Possible Israeli Attack On Iran, Pappe on Amir Peretz, Israeli Poverty

December 11, 2005

Jewish Peace News now has over 7,000 direct subscribers, and is forwarded and re-printed widely to many thousands more. Please help us keep this valuable service going. Click here to donate now and help us bring a just and lasting peace closer to realization.

Click here to let your friends know about JPN.

The views expressed here are those of the editors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Today's Contents:

Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran (Times of London) Attack rumored to be prepared for March, 2006

More Important Articles Links to other important news articles for today

[JPN Commentary: This report from the London Times indicates that Israel stands fully prepared to attack targets suspected of housing Iran's nuclear development program. In a related article in today's Jerusalem Post, Israeli officials offer only a modest denial, maintaining that they keep their military options open only in the event diplomacy fails. This statement does not actually contradict the Times report. The Times is saying that the alleged planned attack by Israel is scheduled to come after the next review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Israel is saying that is that report reflects an ongoing Iranian nuclear project and it does not at that point get referred to the UN Security Council, the diplomatic option will be deemed by them a failure. In what is likely an empty gesture, Iran also offered the United States a share in building one of their nuclear facilities. It is unlikely that the US will accept the offer, as they have imposed a ban on doing business with Iran. That Iran is striving to acquire nuclear weapons is far more likely than not. In a region with only one nuclear power, it is inevitable that other countries with designs on being another major power will strive to obtain nuclear weapons as well. The specter of nuclear confrontation remains the most frightening of our time, whether it be between superpowers like the US and former USSR; unfriendly neighbors like India and Pakistan; or regional rivals like Israel and Iran. While Israel has never admitted its own nuclear capability, they have also intentionally kept it a very open secret--after all, what good are nukes if no knows you have them and can be frightened by them? An attack by Israel is not unlikely. The US is not likely to attack Iran, given its dismal failure in Iraq, the overextension of American armed forces that failure has caused and America's history of attacking only those countries that are essentially unable to defend themselves, a description that would not suit Iran. But an Israeli attack would seriously add fuel to the anti-American fire already burning in the region, raising the question of whether the US will permit an Israeli attack. In 2004, the US sold bunker buster bombs to Israel. These bombs are capable of destroying targets deep underground, which is where the Iranian nuclear sites are located. If an attack comes, it will come from Israel, not the US. It is up to the US, however, whether it will come at all. The superior option is obvious: enforce nuclear rules equally for all countries. Iran has a vested interest in maintaining its solid relationship with Europe. Indeed, Iran has even indicated a willingness to open relations with the US and, despite laws to the contrary, it is commonly known that they have done clandestine business with Israelis. But whether it is Iran today, Iraq in the past or some other country in the future, as long as Israel is allowed unfettered access to nuclear weapons, acquiring some nukes of their own will be a top priority for other countries in the region. Israel's so-called "Samson Option", which refers to their use of nuclear weapons if they feel their backs are against the wall, only means that other nations are that much more desperate to acquire a "deterrent". In such a tense part of the world, nuclear proliferation, whether by one country, or under the specter of a nuclear standoff, is simply intolerable. Given the amount of animosity Israel faces, it is understandable that they would want assurances in order to come into compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Israel has never ratified), and they should be given those. But if an all-out international effort is not made to end all proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, the entire planet is flirting with disaster. -- MP]

