on all the core issues.  Molcho refused to take the booklet or examine it.  According to sources who are informed about what took place there, he said to Erekat, and to the Americans, that he could not touch the Palestinian booklet, read it or take it, because as soon as he would do so, “the government will fall.”

The second case took place in a meeting that was held between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Abu Mazen, in the prime minister’s official residence in Jerusalem.  It has now become apparent that in this meeting, Abu Mazen brought an official Palestinian document for Netanyahu, consisting of two printed pages, with the proposed Palestinian solution on the two issues that the sides were supposed to discuss at the first stage: Security arrangements and borders.  Netanyahu refused to read or discuss the document.  Abu Mazen is said to have left the document at the Prime Minister’s Residence (so that Netanyahu could read it later).

The various Palestinian documents that are offered to the Israelis from time to time (there are additional examples besides those listed here), also include Palestinian consent to the presence of a “third party” in the Jordan Valley for a long period after the signing of the agreement.  The Palestinians intend to consent to an American or European military presence, or [a force belonging to] NATO or any other party that is acceptable to Israel, in order to guard the crossings, but as stated above, the Israeli side is completely unwilling to open these documents and discuss the issues.

This completely contradicts the Israeli position, according to which everything is open for negotiation, and Netanyahu is willing to talk about all the core issues and go into a room with Abu Mazen in order to come out of it with an arrangement.  If this is the case, there is no reason for the Israelis not to willingly accept a review of the Palestinian positions in order to present counter-papers that will make it possible to start bridging the gaps.  It appears that the statements made by Netanyahu and his associates are completely devoid of content, and what is closer to the truth is what was said by Yitzhak Molcho in the meeting with Erekat: “As soon as I touch this, the government will fall.”  Incidentally, both sides, Erekat and Molcho, agreed to deny the incident and erase it from the protocol if asked about it, but its existence was cross-checked with many sources.  MK Ahmed Tibi also hinted to this in statements he recently made on the Knesset podium.

The Prime Minister’s Bureau stated: “The report is incorrect.”

David Remnick

On December 24 2010, Yediot’s Friday Political Supplement ran an interview with New Yorker editor David Remnick by Adi Gold. Most of the interview was dedicated to his new biography of Barack Obama. Gold did ask a political question on Israel and Reminck’s response was very blunt. Note that this is a reverse translation (Hebrew original of section here.)

Do you see a certain change in the US Jewish community?

“A new generation of Jews is growing up in the US. Their relationship with Israel is becoming less patient and more problematic. They see what has happened with the Rabbinical Letter [proscribing rental and sale of property to Arabs -- DR], for example. How long can you expect that they’ll love unconditionally the place called Israel [sic]? You’ve got a problem. You have the status of an occupier since 1967. It’s been happening for so long that even people like me, who understand  that not only one side is responsible for the conflict and that the Palestinians missed an historic opportunity for peace in 2000, can’t take it anymore.

“The US administration is trying out of good will to get a peace process moving and in return Israel lays out conditions like the release Jonathan Pollard. Sorry, it can’t go on this way. The  Jewish community is not just a nice breakfast at the Regency. You think it’s bad that a US President is trying to make an effort to promote peace? That’s what’s hurting your feelings? Give me a break, you’ve got bigger problems. A shopping list in exchange for a two month moratorium on settlement construction? Jesus [sic].”

If you read nothing else, take the time to look over the first to pages of the introduction for a simple and honest analysis of how the IDF degenerated into a tool of dispossession. Here’s its core:

From the descriptions given by the soldiers, one comes to grasp the logic of Israeli operations overall. The testimonies leave no room for doubt: while it is true that the Israeli security apparatus has had to deal with concrete threats in the past decade, including terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens, Israeli operations are not solely defensive. Rather, they systematically lead to the de facto annexation of large sections of the West Bank to Israel through the dispossession of Palestinian residents. The widespread notion in Israeli society that the control of the Territories is intended exclusively to protect the security of Israeli citizens is incompatible with the information conveyed by hundreds of IDF soldiers.

The Israeli security forces and governmental bodies make consistent reference in the media and in internal discussions and military briefings to four components of Israeli policy in the Territories: ‘preventing terrorism’ or ‘prevention of hostile terrorist activity’ (sikkul); ‘separation’, i. e., Israel’s “separating itself” from the Palestinian population (hafradah); the need to preserve Palestinian ‘fabric of life’ (mirkam hayyim); and ‘law enforcement’ (akhifat hok) in the Territories. But the terms that Israeli security forces apply to various components of Israeli policy in the Territories present a partial, often distorted, description of the policy and its consequences. These terms, once descriptive, quickly become code-words for activities that are unrelated to their original meaning. This book describes the Israeli policies in the Territories which the State of Israel’s institutions do not disclose. The men and women soldiers whose testimonies appear in this book are an especially reliable source of information: they are not merely witnesses to Israeli policy; they have been entrusted with the task of carrying it out, and are — explicitly or implicitly — asked to conceal it as well.

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat decides to hold the first Jerusalem International Marathon in March 2011. He gets Adidas to sponsor the event. An Israeli runner registers and then discovers that the route runs through some of the most egregious examples of discrimination and dispossession in East Jerusalem: Sheikh Jarrah, Issawiya, the Shufat Refugee Camp, Jabel Mukaber and Sur Baher (see map on right.)

