Netanyahu in bed with Obama and his Islamists.

By Ted Belman

Ever since Pillar of Defense, I have followed Debka’s lead in writing about a broad deal in the making between Israel, Obama, Turkey, Qatar and Hamas.

Obama’s pledge of US troops to Sinai

The Gaza Operation: Less a War than an Anti-Iran Coup

Have the Islamists joined Israel against Iran
Netanyahu is supporting Hamas and the PA. No kidding

A hard-headed assessment of the ceasefire



I have identified corroborating evidence that has come to light in support of the deal that Debka described. But there is a great deal we don’t know about the deal and Netanyahu isn’t talking. Debka speculates that full disclosure would lose him support.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis January 5, 2013,

Netanyahu’s secretiveness and ambiguity on security and peace, issues which in the last reckoning determine the outcome of Israeli elections and fate of its politicians, are leaving his party unarmed against savage opposition tactics and dividing his own camp.

While keeping his undoubted achievements in these fields under his hat, his mistakes and shortcomings are hard to miss.

Five months ago, Netanyahu was perceived as suddenly backing off plans to attack Iran’s nuclear program, after declaring for years that a nuclear-armed Iran was the most dangerous threat facing Israel. What happened was that on Sept. 5, he abruptly closed a meeting of the security-diplomatic cabinet on Iran without explanation, except for throwing in their faces that no forum competent to make policy on Iran was safe from press leaks.

For most of the country, Netanyahu lost points by failing to go through with this long-held resolve. His cartoon presentation of Israel’s “red lines” at the UN General Assembly on Sept. 27 did not change that perception. He spoke of postponing until “late spring or early summer” an action vital to Israel’s security – apparently in deference to Washington and out of consideration for Barack Obama’s campaign for re-election.

Then, after months of silence, on Thursday Jan. 3, the prime minister stood up before a gathering of Israel’s envoys in world capitals to inform them, “Iran is still our No. 1 threat. I have set out our red line and Iran has not yet crossed it. Our commitment was and is to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.”

It is possible that Netanyahu has opted in some to degree to follow Obama’s lead on security matters with regard to Iran, Syria and Hizballah and Hamas. Even then, he needs to do a better job of offering consistency to the Israeli voter. Instead, he offers silence or, at best, hazy, general messages that perplex the voter and keeps his own party in turmoil.

On the one hand, he incurred popular resentment for keeping 50,000 army reservists hanging around for nothing in the November anti-terror Gaza operation. But on the other, his government and party are not cashing in on the credit for the weeks of total calm on the Gaza front since Nov. 21 – the first time Hamas has honored a ceasefire in a decade.

Neither is he coming clean on the three additional advantages gained by working with Obama and his collaborators, Egypt, Turkey and Qatar, to negotiate that ceasefire. They could give his party’s election campaign a badly needed shot in the arm.

One is the improvement in relations with Turkey’s Erdogan government after years of acrimony. It came out of Israel’s consent to support the US president’s venture to combine those three nations – plus the Palestinian Hamas – into a new pro-American Sunni Muslim axis. Netanyahu agreed to modify Israel’s attitude on Hamas in a gamble for the prizes of rapprochement with Ankara and the stabilization of ties with Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt.

Reading this map, the Palestinian Authority, under its Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, is stirring up unrest on the West Bank as a reminder to Washington and Jerusalem of his existence.

Although when he met the ambassadors in Jerusalem, Netanyahu spoke of the danger of Hamas seizing control of the West Bank like the Gaza Strip in 2007, this was contradicted by his decision to step back from vanquishing Hamas in the November operation. And last week, he opened the Gaza crossing points to supplies of building materials for the first time in six years as well as cash.

The prime minister has a long way to go to bring his right-of-center party around to a policy that embraces Hamas – even though it would help stave off opposition accusations that Israel is diplomatically isolated. Although he has invested considerable effort in thawing the iced-over peace process with the Palestinians, he is constrained from placing this squarely on the party platform because it would not gain a consensus.