The Sunday Times December 11, 2005 www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html ISRAEL'S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed. The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations. Iran's stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern. The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was "losing patience" with Iran. A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda and the issue now was: "What next?" That question would have to be answered in the next few months, he said. Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the "point of no return" after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years. "Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran," Sharon warned recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation." The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defence ministry to the chief of staff. Sources inside special forces command confirmed that "G" readiness - the highest stage - for an operation was announced last week. Gholamreza Aghazadeah, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran, warned yesterday that his country would produce nuclear fuel. "There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment," he said. He promised it would not be done during forthcoming talks with European negotiators. But although Iran insists it wants only nuclear energy, Israeli intelligence has concluded it is deceiving the world and has no intention of giving up what it believes is its right to develop nuclear weapons. A "massive" Israeli intelligence operation has been underway since Iran was designated the "top priority for 2005", according to security sources. Cross-border operations and signal intelligence from a base established by the Israelis in northern Iraq are said to have identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the the IAEA. Since Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, "it has been understood that the lesson is, don't have one site, have 50 sites", a White House source said. If a military operation is approved, Israel will use air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran's nuclear programme for years, according to Israeli military sources. It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 - the equivalent of the SAS - and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling. "If we opt for the military strike," said a source, "it must be not less than 100% successful. It will resemble the destruction of the Egyptian air force in three hours in June 1967." Aharon Zeevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief, stepped up the pressure on Iran this month when he warned Israel's parliament, the Knesset, that "if by the end of March the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations security council, then we can say the international effort has run its course". The March deadline set for military readiness also stems from fears that Iran is improving its own intelligence-gathering capability. In October it launched its first satellite, the Sinah-1, which was carried by a Russian space launcher. "The Iranians' space programme is a matter of deep concern to us," said an Israeli defence source. "If and when we launch an attack on several Iranian targets, the last thing we need is Iranian early warning received by satellite." Russia last week signed an estimated $1 billion contract - its largest since 2000 - to sell Iran advanced Tor-M1 systems capable of destroying guided missiles and laser-guided bombs from aircraft. "Once the Iranians get the Tor-M1, it will make our life much more difficult," said an Israeli air force source. "The installation of this system can be relatively quick and we can't waste time on this one." The date set for possible Israeli strikes on Iran also coincides with Israel's general election on March 28, prompting speculation that Sharon may be sabre-rattling for votes. Benjamin Netanyahu, the frontrunner to lead Likud into the elections, said that if Sharon did not act against Iran, "then when I form the new Israeli government, we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor, which gave us 20 years of tranquillity". TEHRAN MINISTER MET MILITANTS BEFORE NEW OFFENSIVE Iran's foreign minister met leading figures from three Islamic militant groups to co-ordinate a united front against Israel days before a recent escalation of attacks against Israeli targets shattered fragile ceasefires with Lebanon and the Palestinians, writes Hugh Macleod in Damascus. The minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, held talks with leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah in Damascus on November 15. Among those who attended the meeting were Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader, and a deputy leader of Islamic Jihad, which claimed responsibility for last Monday's suicide bombing of a shopping mall in Netanya that killed five Israeli citizens. Ahmed Jibril, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine- General Command, was also present. "We all confirmed that what is going on in occupied Palestine is organically connected to what is going on in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lebanon," said Jibril. Seven days after the talks, Hezbollah fired a volley of rockets and mortars at Israeli targets, sparking the fiercest fighting between the two sides since Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon five years ago.