He approaches the Meretz representatives on the Jerusalem city council and they, with international human rights organizations, approach Adidas. Adidas smells a possible consumer boycott and gets cold feet. The company demands “clarifications” from the Jerusalem municipality. What does that mean? Time (and persistence) will tell.

—-

Adidas considers withdrawing sponsorship of Jerusalem marathon

Yosi Eli, Maariv, December 10 2010 [Hebrew original here and at the bottom of this post]

The sports giant Adidas, which is sponsoring the Jerusalem International Marathon, requested clarifications from the Jerusalem Municipality about the manner in which the event would be conducted [sic]. Sources in the company [say they] are even considering withdrawing the sponsorship because of fears of a consumer boycott, after it became clear that the route also runs through neighborhoods beyond the Green Line.

The company’s communication with the Jerusalem Municipality follows a series of protests it received from human rights organizations across the world, demanding that the company cancel its sponsorship of the marathon, which is scheduled for March 2011.

The calls for a boycott came after a left-wing activist, who will be participating in the marathon, complained to the Meretz faction in Jerusalem. He said that it was not proper that the route run through neighborhoods beyond the Green Line. Among other things, the organizations are threating to start a consumer boycott of it does not withdraw its support of the race.

In their letter to the Mayor Nir Barkat, which was communicated with the help of the Meretz faction in the Jerusalem City Council, headed by Councillor Pepe Alalou and Dr. Meir Margalit, the [company's] managers clarification over the planned route. A source in the Jerusalem Municipality said that following the approaches to the company, some of the Adidas management and its board, requested explicit clarifications regarding the event, which will be held for the first time in Jerusalem.

—-

Dimona nuclear reactor Dome

Like most of the world, Israel is facing a major energy crisis. Our population is growing and per-capita energy consumption is on the rise.

Nuclear energy is emerging as the solution favored by the government, as reported in a December 8 2010 Maariv feature [full translation at the bottom of this post]:

Israel’s efforts to build a nuclear power plant are the result of a report prepared by a large international energy company, which was submitted to the Infrastructure Ministry.  The report states that a nuclear plant is the best solution, given the energy situation in Israel — both in economic terms and in terms of ensuring Israel’s energy supply.

According to the report, Israel is not capable of carrying out such a project on its own — and therefore it would have to purchase a reactor as an “off-the-shelf product” from one of the prominent manufacturers in the market, such as the French company AREVA or the American company Westinghouse.

But there’s a snag.

Until now, Israel has encountered strong opposition by the world — mainly on the part of the United States — to manufacturing electricity from a nuclear plant in Israel, since it is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Our leaders, however, always have a “creative solution” (most Israelis would call it a “combina”) up their sleeves.

However, the Infrastructure Ministry, with the support of the prime minister, is examining a creative possibility for circumventing the international opposition: To declare the site of the power plant that will be built as an ex-territorial area to the State of Israel.  This means that a foreign company, French or American, will build the reactor and also own the land upon which it is located.  Senior Infrastructure Ministry officials say that this means that the land will not be under Israeli sovereignty, and it will be possible to bypass the obstacle in this manner.

What if the Americans don’t share our enthusiasm for the “combina”? One of our leading scientists thinks that threatening them with suicide will yield acquiescence:

Another problem discussed [at a recent conference] is the unwillingness of countries to sell Israel off-the-shelf reactors. Professor [Arie] Dubi [of the Department of Nuclear Engineering at Ben Gurion University] offered a solution: “Israel should publish a tender, oriented towards the Russians and Chinese, for purchase of the knowledge necessary to plan and build a nuclear reactor. Then the Americans will run after us — because the Russian and Chinese reactors are less safe.”

—-

Foreign nuclear plant may be built in Israel is em

Ronit Morgenstern, Maariv, December 8 2010 [Hebrew original here]

Has the Israeli government found a creative way to build a nuclear power plant?  Until now, Israel has encountered strong opposition by the world — mainly on the part of the United States — to manufacturing electricity from a nuclear plant in Israel, since it is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

However, the Infrastructure Ministry, with the support of the prime minister, is examining a creative possibility for circumventing the international opposition: To declare the site of the power plant that will be built as an ex-territorial area to the State of Israel.  This means that a foreign company, French or American, will build the reactor and also own the land upon which it is located.  Senior Infrastructure Ministry officials say that this means that the land will not be under Israeli sovereignty, and it will be possible to bypass the obstacle in this manner.

Israel’s efforts to build a nuclear power plant are the result of a report prepared by a large international energy company, which was submitted to the Infrastructure Ministry.  The report states that a nuclear plant is the best solution, given the energy situation in Israel — both in economic terms and in terms of ensuring Israel’s energy supply.

According to the report, Israel is not capable of carrying out such a project on its own — and therefore it would have to purchase a reactor as an “off-the-shelf product” from one of the prominent manufacturers in the market, such as the French company AREVA or the American company Westinghouse.

