Israel. The real reason for the attack

[CyberRose]

I think the problem with this affair (and many more like it in this conflict) is that we'll probably never know the truth about what happened. Neither party can be considered a reliable source of information, and unsurprisingly, both sides have different accounts of what happened on the ship. There's loads of stories and theories being branded about and without the admission of one side or the other confirming the others' account they'll only ever remain stories and theories.

I don't think there's any use in me commenting on what I think happened because quite frankly there's no way of me knowing. All I wanted to comment on is the outcome. Imo, the outcome has been a resounding victory for the protesters. The international community has condemned Israel and there's now a hell of a lot of pressure on them (whether anything will come of this "pressure" remains to be seen, I know most here will remain cynical and history would suggest they would be right).

I think those who died on the ship will be sat up in heaven watching events unfold and will be happy that the international community is criticising Israel so much and bringing so much attention to the blockade and Gaza in general (when was the last time we had threads about Israel on U75 with all the focus on the election and the recession?!). Who knows, maybe this will help lift the blockade and improve the lives of the Palestinians in Gaza, if so, then those that died and their families will know that they didn't die for nothing and that they gave their lives to help the cause they felt so strongly about (can't think of much better ways to go than that!)

 

[dylans]

Well I am amused and slightly flattered that someone referred to my thread as "maniacal". That brought a smile to my face. I hope you can imagine me hacking away on my keyboard while cackling and drooling like a madman. "maniacal"I like that

On a more serious note. If you thought the OP was "maniacal" the following is going to blow your mind.

Ok in the OP I outlined an theory that, far from being an error on the part of the Israeli's, the attack on the flotilla was a deliberate and intentional act in line with long term strategic goals. I have already outlined what I think are the internal and domestic motives for the attack and here I want to outline a broader picture of the external strategic intentions of the Israeli government in launching this assault on the flotilla.

It seems to me that those who wish to disagree with my argument fall into a number of categories. The most obvious being the Israeli government line and its defenders who simply argue that Israel was right and justified in sending commandos onto the ship, that the flotilla presented a security threat to Israel that couldn't be ignored and therefore everything that followed was the responsibility of the flotilla organisers who deliberately set out to provoke embattled plucky little Israel, hiding behind the labels of “aid” and “humanitarianism” in order to cloak a hidden more insidious objective. To break the blockade in order to pave the way for future weapons shipments to Gaza.

This is the Israeli line and I think it fair to say there are not many here arguing it, so it seems reasonable and fair to treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it.

A more common argument and one I do need to deal with is the argument that the raid was a fiasco, an ill conceived over reaction which spun out of control due to bad planning and the unforeseen or irresponsible behaviour of those on board the ship. According to this argument, the Israeli's were show boating for internal consumption and perhaps showing a message to future flotillas but it all went badly wrong.

Now this is a reasonable line to take and it seems to me that to disprove or at least undermine it I need to show that the raid, far from being a disaster for Israel, actually fits in to a coherent strategic plan. In short I need to show a motive. This is what i want to do here.


In all the attention that has been focussed on the flotilla attack, a couple of events have gone relatively unnoticed. They are worth considering in light of subsequent events. The first was a call by the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty review conference just last week which was considered a diplomatic defeat for Israel. It ended with a call for Israel to sign up to a non nuclear Middle East treaty, a demand long called for by Arab and Mid East nations including Iran. Israel immediately rejected the report and tellingly the US issued a statement strongly supporting Israel.

“The NPT review conference, which concluded last week, ended with a call on Israel to sign the treaty – a signature that would mean the end of Israel's long-time nuclear ambiguity policy. The conference also called for the removal of weapons of mass destruction from the entire Middle East. The U.S. supported the call, but Obama and other senior administration officials were quick to counter this support with declarations of support for Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...capabilities-jerusalem-officials-say-1.293086

A senior political source in Jerusalem said Sunday that Israel received guarantees from U.S. President Barack Obama that the U.S. would maintain and improve Israel's strategic and deterrence capabilities.*
." The statement issued one day before the raid on the flotilla points to US support of "Israel's strategic and deterrence capabilities, which also include the launching of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran:

*http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/452482.html?c=on

Sorry? What was that? Was that a typo? Let's read it again.

which also include the launching of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran:*

Yes you read it right.