[JPN Commentary: An excellent essay by Ilan Pappe, in which he traces Amir Peretz history and rise to power. He also analyzes the chance that this event will bring about a serious change in Israeli politics, expressing doubt that a change from within can occur at this point in time without great international pressure. - RG]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n24/papp01_.html >From The London Review of Books, December 15, 2005 "In 1977 Menachem Begin, then head of the Likud, created a revolution and removed the Labour Party from power. Begin’s was a social revolution, based on promises of social change and on giving the working class, which the Labour Party had alienated, a sense of belonging. Begin carried out a social revolution, but used the ‘train ticket’ he received from the people to travel to the Occupied Territories. I would like to be the Menachem Begin of the Labour Party, to give it back its social values and the support of the people. If the people give me the same ‘train ticket’ they once gave Begin, I intend to travel with it towards peace." - Amir Peretz, interview with labourstart.org, November 2005 When you drive south from Tel Aviv towards the Negev, the landscape becomes progressively more arid, the human surroundings progressively more impoverished. There is some reasonable housing – isolated kibbutzim or other forms of collective settlement – and here and there a prosperous bit of suburbia; but mostly it is a depressing journey, not alleviated by the ‘development towns’, Israel’s answer to Ebenezer Howard’s ‘garden cities’: ugly, uniform buildings, five to ten storeys high, reminiscent of housing estates in the former Soviet bloc, put up in haste to accommodate the influx of Arab Jewish immigrants languishing in the Maabort, the unbearable transition camps which received them on their arrival in Israel. Some communities – the Iraqi Jews, for example – made it to more affluent areas, but the North Africans were not among the more fortunate and in the 1950s most of them settled in these towns. Life in the region was and still is very difficult. The main problem is the local economy, which is wholly dependent on a very few factories: sweatshops connected to the food and textile industries, sometimes to the military complex. This is where Israel’s most underprivileged Jews work. Statistics for the mid-1990s show that half the local population earns the minimum wage, a third lives below the poverty line, and nearly 50 per cent of high-school leavers fail to matriculate. These were the people responsible for the Likud victory in 1977 and for the success of Shas, the ultra-Orthodox party, in the 1990s. Amir Peretz arrived in one such development town, Sderot, a few miles away from the Gaza Strip, as a young child from the town of Bojad in Morocco, where he was born Armand Peretz in 1952. Until 1983, when he was elected head of the local council, his story was fairly typical: he worked as an unskilled labourer in a nearby kibbutz, served in the army and was badly wounded in the 1973 war. Confined to a wheelchair for a time, he managed – with great difficulty – a farm in a nearby moshav, until he left the hard scrabble behind: first for university and then for politics. Most of his peers who chose politics as a way out of their predicament ended up in the Likud; he opted for Labour, and – what was extraordinary – Labour’s left wing. He first came to public prominence in 1988, as a member of the Eight – a left-wing group within the Knesset, headed by Yossi Beilin, which advocated a full Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and a two-state solution. Peretz was a dream come true for the Ashkenazi-dominated Labour Party: to have within its highest ranks a ‘Moroccan’ who held such views was in those days almost unthinkable. Since then, Peretz, like the other members of the Eight, has become more ‘pragmatic’ – as we say in Israel – in an attempt to shift Israel’s Zionist politics towards the centre. In the 1990s, he chose the trade union congress, the Histadrut, as his main political arena and route to the top. In 1995 he became its chairman and in that capacity did nothing to limit the organisation’s extensive involvement in the occupation: in areas directly or indirectly controlled by Israel, the Histadrut granted the settlers union rights while denying them to Palestinians; as for Palestinian workers in industrial plants within the border zones (areas inside the Palestinian Territories under direct Israeli control), it ignored their situation entirely despite their having no basic human or workers’ rights. Like the other members of the Eight, Peretz has tempered his early support for a two-state solution, preferring the narrow Israeli interpretation of the Oslo Accords and, later, the Camp David summit and the Geneva programme. This means consenting to a Palestinian state in control of the Gaza Strip and those parts of the West Bank where Jews are not densely settled (thereby allowing Israel to annex Greater Jerusalem and the large settlement blocs). The solution also negates the Palestinian right of return and any significant Palestinian presence in Jerusalem; it doesn’t recognise the need to allow the Palestinians full sovereignty in economic, diplomatic and military affairs. It is a recipe for peace that even the fragile Arafat had to decline and one that is likely to be rejected by Abu Mazen. Still, a cool-headed assessment of Peretz’s politics should not preclude the kind of hope that attended Yitzhak Rabin’s second term as prime minister, when he joined the peace camp, despite his previously brutal policies in the Occupied Territories. Peretz’s election as leader of the Labour Party on 10 November was certainly well received in neighbouring Arab countries, the Syrian government beating the others to be the first to welcome the new leader. But then Damascus is presently under such pressure that it may be a waste of time trying to assess how genuine this response is, or whether it was born of a real understanding of the Israeli political scene. It does, however, indicate what hopes attach to his election. Soon similarly positive noises were heard from other Arab capitals, the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian members of the Israeli parliament. Even if Peretz were to become prime minister, there is no overlooking the fact that his point of departure is the old Zionist programme. Unless we can be sure that the Palestinian struggle has come to an end, with the Palestinians conceding defeat, it is difficult to see how the posture he has adopted can produce results that differ in any way from those produced by previous similar initiatives. But Peretz is unlikely to be the next prime minister of Israel. The polls predict that Ariel Sharon’s new venture, Kadima (‘Forward’), will have many more seats than Peretz’s Labour Party. The two could, and probably would, form a coalition government, if the centrist Shinui Party joined them and a few religious and several left-leaning and Palestinian groups gave them their tacit support. But no less likely is a scenario in which Sharon aligns himself with right-wing parties with whom he can agree on continuing a restricted evacuation of isolated settlements in the West Bank so as to keep Israel in the convenient position in which it now finds itself: prolonging an occupation that gets more oppressive by the day while pretending to be deeply engaged in a peace process. Peretz could be an asset in this context, but he isn’t essential to it. In fact, the honeymoon may be over even sooner. In 2002 we were in a similar position. The Labour Party had elected Amram Mitzna as leader. He came from a different background: he was a German Jewish former general whom everyone had expected to hold peacenik views. But he ran and won on a platform similar to Peretz’s: a train ticket out of the territories. He was eaten alive by senior party members one year into the second intifada, before he could even test his ability to challenge Ariel Sharon. Peretz, who has the Histadrut behind him and is a much more experienced politician, is in a stronger position. There is a chance he may survive the onslaught that has already begun. But will there be much of a Labour Party left to lead? It’s too early to say. Some of its senior members are likely to join Sharon’s party: Shimon Peres already has. Either way we shouldn’t lose sight of the main picture. Between the unlikely, best-case scenario – a left-wing government ready to implement the Geneva Accord – and a likely worst-case scenario, another Sharon government, there is not much difference from the Palestinians’ point of view. Or, indeed, from the point of view of anyone committed to peace and reconciliation in Israel and Palestine. I also doubt whether the people of Sderot have much ground for hope. Unemployment is rising, the factories have moved to Egypt and Jordan, the educational system is failing, and there is no protection from the Qassam missiles that Hamas in its wrath rains down on them. At best, Peretz will pepper his social and economic policies with welfare initiatives, or at least with a lot of politically correct jargon, while allowing the extreme free market economy to keep Sderot – along with many other Israelis, Palestinians and North African Jews – at the bottom of the local economy. Israel needs a greater revolution than the election of Amir Peretz. The peace initiatives – or at any rate their short-term goals – have not changed since Israel occupied the territories in 1967. What is new is the growing realisation among grass-roots organisations worldwide, led by the hundreds of NGOs which now constitute Palestinian civil society, that previous methods to bring peace have failed. Diplomatic efforts have led nowhere and have inadvertently allowed the Israelis to widen the occupation and introduce even more oppressive and cruel mechanisms of control, intimidation and dispossession. Palestinian armed struggle has also failed to produce any tangible results and its victims are not only Israelis but large sections of Palestinian society. Only one option remains: strong international pressure, of the kind that was directed against apartheid South Africa in the form of sanctions, boycotts and disinvestments. It is in illusionary moments like this – with Peretz portrayed as the bright new star – that committed people suddenly stop thinking, pinning their hopes once more on diplomacy and on the ability of Israeli Jewish society to provide the kind of change from within that might end the occupation. The illusion won’t last: all those Israelis who, at great risk to their lives, protest against the apartheid wall, who monitor the roadblocks, who refuse to serve in the army of occupation but instead do everything they can to help the Palestinians living under the yoke of occupation, need a change more significant than any Amir Peretz will bring. And so do the Palestinians, who have not only endured one of the longest and harshest occupations of modern times but have suffered false promises of liberation whenever a leader supposedly committed to peace has emerged in Israel only to show himself committed to Zionism in such a way as to preclude any meaningful chance of solving the conflict. It is heartwarming to see a Moroccan Jew reach the higher echelons of power and commit himself to a ‘train ticket’ out of the territories. But Peretz’s mention of Menachem Begin is not accidental. The aim is not justice or peace, but to rid Israel of the Occupied Territories. If this is the goal there is no need for peace. In order to sustain a Jewish majority and Jewish supremacy, there is no need for a continuing military occupation of most of the territories – as even Ariel Sharon recognises – since these areas will be cordoned off behind Israeli fences and walls. To talk about replacing direct occupation with a form of life imprisonment is not, after all, to talk about peace, even if the person doing the talking is a genuine representative of the underprivileged class of Arab Jews. Still, there may be something positive to come out of Peretz’s election. He is the unlikely product of an education system that failed to provide school leavers with a chance of holding their own in the Israeli economy while implanting in their minds the need to de-Arabise: to forget – indeed, to wrench themselves from – their Arab roots. They learned that the way to integrate yourself into Israeli Jewish society was to adopt strong anti-Arab and, more particularly, anti-Palestinian positions. This is why towns like Sderot were built near the unstable and quite often violent borders of Israel. It is easier to feel hatred or animosity when you live in constant danger of being shelled or attacked. Amir Peretz has shown that you can make it from Sderot to the top by adopting leftist Zionist views. His prospective policies are not enough to change anything, but perhaps the next generation of Moroccan Jews will produce a leader capable of going one step further in liberating himself or herself from anti-Arab Orientalist ideologies of superiority – and, in so doing, influence the thinking of Israeli society as a whole. It ought to be possible for outlooks to change. After all, 99 per cent of the inhabitants of Sderot and places like it are not candidates for the premiership; nor are they likely to find jobs, proper housing or education, or peace of mind. They are victims of Zionism as much as the Palestinians are. Let us hope that a sense of shared victimhood will one day provide a joint leadership and a genuine road map or train ticket out of our misery here in Israel and in Palestine.