The Infrastructure Ministry and Israel Electric Corporation are already preparing to build a nuclear power plant: The Israel Atomic Energy Commission is currently conducting, together with the Infrastructure Ministry, a joint feasibility study for building nuclear reactors for producing electricity in Israel.  The results of the study are due to be published at the start of 2011, and will address all the aspects related to nuclear power plants: Safety, economic profitability, new technologies in the field and geopolitical aspects.

Besides the option of building the plant as an ex-territorial entity, the possibility has arisen of building a nuclear power plant in the Indian format — in other words, without signing the NPT.  India is not a signatory of the NPT, and has conducted a public nuclear test, but it enables international supervision of its civilian nuclear facilities.  The Israel Atomic Energy Commission has announced that it would enable supervision of such a power plant by international agencies, and the prime minister discussed such a possibility with US President Barack Obama.

There have been plans to build a nuclear power plant in Israel since the 1960s.  The state has reserved a special site for this purpose in the Shivta area in the Negev.  This site is supposed to have a power plant that will supply about 1,200 megawatts, which are about 10% of Israel’s current electricity production capacity.

The next generation of reactors

However, Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau has said in the past that his ministry intends to build small reactors of about 200 megawatts.  These are reactors from the next generation, which produce a small quantity of nuclear waste that can be controlled.  “In the long term, there will be no choice but to manufacture electricity from nuclear energy, because renewable energies (solar, wind and the like — RM) will never be able to provide more than one third of Israel’s electricity,” the minister said.

For the sake of comparison, in France — about 75% of the electricity production comes from nuclear reactors, in Lithuania — 73% and in Belgium — 54%.  The Chinese currently have about 30 nuclear reactors and over 200 more are planned.  In Europe as a whole, about one third of the electricity is produced by nuclear reactors.

According to a study conducted by the Israel Electric Corporation, which was presented at the conference of the Society of Electrical and Electronic Engineers in Israel, there is a need for 20 million cubic meters of water per year to cool the nuclear reactor that will be built in Shivta.  However, no problem is expected with the water supply, since there is a saline water reservoir in the area, and the Shafdan purification plant—which has a reservoir of 140 million cubic meters from recycling waste water — can supply water to the area.

Several months ago, the Israel Electric Corporation and the Israel Atomic Energy Commission agreed on a joint working plan.  The goal of the plan is to preserve and promote the knowledge and the ability accumulated until now in the nuclear plant field, and for it to serve as a basis for receiving, purchasing and operating a future nuclear power plant in Israel.

In addition to the testing and research conducted by these bodies, part of the infrastructure preparation for the establishment of a nuclear reactor in Israel will include cooperation with the Israeli academe to open a BA program in electrical engineering specializing in nuclear engineering. On the other hand, Ben Gurion University is closing its nuclear engineering department next year.

“Bollocks”

Professor Arie Dubi of the Department of Nuclear Engineering at Ben Gurion University said at the conference of the Electrical and Electronic Engineers Union that “the amount of fuel in the world is in decline — 200 hundred years of oil, coal and gas will be finished within 50 years.” He added that the only [alternative] energy that is technologically mature, dependable, and available is nuclear energy. “The Greens’ idea — that we eat bananas and climb trees — is bollocks,” Dubi attacked. “They still drive cars and use electricity at home.”

Dr. Leib Reznick of the the Israel Electric Company said at the conference that “Instead of millions of tons of coal or billions of cubic meters of natural gas, one truck is enough to produce 1,ooo megawatts of [nuclear generated] electricity. Jordan is building a nuclear reactor, Turkey has four and Egypt is also planning one.”

Yitzhak Gurvitz of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission added that “we shouldn’t be frightened of nuclear energy.” He said that one of the problems is fiscal: “We’re talking about billions of dollars to build reactors that will generate a few thousand megawatts of electricity.” The Infrastructure Ministry is now trying to solve an additional problem that Gurvitz pointed to — the fact that Israel isn’t a signatory to the NPT.

Dr. Ilan Yaar of the Negev Nuclear Research Center in Dimona suggested at the conference that Israel buy a off-the-shelf reactor “that has already been approved and is, therefore, safe.” He said that that the current problem is political, but can be solved through through an ex-territorial zone or a joint Israeli-Jordanian reactor. “The condition for both these solutions is serious progress towards a peace agreement,” said Yaar.

Another problem discussed is the unwillingness of countries to sell Israel off-the-shelf reactors. Professor Dubi offered a solution: “Israel should publish a tender, oriented towards the Russians and Chinese, for purchase of the knowledge necessary to plan and build a nuclear reactor. The the Americans will run after us — because the Russian and Chinese reactors are less safe.”

Rabbis’ disgrace

Analysis, Boaz Okon, Yediot, December 8 2010 [front-page; Hebrew original here and at the bottom of this post]

Okon

In 1834, a clothes salesman in London refused to sell an article of clothing to a customer.  The refusal stemmed from the fact that the buyer was “just a Jew.”The Jewish buyer sued the salesman, but the court in the Timothy case supported the salesman.  It was not a just trial, but the judge employed a sacred principle, the freedom of contracts, according to which a person can choose with whom he wants to enter into a contract and whom he does not.  This sanctity was a disgrace and a refuge for ugly prejudice.  The court’s non-intervention only supplied ammunition to the strong and violent versus the human and the weak, and the usual outcome of giving “freedom to wolves,” as Prof. Isaiah Berlin put it, is “death for sheep.”  Since then, the sanctity of the freedom of contracts has been made subject to the demand of good faith.  It can no longer serve as a refuge for racists.  In the Israeli ruling in the case of Naamne vs. Kibbutz Kalia, Judge Miriam Mizrahi ruled that one cannot rely on freedom of contracts to prevent Arabs from entering a water park.