While the eyes of the world have been focused on this flotilla attack, Quietly and without fuss 3 Israeli nuclear submarines have moved into the coastal waters of Iran.

Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.
The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.

The vessels can remain at sea for about 50 days and stay submerged up to 1,150ft below the surface for at least a week. Some of the cruise missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear warheads in the Israeli arsenal. ...he submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to produce a nuclear bomb. “The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise missiles can reach any target in Iran,” said a navy officer

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece

so how does this fit into the flotilla attack? The Israeli's have been sabre rattling for some time about a reported attempt by Iran and Syria to arms Hesbollah with ballistic missiles.

Israel’s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece

The intention IMO of the flotilla attack is to further reduce any influence of Abbas, kill peace talks and most importantly, to inflame Palestinian radicalism.

They want to provoke a Palestinian response. They want Hamas and Hesbollah to throw some missiles over the borders. They want a suicide attack in Tel Aviv. When they happen, they can blame Iran and Syria and use the resulting crisis to carry out a policy that Netenyahuh has sworn to carry out. They are going to attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons.

The crisis over the flotilla has served as a with us or against us warning to Obama. Turkey is a NATO member and this crisis makes a NATO rift between Turkey and the USA inevitable as Obama is forced to choose between the two. We have seen this week that Obama has not only refused to condemn the attack but he has also refused to support an international enquiry. He has already folded and that is exactly what Netanyahuh wanted. To force Obama to choose decisively in support of an Israeli attack on Iran.

This is what this is about. Preparing the ground for nuclear war. As Dennisr rightly points out above this crisis has also unified the entire Israeli population behind Netanyahuh and the flag like never before. The ground is being set.

Am I being alarmist? From April this year

Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities by this November unless the U.S. and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” former deputy defense minister Brig. Gen. Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday in Tel Aviv.

An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”

n a recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran.

“Israel is reported to possess a 200 kilogram nuclear warhead containing 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium that could be mounted on the sea launched cruise missiles and producing a Yield of 20 kilo tons,” Cordesman writes in the CSIS study he co-authored by Abdullah Toukan.

Israel would be most likely to launch these missiles from its Dolphin-class submarines, he added.

While Sneh is no longer in the Israeli government, his revelation of a drop-dead date for an Israeli military strike on Iran must be taken seriously,

http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/Timmerman-Israel-Iran-nuclear/2010/04/02/id/354614

In the OP I wondered why Iran is being so quiet on this issue. I think domestic politics play a role. I think Ahmadinadjad is genuinely afraid of unleashing his usual demonstrations onto the streets so close to the one year anniversary of the government crackdown on protestors in case they turn into green rallies.

This is an element but I think there is another reason. I think he is taking this seriously and doesn't want to play into Israel's hands. He has nukes on his doorstep.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/03-10

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...capabilities-jerusalem-officials-say-1.293086

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/aluf-benn-will-netanyahu-attack-iran-1.273292

 

[agricola]

While the eyes of the world have been focused on this flotilla attack, Quietly and without fuss 3 Israeli nuclear submarines have moved into the coastal waters of Iran.

If this is true, then it suggests an attack sooner rather than later - the Israelis have between 3 and 5 of these submarines, to keep most/all of them on station at the same time means that you cannot maintain that level (or possibly even any level) of presence there (if, as you said, they have an endurance of 50 days, they will have to return to port to refuel* / reprovision) over any length of time.

To maintain a standing patrol of one (one refitting, one in transit/reprovisioning, one on station) probably caused them enough grief.

* the subs are of course diesel-electric, not nuclear powered like the USN / RN ones.

 

[laptop]

Yes, the state of Israel will do anything - anything - to avert the threat of peace.

Yes, there were a number of things that the state of Israel needed to distract attention from: the NPT conference; the South African nuke sales pitch; the passports issue (not gone away, just gone from 24-hour-news time into government time)...

Quite possibly, policy was handed down to "deal with the flotilla 'forcefully'" and that percolated down the ranks as things do.