[JPN Commentary: The article below doesn't mention where all of the money goes to, or about the growing gap between rich and poor in Israel, It does mention, though, that the majority of the poor (covered by the survey) are women and children of Mizrahi (Middle Eastern and North African) background, and that many Israelis are going hungry, and lack other basic necessities. Although there are certainly many causes of the growth of poverty in Israel, the budgetary costs of maintaining the occupation does not help. According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Israel's military spending reached $10.8 billion in 2004. Adva, an Israeli group that performs policy analysis and advocates on behalf of disadvantaged populations in Israel, makes a powerful argument that the spending priorities of the Israeli government have been contributing to rising wealth inequality. The group cites Israel's increasing implementation of neo-liberal economic policies including: cuts to the public sector (such as public health, education, and housing assistance programs), privatization or outright elimination of many public services, and tax breaks to corporations and people in the highest income bracket. In short, Israel is eroding the social safety net and the result is increased poverty and economic inequality. At the same time, Israel is spending a disproportionate amount of money in financing the illegal colonial enterprise of the settlements. "According to a calculation made by the Adva Center, the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories receive municipal per capita over-funding (compared with localities within the green line) to the tune of about NIS 1 billion a year. According to another estimation, made by the Haaretz newspaper, the total over-funding of the settlements amounts to NIS 2.5 billion annually. "If and when the settlements are moved to Israel, and if and when some of them are accorded recognition by both sides in their present locations, they will no longer need large-scale government over-funding, and it will be possible to save billions of shekels annually." This can serve as one more powerful example of how the occupation is a disservice to the Israeli population.- RG and JN]