Now Jewish clerics are using a different sanctity, the sanctity of the Torah, to cover their racist shame.  They will find that the sanctity cannot legitimize the ugliness.  Their prejudice will also be consigned to the dustbin of history, along with the ridiculous ritual that surrounds it.

The infamous Nuremberg Laws forbade, in 1935, mixed marriages between Jews and Germans, and barred Jews from employing German maids (under age 45) and laborers.  This prohibition was intended to portray the Jews as a kind of pest, not quite human.  They became a persecuted bloc on the basis of generalizations and slander.  Gideon Hausner, the prosecutor at the Eichmann trial, would later say that in Israel, “we do not make ethnic distinctions.”  But here, rabbis, who receive their pay from the state coffers, forbid people to rent apartments to Gentiles, to Arabs, because it “causes evil and makes the public commit the sin of intermarriage,” and because they have among them “enemies and people who persecute us to the point of endangering lives.”

The racism does not start with the rabbis.  Discrimination is everywhere, in almost every neighborhood.  For this very reason, we must not stand by when people try to turn it into ideology.  In 2004, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel sought to rein in inciting rabbis by instituting disciplinary proceedings against them based on the Jewish religious services law, which forbids a rabbi to behave “in a manner unbecoming the standing of a rabbi in Israel.”  Nothing was done.  The feeble response only increased the rabbis’ impudence.  And so it happens that rabbis can excel in quoting Biblical verses but still have the morals of gang leaders.  If they cannot be prevented from holding benighted opinions, they can be prevented from receiving a salary from the state, a salary that is also funded by taxes paid by Arabs.  The criminal code states explicitly that “anyone who publishes something with the aim of racist incitement is subject to five years of imprisonment.”  Racism is defined there as “persecution, humiliation, shaming… or inciting antagonism towards… parts of the population… due to affiliation with a particular race or national-ethnic origin.”  The silence of the law enforcement agencies towards displays of racism is not a sign of liberalism or tolerance.  It is a sign of weakness.  If this law is not implemented, darkness will prevail in which we will not be able to distinguish rabbi from charlatan, angel from demon.  In practice, this could mark the end of the rule of law.

The scenario that the security establishment is preparing for is threatening. The scenario envisions the security prisoners launching a hunger strike, setting fire to their cells, trying attack the guards, severing all contact with the prison authorities, refusing all visits by the Red Cross and family members, while their relatives will demonstrate outside the prisons and will enlist Israeli Arabs to the cause as well.

Israeli security officials said that the Palestinian Authority is behind the planned prisoners’ strike, which is expected to include a hunger strike and rioting in the larger prisons in Israel—similar to the strike that was held in the prisons in 2004, when the security prisoners rioted for 18 days. Israeli officials said they anticipated that the signal to launch the strike would be given in the course of the next number of weeks.

The assessment is that the Palestinian Authority will also launch a parallel “soft attack” that will involve the enlistment of Arab and other international media stations, as well as taking legal action to help shore up the prisoners’ struggle.

It will be interesting to see if the “legal actions” will tackle a major issue that has largely remained under the radar:  the 10,000 or so Palestinian prisoners are held in Israel in direct breach of international law.

On March 25, 2009, Yesh Din along with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual filed a petition to the High Court of Justice demanding that prisoners and detainees who reside in the West Bank not be held in facilities within Israel, and that arraignment hearings for such detainees also not be held in courts outside the West Bank.

The petition argues that holding Palestinian detainees in facilities located within Israel, a practice employed by Israeli authorities since 1967, violates Geneva Convention norms and infringes on detainees’ and prisoners’ right to due process, right to counsel, as well as visitation rights, as their lawyers and families are unable to meet with them.

In March 2010, following a hearing, the HCJ rejected the petition, stating that this issue was discussed and decided upon in a previous ruling. In that ruling, the HCJ refused to apply the International Humanitarian Law on this issue – and accepted the Israeli government’s position on the matter. [More here]

—-

Palestinians planning prisoners strike

Alex Fishman, Yediot, December 2 2010 [Hebrew original here and at the bottom of this post]

The security establishment is bracing for the possibility that the Palestinian security prisoners who are incarcerated in Israel will launch a general strike, which is being planned by the Palestinian Authority.

The scenario that the security establishment is preparing for is threatening. The scenario envisions the security prisoners launching a hunger strike, setting fire to their cells, trying attack the guards, severing all contact with the prison authorities, refusing all visits by the Red Cross and family members, while their relatives will demonstrate outside the prisons and will enlist Israeli Arabs to the cause as well.

Israeli security officials said that the Palestinian Authority is behind the planned prisoners’ strike, which is expected to include a hunger strike and rioting in the larger prisons in Israel—similar to the strike that was held in the prisons in 2004, when the security prisoners rioted for 18 days. Israeli officials said they anticipated that the signal to launch the strike would be given in the course of the next number of weeks.

