Netanyahu still unsure of security cabinet support
In last week’s issue we analysed the increasing anti-Israel rhetoric coming from Iran, and the Israeli government’s continuing efforts to prepare the Israeli public for war. On the Israeli side, we emphasized that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu continues to make the case (greatly aided by Iran itself) for an early military strike even if Washington cannot be persuaded to participate. However, that there are divisions at the highest level of the Israeli policymaking elite cannot be denied. The latest informed assessment of the balance of power within Israel’s security cabinet suggests Netanyahu can muster a majority for an independent attack, but only a small one.
In total there are 14 members of the security cabinet, and so Netanyahu needs at least seven supporters to carry his view that an attack on Iran is necessary. But the cabinet appears to be evenly split. Netanyahu can rely upon the support of Defence Minister Ehud Barak, and it is thought that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz support the prime minister. Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman is also seen as a Netanyahu supporter, as is National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau. That gives six in favour of a strike.
On the opposing side of the argument are Interior Minister Eli Yishay, Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor, Minister without Portfolio Benny Begin, Housing and Construction Minister Ariel Atias, and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon. Minster of Regional Development Silvan Shalom has also made public his opposition to a unilateral strike. That makes six against an independent strike.
For the moment, therefore, the balance lies with Education Minister Gidon Saar and Minister of Public Security Yitzhak Aharonovitch. But even if Netanyahu were to secure those two votes, a muster of eight to six in the security cabinet would be an exceptionally tight one for a vote that would go against much of the security establishment, alienate the United States, almost certainly result in large-scale Israeli casualties, and might not achieve its principal goal.
However, away from the political echelon, last Wednesday (22 August) Israel Defence Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Benny Gantz appeared to harden his stance, responding to the latest Iranian threats by saying that “whoever thinks he can eliminate Israel and try to harm our state will discover the deadly force of the IDF”. He added that Iranian threats “display an erroneous estimation of our forces and our abilities” and that the IDF was “primed and ready along the country’s borders”.
Meanwhile in Iran, the regime continues to tell its citizens, and the outside world, that it is invulnerable to an Israeli attack and that Israel is bluffing. The latest example came from the deputy-commander of the Khatam on-Anbia Air Defence Base, Brigadier-General Alireza Sabahifard, who proclaimed on 24 August: “Using knowledge that is completely domestic, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s air defence has a barrier completely unknown to the enemies, which is neither predictable nor analysable in the calculations of aggressors.”
Another source of potential Iranian confidence is that in his last two speeches, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has indicated that the Lebanon-based group would join an Iranian counter-strike if Israel attacked Iran. It may be recalled that back on February, Nasrallah seemed to be trying to distance himself from the consequences of an outbreak of hostilities between Iran and Israel. On 7 February he said: “Iran does not command us. Even when it comes to regional developments, Iran will not request anything from Hezbollah and will not desire anything. When this day comes [and Iran commands us], we are the ones who will sit down and decide what to do.”
Last week’s 10,000-strong Hezbollah military exercise in southern Lebanon is said to have been orchestrated by Iran. Lebanese sources say the exercise included “preparations to conquer Upper Galilee”.
Israeli counter-terrorism expert Dr Ely Karmon warns: “I wouldn’t belittle the claim that they will try and penetrate the Galilee. Even if they held a small village for 24 hours, it would allow them to score points against the IDF.”
Iran has also sought to use this week’s Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran to re-emphasize the centrality of the Palestinian question to Middle East instability. Addressing the Palestinian Committee of the NAM, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi called on 28 August for the drawing up of a report on the “crimes of the Zionist regime”.
In his address to the Palestinian Committee, Salehi said: “Today, the issue of Palestine is the most important regional and international problem. A problem, which due to the double-standard approaches of the international community in the past 50 years by legitimizing the occupation of Palestine, has prevented the innocent Palestinian nation from obtaining their absolute rights and has caused the continuation of hidden and blatant aggression by the Zionist regime on the occupied Palestinian territories.”
The Palestinian question has long provided Iran with its strongest card in Arab politics. Its unfailing support for Palestinian rejectionism enables it to neutralize its non-Arab Shia disadvantages in the eyes of the Arab street. So at a time when Tehran is increasingly at odds with the Sunni Arabs over its support for Bashar al-Assad’s minority Alawite regime in Syria, it is no surprise to see it re-emphasizing the centrality of the Palestinian question.
But, intriguingly, even on this issue it appears to have fluffed its lines. The problem arose when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei matched the invitation to attend the NAM summit by President Ahmadinejad to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas with a parallel invitation to the leader of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh. Following suggestions from the NAM Coordination Council in New York that Haniyeh’s presence could lead to the non-attendance of the main West Bank delegation, the Iranian foreign ministry had to call Haniyeh on 26 August to withdraw the invitation.
Interestingly, Palestinian sources say that Khamenei invited Haniyeh as part of an elaborate attempt to show Egypt’s President Muhammad Mursi that Iran – not Egypt - had control over the Palestinian question. The end result has been to upset both Mursi and Abbas while making no particular gain for Iranian foreign policy. On the contrary, Mursi’s hand will have been strengthened as the best mediator between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
In the big scheme of things, the row over Haniyeh and his attendance at the NAM summit may not amount to much. But it is another illustration of how dysfunctional Iranian foreign policy appears to be at the moment – and another worrying indicator at a time when the question of war and peace between Iran and Israel is so finely balanced. JdeC.
Note: On 27 August, Israel’s Jerusalem Post revealed that the Israeli foreign ministry is stepping up its own campaign to highlight the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, which it sees as the antidote to the Palestinian ‘right of return’. According to the Israeli foreign ministry, more than 850,000 Jews fled Arab countries following the establishing of the State of Israel in 1948, and many had their properties confiscated.
The Israeli government is working on plans for a national day of recognition for the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. In 2010, the Knesset passed legislation requiring the government to include the question of compensation for the Jewish refugees when negotiating with the Palestinians.
A new project named “I am a refugee” is calling for Jewish refugees and their descendants to bring forward documentation of stories of their plight. The government has given the project an initial budget of NIS 2m.
The secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), Dan Diker, says: “This [Israeli] government, along with the WJC, is advancing this issue as a global Jewish project of the highest urgency. We are taking a position, we’re insisting on rights-based diplomacy, and we’re saying enough is enough.”
Israel’s foreign ministry and the WJC plan to stage an event publicizing the issue at the UN in New York in September to coincide with the UN General Assembly session.