Haaretz 6 December 2005 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/654461.html The problem of poverty is, in the eyes of the public, the most pressing problem in Israeli society, according to the latest poll conducted by the Latet anti-poverty organization. Poverty finished ahead of government corruption, the problems of the education system and security in the rankings, the group announced on Tuesday. The poll, part of Latet's yearly report, found that 29 percent of respondents named poverty as the number one problem, while 21 percent cited education and only 15 percent answered security. This is the first time that security has dropped below second place since Latet began conducting the survey. In an additional Latet poll, conducted among the needy by the non-profit organization, the group recorded a 50 percent jump in the number of needy citizens in Israel, and of the total, 17 percent come from the middle class. Some 90 percent of the non-profit organizations that supply Latet with food to distribute reported a marked increase in requests for donations of food in 2005. The average increase in requests was 25 percent. The average income of a household supported by a non-profit food distribution organization is NIS 2,565 per month. The respondents of the second survey cited health problems as the principal reason they slid into poverty. A third of the people who receive aid reported that they are suffering not just from poverty, but from hunger. Authorities cut off water, electricity, and/or gas to 45 percent of the respondents, while 42 percent had their bank accounts cut off or severely limited due to overdrafting. Most of the underprivileged are between 30 and 49 years old, female, and mothers to an average of 3.7 children, the survey found. Most have Mizrahi backgrounds, with a high school education or less. The majority also need regular medical care but are forced to forgo it because they don't have the money to buy medicine. "We hope the public and the politicians will understand that poverty is a terrible existence and the fight for survival is a fight against hunger, sickness, and a struggle to provide basic products," Jill Darmon, chief of Latet, said in a press conference. Darmon renewed the organization's call for the establishment of a national organization under the leadership of the prime minister to join in the struggle against poverty, who will have to reduce the poverty level by 30 percent in the next four years, Darmon said.