The assessment is that the Palestinian Authority will also launch a parallel “soft attack” that will involve the enlistment of Arab and other international media stations, as well as taking legal action to help shore up the prisoners’ struggle.

Israeli officials have taken into account the possibility that the prisoners will try to have footage and reports air from within the prisons. Alongside coverage of the riots by the media, a team of lawyers working on behalf of the Palestinian Authority will lodge complaints against Israel. The complaints, which are likely to be lodged across the world and also in Jerusalem, will focus on Israel’s treatment of the prisoners during the riots and in the period leading up to them. Meanwhile, officials from the Palestinian Authority are planning on holding international conferences about the security prisoners in the coming month in Algeria and Geneva. The title of those conferences is going to be: “Israel does not honor international law.”

The assumption is that the prisoners’ strike will not only serve Palestinian public relations against Israel, but will also be an answer to the intra-Palestinian conflicts. This campaign is geared to be the PA’s answer to Hamas’s propaganda as if the Palestinian Authority is indifferent to the fate of the prisoners, as opposed to Hamas, which has been driving a hard bargain in exchange for the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

While the Palestinian Authority is nominally to be behind the strike, which is being organized by Issa Karaka, the Palestinian minister for prisoner affairs, Israeli security officials say that that is merely the fig leaf. They said that the strike is being pushed by extremists who want to heat up the conflict with Israel.

All of the plans and organizational work being done notwithstanding, it seems that the security prisoners themselves are a bit less enthusiastic about staging a strike. Many of them believe that a strike should be saved for when Israel takes away their privileges, against the backdrop of legislative efforts to worsen the incarceration conditions of the Palestinian security prisoners in what is known as the “Shalit bill.” They believe that that will provide them with a good pretext for clashing violently with the prison authorities.

A spokesman for the Prisons Service said in response to a question about possible Prisons Service preparations in anticipation of a prisoners’ strike: “The Prisons Service will not discuss that issue.”

—-

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Security in the Defense Ministry Amir Kain signed the historic agreement for security cooperation between the two countries a few days ago.  Brazil’s intelligence affairs minister signed the agreement on the Brazilian side.  Israeli sources report that “the defense industries will make a massive effort to enter the Brazilian market following the agreement.”

Yet it received little publicity and the source of for the article appears to be Israel Aerospace Industries. Perhaps this passage hints at the reason:

Due to the high sensitivity of Brazil, some of whose allies are countries such as Turkey, Iran and Syria, which are considered states that are in confrontation with Israel or enemy states — Brazil demanded that in case of any differences of opinion, Israel would not turn to an arbitrator or third party state in order to resolve disputes that might arise.  In the agreement, it was determined that the chief of security in the Defense Ministry and his Brazilian counterpart would be responsible for resolving such disputes.

—-

Exclusive: Defense industries take Brazil

Eli Bardenstein, Maariv, December 1 2010 [Hebrew original here]

A market valued at billions of dollars has opened up to the defense industries, after a first agreement of its kind was signed for cooperation between Israel and Brazil.  There are already several giant deals on the table between Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit and Rafael with Brazil.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Security in the Defense Ministry Amir Kain signed the historic agreement for security cooperation between the two countries a few days ago.  Brazil’s intelligence affairs minister signed the agreement on the Brazilian side.  Israeli sources report that “the defense industries will make a massive effort to enter the Brazilian market following the agreement.”

The first deal is expected to be made with IAI.  It consists of supplying many UAV systems to the Brazilian police, as well as ground radar systems, electronic fences, optical equipment, sensors, unmanned vehicles and satellite technology, which are included in Brazil’s demands under the heading “homeland security products.”  The Brazilian federal police chose UAVs made by IAI after examining American UAVs as well.

In addition, IAI will open a joint factory in Brazil for manufacturing UAVs.

The deal is in advanced stages of approval in the bodies responsible for security exports in the Defense Ministry.  The discussions held between the two countries indicate that Brazil needs these technologies mainly in order to secure the Soccer World Cup that will be held there in 2014, as well as the Olympics in 2016.  In addition, Brazil is coping with widespread phenomena of guerrilla groups and smuggling.

IAI CEO Yitzhak Nisan visited Brazil several times over the past year and a half and signed cooperation agreements with a number of Brazilian industrial companies with the aim of promoting IAI exports to Brazil.

Nisan welcomed the signing of the cooperation agreement between the two countries and that he “foresees a large business potential for the IAI in Brazil, with the UAV issue being only the first step, which will be followed by other products.”

This is a framework agreement of strategic importance for both countries, which took several months of negotiations before it was signed.  The agreement will enable the Israeli defense industries to execute arms deals with Brazil in the amount of billions of dollars, with an emphasis on advanced technologies.

Without the agreement, which is similar to agreements that Israel has signed with other countries, it would not be possible to carry out the deals, which are at a high level of security classification.

Due to the high sensitivity of Brazil, some of whose allies are countries such as Turkey, Iran and Syria, which are considered states that are in confrontation with Israel or enemy states — Brazil demanded that in case of any differences of opinion, Israel would not turn to an arbitrator or third party state in order to resolve disputes that might arise.  In the agreement, it was determined that the chief of security in the Defense Ministry and his Brazilian counterpart would be responsible for resolving such disputes.