But I still estimate that it's vastly more probable that, when Defense Minister Ehud Barak first heard about what happened to the convoy, his first thought was "oh fuck" than that it was "job done".

 

[Combustible]

The intention IMO of the flotilla attack is to further reduce any influence of Abbas, kill peace talks and most importantly, to inflame Palestinian radicalism.

This sounds quite plausible.

They want to provoke a Palestinian response. They want Hamas and Hesbollah to throw some missiles over the borders. They want a suicide attack in Tel Aviv. When they happen, they can blame Iran and Syria and use the resulting crisis to carry out a policy that Netenyahuh has sworn to carry out. They are going to attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons.

I don't think that sounds very likely. Even a significant conventional attack would be a disaster for US interests in the region and they wouldn't allow it. Israel can get away with some silly posturing but it is pretty inconceivable that they could get away with launching a nuclear attack without explicit US permission. Israel has wanted to attack Iran for some time but the reason it hasn't happened seems to be that the US is completely against it. Even Bush seems to have told them no. And the Pentagon has been particularly adamant about not attacking Iran. For example

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5134362-503544.html

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a U.S. strike on Iran would be "very destabilizing," as would a nuclear Iran, during an assessment of American foreign policy in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Russia on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

 

[rocketman]

I am simply posting to say to dylans I think you have hit the nail on the head in your analysis.

 

[Pinette]

I need you Dylans to post tomorrow. You have given the most balanced and intelligent view that I have read or heard.

 

[elbows]

It may end up being quite hard to see an attack on Iran coming because part of the pressure on Iran is to talk up the chances of imminent attack on Iran in the press, this has happened a few times in recent years.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They are not going to attack Iran. With conventional forces they have absolutely zero chance even if they did have the internal political will which they don't. They won't fire nukes because, well, why? What possible gain is there from shooting nukes at Iran?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It may end up being quite hard to see an attack on Iran coming because part of the pressure on Iran is to talk up the chances of imminent attack on Iran in the press, this has happened a few times in recent years.

Yah, since 2004 or so there have been regular rumours that an attack on Iran is coming any day now, look at this document or this satellite photo or this leaked statement.

 

[Pickman's model]

It may end up being quite hard to see an attack on Iran coming because part of the pressure on Iran is to talk up the chances of imminent attack on Iran in the press, this has happened a few times in recent years.

yeh it will be hard to see the carrier groups being moved about the world, the redeployment of troops, the arguments in the papers, etc etc. it will all pass without notice.

 

[Quartz]

They are not going to attack Iran... What possible gain is there from shooting nukes at Iran?

Preventing Iran from getting nukes of its own. Israel has a very robust sense of self-defence.

I am not convinced by the OP. I tend to the view that this was a deliberate set-up by the Palestinians. Rockets and arms have been getting into Gaza, so it was a reasonable assumption that there was a good likelihood of some on the convoy. Further, the Israelis have a blanket blockade so they're not going to selectively lift it. However, the numpty in charge of actually taking over the ships swallowed the peace bit too much and so the troops were unprepared when those on the ships attacked them. Remember that there is video of this.

Anyway, the Palestinians played it almost perfectly, and the Israelis cocked it up massively.

 

[elbows]

yeh it will be hard to see the carrier groups being moved about the world, the redeployment of troops, the arguments in the papers, etc etc. it will all pass without notice.

But thats only one possible way it will happen, I guess based on presumptions of a broader campaign?

Attacks on select nuclear facilities dont require such buildup or pre-iraq-war-like discussion in the press.

I presume that if its to be Israel doing the attacking, it will be similar to when they took out an Iraqi reactor that was under construction, a move which I presume did not involve the things you mention beforehand.

 

[ymu]

Preventing Iran from getting nukes of its own. Israel has a very robust sense of self-defence.

I am not convinced by the OP. I tend to the view that this was a deliberate set-up by the Palestinians. Rockets and arms have been getting into Gaza, so it was a reasonable assumption that there was a good likelihood of some on the convoy. Further, the Israelis have a blanket blockade so they're not going to selectively lift it. However, the numpty in charge of actually taking over the ships swallowed the peace bit too much and so the troops were unprepared when those on the ships attacked them. Remember that there is video of this.