All the opinion polls, show that, contrary to left-of-center opposition rhetoric, a majority of Israelis don’t trust the Palestinians, including Mahmoud Abbas, as partners for negotiations or for peaceful coexistence.

Neither do most Israelis subscribe to the international condemnation of Netanyahu’s policy of strengthening Jerusalem and the settlement blocs on the West Bank and the Jordan Valley.

By keeping the voter in the dark, he is hurting the electoral prospects of hiss Likud-Israel Beitenu as a party. And by aligning too closely with Obama on Iran and the Middle East, he is causing the more extreme factions of his party to cross the lines to the religious nationalist Habayit Hayehudi and its new leader, Naftali Bennett. There, they find a clearly-articulated platform calling for independent Israeli stances on the core issues of security, peace with the Palestinians, borders and Jewish settlements.


Those words had the same ring as sentiments heard from the US president. Common to both is their distance from the facts.

In recent months, Iran has developed a strategy for sidestepping “red lines” on quantities of 20-percent enriched uranium by periodically announcing the suspension of the process or the diversion of stocks to “medical research.”

This strategy passed unchallenged although it should have been for four reasons:
1. The amounts of fissile material claimed by Tehran are unverifiable by Israeli or Western intelligence – or even the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

2. The interminable wrangling between Iran and the world powers over amounts of medium-grade enriched uranium deemed sufficient for a bomb is no longer relevant because Tehran’s consent to “negotiations” with world powers has bought Iran time to acquire the knowhow for assembling nuclear weapons and making them operational. A few kilos of enriched uranium lacking here or there are easily obtainable, either by domestic production or foreign acquisitions. Netanyahu’s graphic red lines, effective at the time, have been overtaken by events.

3. And his five-month silence has persuaded Iran’s rulers that they no longer need fear an Israeli military strike on their nuclear sites.

4. Iran has used those months free of international harassment and Israeli thunder for giant steps toward developing plutonium-based weapons.

Netanyahu’s boast that he placed the Iranian nuclear menace at the forefront of the world’s platform has had its downside: As the preamble to lay the ground for a proactive military policy, it was effective; however the gap between rhetoric and inaction has harmed Israel’s credibility and damaged its strategic deterrence.

The same credibility gap is marked on the question of Syria’s chemical weapons and Hizballah. Prime Minister Netanyahu, his ministers and diplomats, have repeatedly pledged Israel would take steps to prevent unconventional weapons reaching terrorist hands, including the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, whose leader Hassan Nasrallah often declares his rockets can reach every corner of Israel – “from Kiryat Shemone to Eilat!”

A year ago, in January 2012, a number of Western and Arab sources confirmed that Syrian ruler Bashar Assad had transferred a portion of his chemical weapons arsenal to Hizballah strongholds in the Lebanese Beqaa Valley and Hizballah units had trained in their use.

Last month, the Defense Ministry’s political coordinator, Amos Gilad, firmly asserted that Syria’s chemical weapons were “under control.” But this did not amount to a denial that those unconventional weapons had come under the joint logistical control of Iran, Syria and Hizballah.

January 6, 2013 | 36 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

36 Comments / 36 Comments

  1. @ yamit82:
    yamit82 Said:

    Sooner America dumps Israel the better off we will be. Rather face open Jew haters than the two faced ones that manage to hide it and claim friendship with a knife behind their backs.

    I remember your having made that point again in the past, and since then the idea has grown in me (at first, i was not even allowing the idea that Israel might go her own way to cross my mind. I always thought America as an indispensable ally). I am not sure if it is going to be good for Israel if America dumps Israel, but it is certain that it will have the effect of finally uniting the Israeli people because Israel will have found herself with her back against the wall. And this, in turn, will have the effect of accelerating the resolution of the conflict with all the Arabs, peacefully or not. Que sera sera, but the question is “how soon”? And will such an acceleration be beneficial for Israel from a strategic point of view? Then again, if Israel is left with no choice, the question will be moot.

  2. yamit82 Said:

    What’s in it for Israel?