Brazilian Ambassador to Israel revealed the existence of the agreement in a speech she recently gave at a conference in Tel Aviv University, when she said that this was a very important agreement for Brazil.

Defense Ministry officials refused to comment on the report.

Bibi and "the Boss"

Last night, Channel Ten TV News’s Raviv Drucker exposed a letter written to Benyamin Netanyahu in early 2009. The author, one Yisrael Yagel, a former executive in Netanyahu’s 2008 election campaign, penned an indictment of the Prime Minister’s management style, with particular emphasis on the role and influence of Ms. Netanyahu (“the Boss”).

This morning, Maariv also ran the letter, but as the first of a three-part series, with follow-ups from mid-2009 and early 2010. Ben Caspit, Maariv’s senior political columnist who has been a brutal critic of the Prime Minister’s Bureau, explains:

I have been in possession of these letters for more than a year. It was not Yagel who gave them to me. But it was Yagel who urged me not to publish them. After I got to know him, I made a very unreporterly-like decision and acceded to his request. I tried repeatedly to describe in this newspaper the dangers of the prime minister’s behavior. The weakness of his working environment. And most importantly: the degree to which the prime minister’s wife was involved in making most of the decisions, small and big, the power she wields, the terrible fear he has of her, the fact that some of the prime minister’s employees, who are actually our employees, are really her employees and are subordinate only to her will.

Below are translations of the letters as published in Maariv, the response provided by the Prime Minister’s Bureau and Caspit’s (separate) commentary. There’s a lot of “insider baseball”, but a lay reader will still get a sense of the Byzantine politics surrounding Israel’s helm. Here, for example, is a passage from the first letter:

“The matter reached an extreme level, which let a red light, a few days ago, in the debates on how the campaign should be run during the war in the south of the country [Cast Lead]. In a phone conversation, it appears (I only heard him) that Natan Eshel [a confidante of Ms. Netanyahu who was later appointed Netanyahu's first Bureau Chief] unsuccessfully tried to persuade you to ramp-up the campaign. At the end of the call Natan told Yisrael Bachar (I was also in the room) that  ’he (meaning you) doesn’t yet know that the campaign will change, because I’ve already settled the matter with the Boss (meaning Mrs. Netanyahu.’ So the process is run by an outsider (Natan) who operates you (through Mrs. Netanyahu) like a puppet??? This is the point I decided not to remain silent!!! Even if what Mr. Natan Eshel said was tinged with bluster, it reflects an extremely problematic situation.”

—-

The letters

A view from within

Ben Caspit, Maariv, November 30 2010

Titled “Because a country needs to be run,” Yisrael Yagel wrote a series of letters to the prime minister, in which he cited his impressions of the performance of Netanyahu’s inner circle, which he witnessed in the course of the 2009 election campaign, of which he was an integral part.

Yisrael Yagel is a former high-tech businessman, who worked as a volunteer for the Netanyahu campaign because he identifies with the right wing ideology, and since his good friend, Eli Ayalon, was the campaign manager. Yagel wrote his first letter to Netanyahu after a month on the campaign. After he failed to receive an answer, he wrote another two letters. “All of the people surrounding you point to your wife as the final approval-giver,” wrote Yagel, and added that Mrs. Netanyahu was referred to by the members of the campaign team as “the boss.” Following are the principal points that Yagel made in his letters. It is important to note that not all of the excerpts are transcribed here in full, word for word.

Letter from June 15, 2009

“Because a country needs to be run”

“Mr. Prime Minister, my first letter to you has not received any response. After the elections I came see that no change had been made to your close working environment… since this is an issue of mortal importance, I was forced to take action… I turned to two of your confidants, Minister Yaakov Neeman and your economic adviser Uri Yogev. I sent detailed letters to both of them and appended my letter to you. I met for a long conversation with both Neeman and Yogev about the issue that troubled me and continues to trouble me up to this very day. Regrettably, I was not encouraged by my meetings with them. I do not normally quote third parties, but it  became evident to me that they were keenly and closely familiar with your weaknesses and the restrictions you are subject to from your family. Both of them underscored to me that the situation was more difficult and grave than I had described. In the first letter that I sent to you, I thought that the issue was critical to the proper functioning of the prime minister, that your inability to form a committed team was mortally important… pandemonium reigns about you.”

Yagel cited a list of flaws that he had witnessed up until that point: “The time it took you to man the position of the Prime Minister’s Office director general. What, didn’t you know that you were going to need a director general? Didn’t you have time to prepare?”

He also cited “Modi Zandberg’s hasty entry and exit from the post of cabinet secretary,” the preparations for Netanyahu’s first visit to the United States, the alarmed summons of Dov Weissglas, the drafting of the state budget and the cancellation of Naftali Bennett’s appointment as Moshe Yaalon’s staff director by the prime minister’s wife, executed by Natan Eshel.