Anyway, the Palestinians played it almost perfectly, and the Israelis cocked it up massively.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Gaza has weapons when the West Bank does not because of the tunnels under the border with Egypt. There's no need to smuggle arms in via boat, and no way that happened on this flotilla. It makes no sense, and in any case all the boats were subject to independent checks at other ports on the journey.

The tunnels to Egypt are used far more for food, medicines and building materials than they are for weaponry - the place is under siege, in case you hadn't noticed. Breaking the blockade is a far far more important cause than getting a few more ineffective and poorly targeted rockets in.


As for dylans excellent second installment, excellent post (again). Possibly more about sabre-rattling than a planned imminent nuclear strike, but very clearly about making the US decide whether they're for 'em or against 'em without wasting any more time imagining that a compromise position is possible.

One day, Israel will over-reach itself with this oft-repeated strategy. Probably not any day soon, though.

 

[Quartz]

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Gaza has weapons when the West Bank does not because of the tunnels under the border with Egypt. There's no need to smuggle arms in via boat, and no way that happened on this flotilla. It makes no sense, and in any case all the boats were subject to independent checks at other ports on the journey.

Look at it from the POV of the Israelis. It was a reasonable assumption for them to make. And the Palestinians knew it and played on it.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They were entirely aware that there were no weapons on the boats. They'd been inspected beforehand.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

They are not going to attack Iran. With conventional forces they have absolutely zero chance even if they did have the internal political will which they don't. They won't fire nukes because, well, why? What possible gain is there from shooting nukes at Iran?

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, eh? Got enough bedcovers?

Anyway, no worries. I'll not be posting again on this thread. It's far more interesting to stay silent, and read the contributions of those who agree with Dylans.

 

[dylans]

They are not going to attack Iran. With conventional forces they have absolutely zero chance even if they did have the internal political will which they don't. They won't fire nukes because, well, why? What possible gain is there from shooting nukes at Iran?

From April this year.
sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile [ICBM] capable of reaching the United States by 2015," claimed a Pentagon report that was declassified on Monday. The almost simultaneous timing of two key recent revelations - this and Israeli accusations that Syria had transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon - has contributed to a fresh escalation of tensions in the Middle East and to speculation that the stage is being set for a military show-down.

There are consistent indications that Israel, too, is gearing up for an impending regional war and perhaps is considering initiating action on its own. "For practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November," Brigadier General Ephraim Sneh, a former Israeli deputy defense minister, wrote this month in an op-ed for Israeli daily Ha'aretz.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LD23Ak02.html

A nuclear option is not the only one but it is being seriously considered because of an assessment that convential weapons may not do the job. Indeed the Times reported in 2007 that tactical nuclear weapons have been developed specifically for the job

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece
Also from 2nd April this year. ISRAEL WILL ATTACK IRAN BY NOVEMBER

In a recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran

.
http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/Timmerman-Israel-Iran-nuclear/2010/04/02/id/354614

OK I want to be clear here. I am not saying that a nuclear attack is about to be launched. I am saying that a decision to launch a military attack has been made yes and that the attack on the flotilla was made as part of a process for preparing the ground for that military attack and that a nuclear strike is one of the options being considered.

(I would also like to say that I am extremely flattered (and slightly shy) that my posts have been received so well and, whether you agree with me or not, I am very happy that you have enjoyed reading them as much as I have enjoyed researching and writing them. They were intended to be controversial and thought provoking and, well, thanks for the kind words)

 

[FridgeMagnet]

All this has been regularly said for at least the last six years (and, I wouldn't be surprised, a lot longer - that's just the time during which I've noticed). Speculation, hints, suggestions, "sources say".... Just imagine for a second what would happen if Israel attacked Iran militarily.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They are not going to attack Iran. With conventional forces they have absolutely zero chance even if they did have the internal political will which they don't. They won't fire nukes because, well, why? What possible gain is there from shooting nukes at Iran?

None, if you drop any on Khuzestan province, because you'd irradiate the majority of Iran's oil and gas.