    Smoke and mirrors!
    yamit82 Said:

    I hate to quote Barry Chamish but he believes BB is an American agent,

    I have been suspicious, especially of Sharon, that Israeli leaders have been blackmailed and esxorted by foreign intelligence services: that they sell out Israel to protect themselves, their families and their name. I have never seen so many scandals, on an ongoing basis among national leadership, as in Israel. Either Israel is very transparent or its leaders are very corrupt and vulnerable.


    I have this been saying for a while that deals are being made because that is the only way that actions which are apparently intentional are explained. first, it appears obvious that there is a grand deal to empower or enfranchise islamic leadership. I say this because the west and US have been involved on the the side of Islamists in 3 recent “revolutions”. In all cases Islamists have increased their power and secular national dictators have been, or are being, removed. If islamists(MB etc) ascend to power the only way they can maintain power without repression or war is to start improving the economies. WRT gaza: Qatar wants to make massive investment in gaza and has asked Israel for permission to do so. If gaza develops the offshore gas it can improve its economy and deliver to its constituents without employing the Israel card for distraction. Furthermore, lets face it, gaza rockets have too high a percentage of landing in empty fields followed by Israeli bombing of empty buildings, to be believed as a war. Both sides gained by having an enemy. Regarding the west bank I believe there is an agreement for an interim de facto scenario rather than for an overt agreement. Also, that there will be a lot of ongoing noise in order to appear to be in conflict to distract the arab street and right wing Israelis. Israel will have Jerusalem and E1 and settlement blocs and maintain the status quo in area C and its security positions in Jordan valley until a final arrangement with Jordan representing a confederation if agreement can be reached. I believe the statehood issue was to allow confederation with jordan(abbas has stated that the west bank cannot survive without it); it was floated in 1988 after statehood. The division of area C will come later if a confederation under jordan is reached. IN the meantime Israel will probably consolidate existing settlements and aiming for reinforcing future defacto borders. It appears to be decided that b & a will continue to have arab residents and no transfers. Therefore there remains only area C and security. In fact nothing has or will change but if Jordan and west bank confederate there will be a greater chance that Israel will end up with more of or all of area C because in that case the west bank can give up more. No pal leader, after the years of incitement, could make any deal which recognizes a permanent Jewish state or gives up the right of arab return. By not having a deal but appearing to be fighting for these things the west bank arabs will get used to the limits of their land, no return, no recognition, no formal gaza link. In exchange Israelis will get used to defacto autonomy of a & b, keep security of jordan valley: the status quo with the appearance of movement. Right now we see the weakening of hezbulah, hamas iranian factions and Assad who all are Iranian proxies to be used in any war with US or Israel. I think rhetoric will abound but reality will contradict. The sunni islamists, new to power, and their monarchical alllies, are seeking to make money out of future energy resources and deals in the area and dont want the pals to get in their way.

  4. yamit82 Said:

    Hagel was picked to downsize the military Industrial complex.

    I agree, Obama and Hagel are know to agree on reducing the pentagon budget. Picking one of the few republicans who has expressed a desire to reduce the pentagon budget is a domestic tactic. The pentagon is more important for the SD than Israel and the mideast. State is for policy.

  5. Officers receive extensive training on strategic thinking and geopolitics in the US. The higher the rank, the more sophisticated the training and the greater the excellence of the trainers, many of whom are academic superstars in the private sector. enlisted men receive no such training. Many Israeli officers are sent to the US for such advanced training.

    @ yamit82:

  6. @ dionissis mitropoulos:

    Hagel was picked to downsize the military Industrial complex. His anti Israel positions and pro Islam are a smoke screen for being Obama’s choice.

    He is a Jim Baker Clone in outlook. Nam made him very anti war and anti American involvement in global wars. So what if he hates Jews hell most Americans at top institutional levels hate Jews, Reagan was one of the worst and we survived them.

    Sooner America dumps Israel the better off we will be. Rather face open Jew haters than the two faced ones that manage to hide it and claim friendship with a knife behind their backs.