Yagel wrote: “your job, Mr. Prime Minister, is the most critical, and the period at hand is critical as well. You need a quiet, professional, independent environment, a qualified office manager, and there are quite a few people in the State of Israel who meet those criteria and would be prepared to accede to your call… I cannot remain silent further, you must make a change in your surrounding… before you are difficult and complex questions [that pertain to] the continued existence of the Jewish people… and yet you are unable to make a far simpler decision… up until now you have not shown leadership or courage… this is of mortal importance…”

Letter from January 20, 2010

Regarding: Who needs to run the country — letter of continuation

[Yagel begins with the first passage of a humbling prayer recited by the prayer leader of Yom Kippur services as a prelude to prayer on behalf of others. Hebrew text here.]

“My name is Yisrael Yagel, I worked as a volunteer in the administration of your campaign in the last elections. After three weeks of intensive work on the team I wrote to you in the blood of my heart a letter about your behavior… I received no answer. Regrettably, no change has occurred in your behavior and the behavior of your surroundings. Out of a sense ofcommitment I continued to work hard and devotedly until the election campaign was over. Afterwards, it became evident that even once you were given the helm of the country you did not change your behavior, your surroundings did not change and the disturbances continued…”

Yagel describes his approaches to Yaakov Neeman and Uri Yogev, says that he presented to them the earlier letters and the materials he had collected since he wrote them, and repeats the assertion that the two told him that they were well aware of the issue, that they were worried at least as much as he was, and that the reality was even worse than the way it was described by Yagel.

Yagel writes that a few more months passed and “after the intervention of Natan Eshel, your Bureau Chief acting on behalf of your spouse, in preventing the appointmnet of Naftali Bennet as the Chief of Staff to Minister Bugi Yaalon, I couldn’t remain silent any longer and approached you on June 15 2009 with another, second, letter. This letter also did not recieve a response and I’m not completely certain you actually saw it, but I kept my promise from the first letter not to breach the trust I received from Eli Ayalon and, indirectly, from you. (I’m not naive, in political life a promise is intended to solve a local problem, with no real intent to keep it. I [however] behave differently.) But this week things have reached a new low, and I cannot remain silent any longer.

“I’m not talking about the Nanny Affair, that’s really a subsidiary issue. (I was astonished, for example, by the way Roni Rimon described Mrs. Netanyahu in a radio interview, but I remember well how he spoke about her during the [election] campaign and [am aware] of how low your sycophants can sink.) It was writing by commentators criticizing the silence of journalists regarding the way your Bureau is run and the involvement of your wife that awoke me from my slumber.”

“I have held a number of conversations in the past number of days with people in your immediate surroundings from the past and present, and the picture painted is not good, to understate matters… it is important to note that the truth, and only the truth, is what has motivated me. I wish to inform you that I am releasing myself from my commitment to keep this information to myself. I think that you ought to be the first to know that.”

“As noted, I have no desire to replace a prime minister who was democratically elected. Today too I think that you are the person best suited for the job, given our familiarity with the others. But I think that there is urgent need to do what is necessary so that your work environment should be the best and the best-suited and without noise, and I am prepared to do everything necessary so that happens… to continue to remain silent is not an option for me…I implore you please do what is necessary (I am confident that you know what is necessary) What is necessary here is great leadership as well as personal and public courage. When we elected you, we were convinced that you had those qualities. Were we wrong?”

Letter from January 1, 2009

The first letter that Yagel wrote to Netanyahu was published last night by Raviv Drucker on Channel Ten TV News:

“You aren’t a manager! Any financial organization that operated the away the meetings I attended were run or the way you try to run your staff and in practice create chaos, would go bankrupt within a short amount of time. Not only are you no manager. Your conduct doesn’t let the managers you appointed do their job.”

Further down, Yagel sharply criticizes the people surrounding Netanyahu: “There is now team spirit in the group that surrounds you. There is no shared goal motivating the people. Everyone manages his own (personal?) affairs. The sword of one is in the back of the other (literally.) The amount of time and energy devoted to [internecine] struggles is completely out of proportion. I’m anxious at the thought that in two months time that’s how the affairs of state will be run.”

Yagel also described his first meeting with Netanyahu: “Our first meeting took place when you visited the election campaign headquarters while it was under construction. You paced the corridors with an earpiece and with Shalom Shlomo (the political adviser) running after you, and talke to various people on your cell phone regarding primaries-related issues that a leader is not supposed to deal with.”

Perhaps the most incisive criticism was directed at Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister’s wife, and the manner in which she handles his affairs for him. “I would not be telling you anything you don’t know  if I were to tell you that the decisions that were made by the professionals you chose and which you approved were changed diametrically after your aide, Natan Eshel, called someone (when all the people around you point to your wife as the final approval-giver), something that casts you in a ridiculous light before the professionals you chose. The ridicule grew when we approached Bill, the American consultant, on the issue, and following a talk with him, you changed your decision again, after less than two hours.”

The last and most significant section of the letter: “The matter reached an extreme level, which let a red light, a few days ago, in the debates on how the campaign should be run during the war in the south of the country [Cast Lead]. In a phone conversation, it appears (I only heard him) that Natan Eshel unsuccessfully tried to persuade you to ramp-up the campaign. At the end of the call Natan told Yisrael Bachar (I was also in the room) that  ’he (meaning you) doesn’t yet know that the campaign will change, because I’ve already settled the matter with the Boss (meaning Mrs. Netanyahu.’ So the process is run by an outsider (Natan) who operates you (through Mrs. Netanyahu) like a puppet??? This is the point I decided not to remain silent!!! Even if what Mr. Natan Eshel said was tinged with bluster, it reflects an extremely problematic situation.”