 

[Flavour]

What would Iran do about it though?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What would Iran do about it though?

I suspect they'd put all those missiles they've bunkered and speedboats they've penned to good use in the straits of Hormuz, and damn the consequences. Why not, if they've got nothing left to lose?

 

[weltweit]

I like the OP, there is some logic there.

Israel is nothing if it is not belliggerant (sp).

It is used to getting its own way.

 

[rocketman]

I think the OP has nailed the situation. I think we're in trouble. This is not about politics, strategy or access to raw materials. It is about religious politics. Israel has an axe to grind.

 

[ymu]

I think the OP has nailed the situation. I think we're in trouble. This is not about politics, strategy or access to raw materials. It is about religious politics. The mad mullahs are most in power where?

It's not about religious politics, just good old-fashioned geo-politics and old-style colonialism (where you transfer the civilian population instead of just co-opting their governments).

Zionism has two strands. One has existed for centuries, within a small and much derided religious strand of Judaism. The second, secular, strand developed with Herzl in the late 19th century and had very little to do with the religious aspects of Jewish affairs - one of his earlier solutions to the persecution of Jews in Europe was mass conversion to Christianity, ffs! Uganda was on the cards as the location of his Jewish state, until Palestine became the unfortunate target through a mixture of historical resonance and political expediency.

Until the late 1930s, Zionism was widely regarded as literal heresy amongst orthodox Jewry. It is for the Messiah to lead the people back to the Promised Land and it wasn't generally accepted that he would arrive in an armoured convoy to do so. It was the closure of European and US borders to Jewish refugees during and after WWII that caused many to make a pragmatic decision and head to Palestine.

The religious crazies are very useful for the Israeli state - being willing to live often quite primitive frontier lives in settlement outposts, and being quite happy to form paramilitary forces whilst having religious objections to serving in the state military - but they are not the driving force behind the Zionist project. For a start, you don't get very far in Israeli life if you haven't served in the armed forces, from which the ultra-orthodox [sic] are exempt. The small religious parties wield a lot of power in coalition politics, but they have very few genuinely influential politicians.

 

[rich!]

Yah, since 2004 or so there have been regular rumours that an attack on Iran is coming any day now, look at this document or this satellite photo or this leaked statement.

What is being stopped by this rumour? What does it prevent?

 

[laptop]

The religious crazies are very useful for the Israeli state - being willing to live often quite primitive frontier lives in settlement outposts, and being quite happy to form paramilitary forces whilst having religious objections to serving in the state military - but they are not the driving force behind the Zionist project. For a start, you don't get very far in Israeli life if you haven't served in the armed forces, from which the ultra-orthodox [sic] are exempt. The small religious parties wield a lot of power in coalition politics, but they have very few genuinely influential politicians.

You seem to be cofusing to very different kind of crazy here.

There are the Haredim - known as "the penguins" - who are indeed exempt from military service. Their political action is largely rioting directed against the State of Israel, for example when it arrests one of them for domestic violence or for running it runs buses at the wrong times.

I've never seen one in the West Bank. I'm pretty sure there are very few of them in the "settlements". Certainly not in the "outposts".

Those are populated by crazies who may spout religious rhetoric but are basically colonialists. Many are Americans. They clearly get a buzz wandering around with automatic weapons, parking an M16 by their table in cafés in West Jerusalem and so forth.

Israel is basically America. Tel Aviv is New Jersey; the settlers are playing Wild West, with live ammunition.

I suspect the militant settlers get a bigger buzz out of the knowledge that soon they will get to shoot Indians. But I don't have the chutzpah to go up to a gun nut with gun to hand and ask "why are you such a cunt?"

 

[Spymaster]

<Subscribing>

 

[Weller]

Rachael Corrie 150 mile from Gaza now and offering a deal , I thought they had agreed to change course to Israel through the Irish government ?

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=177520

 

[samk]

A hopefully hypothetical scenario

Suppose israel bombs an iranian nuclear site (with non nuclear weapons). And suppose high level radioactive materials aren't buried as deeply as they might have expected and this releases as much radiation as chernobyl. What would happen next?