The Prime Minister sought to end the policy of "bereavement and failure" of his predecessors • Elkin's covert criticism of the policy in Syria could have hinted at the steps he would take • Opinion
All the previous rounds in which he was supposed to be released - did not really take place.
Pollard after his arrest in 1985
Photography:
Photo: GettyImages
Jonathan Pollard arrived.
He was on the verge of being released as early as the end of 1998, as part of the Wai agreement. It is doubtful if his release would have changed the position of the leaders of the settlement right, who supported the May 1999 elections in Ehud Barak. Will move the dial a bit this time. The question many ask is whether there is anyone in Israel who should be afraid of Pollard's return. At the highest level those responsible are no longer
.
When he was arrested by the Americans on espionage charges, the president of the state was Haim Herzog.
The president of the United States was Ronald Reagan. Israel's ambassador to the UN was Benjamin Netanyahu.
After his release from prison about five years ago, American commentators claimed that all the previous rounds in which Pollard was supposed to be released did not really take place.
At no point did the Americans intend to release him, certainly not because of public pressure.
Not in 1998 either.
It also includes the story of the threat of the then CIA chief, George Tennett, who would resign if Pollard was released - and Clinton withdrew.
Even now, Pollard arrived in the country following a normal legal proceeding and not because of some governmental step forward from the rule of law.
Comparing his fate to a spy like Aldrich Ames, whose betrayal exposed many American agents and even killed him, it is clear that the punishment the Americans imposed on Pollard was particularly cruel.
The story that the super-secret information he passed on to Israeli intelligence fell into the hands of the Russians could well be misinformation.
Why was Israel willing to risk the deployment of an agent like Pollard in the heart of American intelligence?
In the CIA Damages Report, it was estimated that Pollard had been activated at a time when Israel's situation was dire, following the "Pyrrhic victory" in the Lebanon war (it was recruited in 1984), and when the economic situation in the country was catastrophic. Rafi Eitan described to him a surprise Syrian attack with T-72 tanks to occupy the Golan Heights. This is also the world of yesterday. One of his operatives, Yossi Gur, told him that his elite intelligence items had reached the highest level in the Israeli government.
But what is interesting is that according to the report The American, Rafi Eitan, will instruct Pollard to "collect material that has 'dirt' on Israeli political leaders; any information that can identify individuals who pass information to the United States."
The last survivor on the island of
Netanyahu sought to end the policy of "bereavement and failure" of his predecessors, even if it took him many years to dare
Netanyahu also took many years until he liberated himself and managed to establish sufficient authority to lead clear policies in the field of national security. public health.
At the same time, the various establishments, through the judicial system, chained him and cumbersome his governing capacity.
From the very beginning, it turned out that it was very profitable to betray him.
Take action against him.
To gossip about him.
An attack on it is a sure recipe for political survival, temporary as it may be;
Stage in political career.
But Netanyahu, for his part, has shown that only long-term survival as prime minister makes it possible to implement a consistent strategy that will be successful.
All his predecessors since Ben-Gurion have failed in this area.
They were prime ministers of one great success without continuation or prime ministers of great failure or a sequence of setbacks.
Including Menachem Begin.
Some argue that any strategy with minimal feasibility will be successful, at least in part, if it is followed over time.
A good strategy that has been consistently managed over the years all the more so.
The results in Israel in recent years are noticeable.
The originality of Netanyahu, whose biographers are of course far from capturing and certainly acknowledging, is the introduction of Israel's national security strategy into the long struggle.
In the "long struggle" Israel is having a clear success.
Historically, the strategy of the long struggle as a method of warfare in the management of a protracted conflict has been used by the enemies of the state and Zionism;
The Palestinians, the Iranians, the international left.
For the first time, Israel is the one that has built tools for a long, protracted struggle, and it is the one that weakens its enemies and is a great success, when the use of the word victory is not appropriate here.
These include the struggle for the Iranian establishment in Syria, the partial paralysis of Hamas, the suppression of Hezbollah's readiness for war with appropriate deterrence, and powerful point operations in the heart of Iran, the active home front of close enemies.
This strategy, which allows Israeli society to be normal (minus the epidemic), prosperity, freedom, is the work of Netanyahu and those close to him.
It contradicts the perception of his opponents who did not understand and even now do not understand the issue, and rolled from one round of war to another.
Trauma haunted trauma.
A commission of inquiry pursued investigations and political bloodshed.
It is not difficult to notice this because there is a clear fault line between the first decade of the century with Barak, Sharon and Olmert, compared to Netanyahu's 11 years.
The unique combination of peace agreements with 5-4 Arab countries, and at the same time the strengthening of security pressure on Iran, is the opposite story to the policy of bereavement and failure accepted by the Israeli leadership from then on.
Lost in
the
translation of Elkin's covert criticism of Israel's policy in Syria could have hinted at the steps he will take in the future
now should give credit to the ultra-Orthodox in particular.
We need to look at Gideon Saar, Yifat Shasha-Biton, Zvika Hauser and Yoaz Handel, Lieberman and Lapid, and the army of former chiefs of staff who are rising to power. All right-wing testosterone and the threshold guard, not including a gram of honesty and credibility compared to the ultra-Orthodox. Consistent policy.