  7. @ David Sternlight:

    Having just watched the announcement, it is clear what’s up. Hagel is a former enlisted man. Enlisted men are primarily trained to follow orders, not create strategy.

    And junior officers are not trained to follow orders? Even senior officers have a chain of command and from what I’ve seen of the current level of American officers I would vote for E1’s in the fifties and draftees over the officer corp not only in intelligence but being able to think on their feet even out of the box. I say this as once being both an enlisted soldier and a junior officer.

    You are an elitist snob. What were you an orderly?

  8. @ David Sternlight:

    Show one single think tank that has a positive track record based on back-checking their analysis and forecasts. Matter of fact the CIA and the FBI would be bankrupt if they were paid on successes. What a waste of trillions of tax payers money or borrowed Chinese funding.

    I can understand a country like Israel benefiting from globalization but not America. Americans have been sold a load of Blue (sky).

    Trade wars, currency wars and real wars coming soon at your local cinema.

    Enjoy the fallout.

  9. Having just watched the announcement, it is clear what’s up. Hagel is a former enlisted man. Enlisted men are primarily trained to follow orders, not create strategy. Nothing against them–I served with many in the US Army during the Korean War and would bet my life on them.. But we may expect Hagel to salute and say “Yes, sir”, not to offer independent judgment.

    @ dionissis mitropoulos:

  10. If there were anyone who still believes Obama has Israel’s back, the nomination of Chuck Hagel as SecDef should convince even the most obtuse. Not only has he an anti-Israel public record, but also our “liar-in-chief’s” claim of Hagel’s having a distinguished Senate record is completely bogus.@ dionissis mitropoulos:

  11. Leaving aside emotion and politics, has anyone in Israel done an academic study scoring Debka’s accuracy from subsequent hard facts, or is it just a rumor mill? In the US we have several highly reliable private Intel organizations, most partly analytically based.

    I’m not looking for anecdotal data. That is often subjective.

    @ David Sternlight:

  12. Not one inch of G-d given Jewish land surrendered to global Islam! Not now! Not ever!

    Stop the wicked surrenders to global jihad!

  13. Thanks for your input. Based on reading it for several years, that was not obvious to me. I thought it was a bunch of ex-Intel folks with good sources. However I’m not on the ground and it’s been many years since I visited with the head of the Israeli government’s “research department” and viewed classified maps, so I’m in no position to judge.

    @ C.R.:

  14. Netanyahu in bed with Obama and his Islamists.

    Godless political whores are so full of lust they wont stop their evil.

  15. @ Sam Goldblatt:
    Sam Goldblatt Said:

    Obama warned Netanyahu to stay out of the election or they would be hell to pay. But, Bibi got too big for his already elephant sized britches.

    Sam, Israel was facing (still does) an existential threat due to Iran’s nukes. Netanyahu knew that Obama is going to do nothing. With Romney, the situation would be far more more promising (either because Romney would let Israel take care of the bombing, or because he could be persuaded by Israel to do it himself).

    There was really no choice for Bibi, he had to side openly with the only candidate that might help in neutralizing this threat, and this candidate was Romney.

    I can’t blame Bibi for that.

  16. @ David Sternlight:

    A site like debka must get enough right to establish credibility but they also get much more not right and a bal and individual filter must be employed by the reader. Those like mr. blue with no filter might accept all or none of it depending on their understanding and personal political preferences.

    One might agree or disagree with debka on any thread and still be correct. Most knowledgeable users of Wikipedia understand that it’s not a reliable source but understand that enough is reliable in order to feel comfortable when using and quoting the site.

    rumor here is that debka is run out of the Mossad and publish a lot of spin and disinformation but also many insights and facts not found in most main-street news organs.


  17. I find it entertaining that when Debka publishes something some dislike, they attack it for being unreliable, yet these same people accept material that fits their prejudices when the same Debka publishes that. Hmmm.