—-

Response from the Prime Minister’s Bureau

Prime Minister’s Bureau reacts

Maariv, November 30 2010

The prime minister’s media advisors respond: “The claims in the letter are lies. We are speaking about a person who served in a junior position, who did not participate and was not a member of any decision making forum. He made up these things after he failed to attain an official role. The fact is that as opposition leader, Binyamin Netanyahu stood firm in his decision not to criticize the government during Operation Cast Lead. That continued after the operation as well. That was his decision, that’s what happened and no one can change that. The prime minister’s wife did not and does not take part in these issues, and Yagel’s claims are little more that libelous rumors.”

Yogev responded: “These things never happened. I never met the man and I certainly never told him the things he’s attributed to me.”

Minister Yaakov Neeman did not respond by press time.

—-

Commentary

Working for her

Ben Caspit, Maariv, November 30 2010

The three letters from Yisrael Yagel that are here before us are an important document. Their power stems, first and foremost, from their author. Yagel is a man devoid of any malice. He wears a knitted kippa, the salt of the earth, the father of four combat soldiers, a true right wing ideologue, who is no personal political agenda. As a personal friend of Eli Ayalon, the man who directed Netanyahu’s election campaign in 2009, he came to help. He was appointed the deputy campaign director and worked full time on the job on a volunteer basis. He didn’t even ask to be reimbursed for his travel expenses.

He is financially independent, made a nice sum of money selling a high-tech company, and is busy with his own affairs. He seeks nothing for himself. He admired Netanyahu, he is a member of the right wing, as noted, and, most importantly, he wrote these letters in real time. The first was written while the election campaign was still under way, on January 1, 2009, three weeks after coming on board the campaign. He was so deeply stunned by what he saw, that he felt duty-bound to write to Netanyahu. Of course, he received no answer. He wrote the second letter on June 15, 2010, after the entire public had already come to witness the catastrophe. He wrote the third on January 20, 2010.

Incidentally, what was Netanyahu’s reaction after the first letter? He demanded that Eli Ayalon fire Yagel. Ayalon said: if Yagel goes, I go.  So Netanyahu went. He stopped coming to the campaign headquarters. That is how he solved the problem. Incidentally, Ayalon also quit at least once during the campaign. He submitted a letter. In the end he stayed out of a sense of responsibility. But he too—a person who hasn’t spoken and probably never will—saw terrible things there.

I have been in possession of these letters for more than a year. It was not Yagel who gave them to me. But it was Yagel who urged me not to publish them. After I got to know him, I made a very unreporterly-like decision and acceded to his request. I tried repeatedly to describe in this newspaper the dangers of the prime minister’s behavior. The weakness of his working environment. And most importantly: the degree to which the prime minister’s wife was involved in making most of the decisions, small and big, the power she wields, the terrible fear he has of her, the fact that some of the prime minister’s employees, who are actually our employees, are really her employees and are subordinate only to her will.

Some people call this “gossip.” But there is nothing gossipy about this information. Other people believe that it is motivated by “Bibi hatred.” They are entitled to think that. There is neither love here nor hate; mainly there is profound concern about the quality of this country’s leadership. It is enough to read  description of the circumstances under which Mrs. Netanyahu made critical decisions in the course of the election campaign, to her husband’s displeasure, to realize just how deep and severe the problem is.

Natan Eshel, a shopkeeper who serves as the chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s Bureau, and discusses with Netanyahu a critical decision that needs to be made: whether to re-intensify the campaign before Operation Cast Lead is over, or to continue to remain supportive of the Olmert government. Netanyahu objected to raising the pitch of the campaign. Eshel hung up and said to the people in the room, one of whom was Yagel, that despite what Bibi said, “the real boss” has already decided. The real boss, incidentally, is a she-boss.

And there is something else that is not in the letter: the angry uproar she raised when the negative campaign slamming Tzippi Livni was aired. “It’s too much for her,” was the slogan, remember? Well, the thing that grabbed Mrs. Netanyahu’s attention at that point was the photograph of Livni on the billboards at the time. That photograph cast Livni as “too pretty,” as per Mrs. Netanyahu.

They all saw that. They, the chickens, have kept that to themselves. They believe that this terror attack, which occurs every day in the most sensitive place in the State of Israel, can remain a secret. The important thing is that everything stay quiet. That’s what Bibi likes, quiet. For the dirty laundry to be kept well out of sight.

But Yisrael Yagel, an honest man who really cares about Israel, couldn’t stay silent any more. No, it was not he who leaked the letters to the media. Raviv Drucker published the first one yesterday. An admirable report. Anyone who loves this country should read the letters and learn where things stand. The reality described therein is the reality in which our most sensitive affairs are managed. The contents of those letters reflect perhaps just one percent of what actually happens there. And I am quoting the people who work on the inside. This isn’t gossip. This isn’t hatred. This isn’t politics. This is about life and death. Our life and death.