Saar's new acquisition is Zeev Elkin, a very intelligent man. His speech against Netanyahu was a denunciation and gossip in the style of Pavlik Morozov, the Soviet "hero" who tipped off his father. Elkin once said that during a break in one of those meetings between President Putin and Netanyahu, he asked him Prime Minister, "Say, how do I know that what you are translating into Putin is what I am really saying?"
Elkin replied, "Say, are you happy with the result?"
Bibi said "yes."
"So what do you care," Elkin said, and Bibi burst out laughing.
Why would the Israeli prime minister imagine that a Russian-speaking government minister would deliberately disrupt his remarks?
It only hurts when you laugh.
In a closed conversation after a meeting held following the downing of the Russian plane off the coast of Syria, Elkin said the Russians needed to be understood.
The Russian soldiers have to stand and do nothing, while the Israeli planes are hitting Iranians, or Hezbollah members, or Syrian soldiers who are in the exact same compound.
He described it as if Israel was stretching the rope.
If we "translate" the feelings, Elkin disagrees with Netanyahu's policy of knocking anything that moves in Syria.
This policy, according to Yaakov Amidror recently, succeeded in causing a 85-80 percent retreat in the Iranian establishment project in Syria.
General Amidror is quoted in an article by Jonathan Speyer published at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.
From the outside, it seems as if a minister who was more involved than others in Israeli-Russian relations is expressing complete distrust of the prime minister's policy.
Meanwhile, former chief of staff Gadi Izenkot has dropped from the manpower list.
Apparently for the right, including the Saar party, it is an electoral burden.
But an assault without Izenkot suffers from weightlessness.
For Izenkot, it is understandable: the political disintegration of the left does not make one want to enter the arena.
The testimony of
Dr. Yifat Shasha-Biton,
PhD's ideological infrastructure doctor, is far from the right, and presents "education for peace" in a surprising way,
but Gideon Saar's star is Yifat Shasha-Biton, who soared in the media following the Corona Commission's fight against government policy in the epidemic. for example, in her doctoral dissertation at the University of Haifa (2002), does not seem to be associated with the right-wing camp Sasa-biton. viewpoints, as they are expressed Ph.D., are purely academic political correctness, moral relativism and adherence to the ideology of multiculturalism.
the study of Sasa- Bitton deals with the concept of "peace" and the impact of the collective narrative and education for peace on perceptions of peace. Education for peace is from a seminary of Midreshet Adam. It refers to the founding ideas of Israeli society as "functional beliefs for conflict conditions." Such beliefs are beliefs of delegitimization of the party. other. "
according to the" spiritual father "(as she defines it), Prof. Gavriel Salomon, who died four years ago," peace education "is part of a progressive education, which seeks demilitarization and against ethnocentrism. between this concept and the national conception of" peace out Power, "the eradication of the enemy and deterrence, difficult to bridge.
Shasha-Biton
In her work, she characterized Israel as a society in which "security (is) a supreme value and unity."
"Jews see Arab society as inhuman. Arabs are perceived as murderers, terrorists, primitives and those who do not value human life," she quotes Prof. Daniel Bar-Tal, one of the forefathers of Israeli society's psychology and politics.
The doctoral dissertation presents the "Jewish-Israeli narrative" and the Nabataean Palestinian narrative.
She has complete symmetry.
It states that the Palestinians adapt their textbooks that present their uniqueness and are adapted to the new reality that has been created (in the age of peace).
Numerous reports on Palestinian curricula prove the opposite.
"Education for peace" in a surprising way.
Shasha-Bitton // Photo: Oren Ben Hakon Shasha-Bitton
perceives peace education as "in its basic form works to change the way of thinking about the 'other', which can lead to a change in attitudes towards the other, including patterns of behavior."
Education for peace may lead to the acceptance of the other's narrative, and to the "tendency of each group to see its mistakes and crimes towards the other ..."
It accepts Bar Tal's view that "education for peace ... must help its participants build a worldview that reflects reality Of the peace process, and helps to accept it and prepares them for life in an area of peace. "
Or in my translation, education for peace is a framework of shaping consciousness, not to say brainwashing, to adapt the thought to the peace process - in cases where peace becomes war.
One of the interesting findings of Shasha-Biton, who exemplified groups of Palestinian and Israeli students, is that there is an absolute polarization in the perception of peace between Israelis and that of Palestinian boys.
The Israeli perception is of course called "negative peace".
It does not clarify what it means for Israelis to see in peace a simple situation that "there will be no wars" and terrorism.
Thus, 97.7 percent of Israeli boys saw peace in the study.
While among the Palestinian youth only 3.7 percent saw peace in this way.
For the Palestinians, the concepts of "structural peace" and "positive peace" have been adapted.
The values of equality and social justice are also attached to "positive peace".
She found that about 70 percent of Palestinian boys generally see peace in terms of "going to war with the other side" and "fighting for the rights of my people."
"Structural peace," according to the doctorate, is doing justice.
Correction of injustices.
In one place, she defines the Palestinian concept as "territories for peace."
In her research work, she found that the Palestinian boys are imbued with strong expressions of hatred towards the Jews, and in fact the main change that "peace education" makes is to bring Jewish boys closer to receiving "structural peace," that is, the Nakba narrative.
The feeling of those who read the study - not of the author - is that this concept of peace is intended to whiten the aspirations of war, revenge and hatred of the Palestinians.
Shasha-Biton does not have a fundamental approach in principle, according to which Israeli society is a democratic, free society, and naturally seeks peace.
√