    First everyone who is serious about this issue and in genuine support of Israel–needs to stop referring to it as a “peace process“–because it is not a “peace process“–it never was–and it never will be–it is the process of one action after another to weaken and destroy Israel.

  19. Obama warned Netanyahu to stay out of the election or they would be hell to pay. But, Bibi got too big for his already elephant sized britches. Now, with Pat Buchanan ally Chuck Hagel becoming the U.S. Secretary of Defense – Israel is paying the price for Netanyahu’s hubris. His position is so weak now vis a vis the Americans that he’ll agree to anything to save his job. He has to go one way or the other.


    What’s in it for Israel?


    Last time I looked we already possess all of the settlement including Jerusalem and the IDF and Shabak is solid in Y&S.

    I have identified corroborating evidence that has come to light in support of the deal that Debka described. But there is a great deal we don’t know about the deal and Netanyahu isn’t talking. Debka speculates that full disclosure would lose him support.

    Israel is not America our parliment and the Likud itself can change leaders and policies if they can muster a majority either in or out of the Likud. Last time I looked the Likud list is not made up of Peace now activists. For BB to pull off his suspected policy he would have to move further left than Sharon did.

    All of the disclosures by our ex security heads indicate that they were convinced BB would move against Iran and publicly opposed him and Barak
    with Lastly Yuval Diskin disclosure and censor of BB Last week. If BB has a secret understanding that he is planning to withdraw from most if not all of the settlements and allow Iran her nukes it must be seen in light of the disclosures of all of Israel’s security heads who believed he would do the exact opposite. What changed? Palis Positions? Iran deemed further than thought from attaining their Nukes? Poison Gas in Syria has been rendered non threatening? Bankrupt Egypt in danger of internal implosion and an Egypt hard-pressed to feed her growing population has been awarded by Obama 20 F-16’s (Best and newest of the series) and aerial tankers for inflight refueling. (Sounds Reasonable to me) considering that Israel is her only geographical enemy. I can understand economic aid, food aid etc but another 20 F-16’s and refueling tankers? Was that deal to keep the Egyptian Army happy and American Industry churning saving thousands of Jobs?

    Back to BB. BB the liar and demogogue has painted himself into a corner by crying wolf so long he is no longer being taken seriously not only by our foes and few friendlies but the Israeli public doesn’t believe him either so he can’t raise the same Alarms as he has for the past 6-10 years especially the last 4. He is the emperor with no cloths. Most pundits here who know BB believe that without a strong popular and respected military leader at his side supporting his positions he will never commit to any decision that if things go wrong cannot be shred with respected others in his government

    BB is a Thatcherist conservative who believes in peace through economic strength. Strength shared with enemies in the belief that economically well off people are less belligerent. “He has learned nothing and forgot nothing” Two years ago he was bragging and taking credit for the economic boom of the Pali Authority. I said at the time it was all BS a Potemkin Village and events have proved me correct and BB full of it and himself.

    Turkey and Israel have strong trade relations today because there is a mutual interest, but militarily we cannot reproduce what was in the short term, all of the military that we had a good working relationship with have been purged and replaced with hardline Islamist ideologues.

    What’s in it for Israel?

    Egypt today is holding back because they need desperately American and IMF loans. If they stabilize all bets are off and if they don’t stabilize the same. A break with Egypt is all but inevitable.

    What’s in it for Israel?
    Qatar? They have nothing we want or need and we have nothing they can’t get elsewhere.
    What’s in it for Israel?

    They are still smuggling weapons building deep Bunkers with Israeli help and don’t forget they were making their own missiles that his Beesheba and Ashkelon. Given time they will produce necessary rockets with Iranian help so that smuggling won’t be necessary.

    Do we want them controlling Y&S?

    What’s in it for Israel to deal directly with Hamas or even not oppose a Hamas takeover of Y&S?

    BB has buried the Levi Report and scrapped E1. What’s left? I hate to quote Barry Chamish but he believes BB is an American agent, a plant run by Kissinger and a past member of the CFR. As crazy as it sounds BB has done nothing to render Chamish accusations beyond the possibility.