Schlaglicht Israel Nr. 03/10 Aktuelles aus israelischen Tageszeitungen 09.- 22. Februar 2010 1. Iran Anlässlich des 31. Jahrestags der Islamischen Revolution verkündete der iranische Präsident Mahmoud Ahamadinejad, dass es dem Iran gelungen sei, Uran auf 20 Prozent anzureichern. Wenige Tage zuvor hatte Außenminister Mottaki im Rahmen der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz die westlichen Hoffnungen enttäuscht und auf Teherans Recht zur Urananreicherung bestanden. Einem Kompromissvorschlag stimmte er nicht zu. Die USA drängen nun auf harte Sanktionen und bemühen sich um internationale Unterstützung. In diesem Zusammenhang ist auch der Israel-Besuch des Chefs des amerikanischen Generalstabs zu verstehen: Michael Mullen hatte bei einer Pressekonferenz und in Gesprächen mit israelischen Regierungsmitgliedern betont, dass ein Angriff auf den Iran im Moment unerwünscht sei. Dementsprechend haben führende Politiker in Israel in den letzten Wochen von Drohungen gegen den Iran abgesehen und verstärkt nach Sanktionen verlangt. A friendly warning “Israel should heed the friendly warning it received from the Obama administration, which opposes a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. […] Both Israeli and Iranian leaders have escalated the threats they have been exchanging over the past few weeks.[…] In these circumstances, the U.S. administration was right to send its senior officials to the Middle East in an attempt to calm both Israel and the Arab nations who are afraid of the Iranian nuclear threat.[…] Israel is required to give Obama a chance, for one simple reason: Israel will need full American support for any actions it may decide to take against the Iranian threat.[…] No other country would or could aid Israel, and uncoordinated Israeli action would justifiably arouse U.S. anger, since it would endanger America's vital interests in the region.” HAA 16.02.10 A new approach to Iran “Once it achieves nuclear capability[…] Iran is also limited. The United States, Britain and France(and other countries) could warn Iran that launching a missile – any missile(since it can be assumed to be a WMD) – against a non-Iranian target would result in a devastating response, perhaps the annihilation of Iran, by a combined international force.[…] The advantage of such a mechanism is that it virtually locks in all participants and everyone knows the rules. Iran's success up to now has been due to the lack of rules, clear red lines and meaningful consequences. The responsibility for prudence and self-preservation as well as the system itself, therefore, is incumbent on every player. And once armed, there is no withdrawal.[…] The premise of this approach is that having‘The Bomb’ would include accountability for its use. A step back from confrontation, it is not appeasement or conciliatory. It sends a message of resolve that the initial use of WMD, without provocation, will trigger a devastating response by the international community.” Moshe Dann, JED 17.02.10 At least we tried “The involvement with sanctions[…] deflects from the primary problem- the absence of an American strategy for tough negotiations with Iran. Even more serious, however, is that there are worrying signs that the Obama administration is beginning to resign itself[…] to recognition that the Islamic republic could ultimately build a nuclear bomb. When you begin to reconcile with a specific reality, you stop trying to change it. And then we hear more about the need to deter and contain Iran than about stopping it.[…] 1

The weakness that Obama is showing toward Iran has implications for America's global leadership role. Israel must speak to the Americans about this, and instead of focusing on sanctions, should try to determine if and how the U.S. intends to lead a comprehensive process leading to a solution. Without genuine American determination, there is no prospect of preventing the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons.” Emily Landau, HAA 14.02.10 Giving us the finger “Ahmadinejad’s claim that the uranium is required for medical needs is a lie. In any case, the world powers’ proposal to Iran to enrich the uranium in France and send it back to Tehran after it has been processed[…] would provide everything needed for a medical reactor. Therefore, Iranian work to enrich uranium has three implications: The Iranians are continuing to give the West the finger, Iran is advancing towards the production of enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, and the moment its production facilities will start operating intensively it would be very difficult to monitor them.” Ronen Bergmann, JED 09.02.10 America doesn’t trust us “You do not have permission to surprise us and embark on a military move vis-à-vis Iran without first coordinating it with us – this is the bottom line left behind by Admiral Michael Mullen, the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[…] The message is unequivocal: Later on, don’t claim there was a misunderstanding. There will be no Israeli military operations against Iran that we do not know of in advance and approve.[…] The Americans fear that Israel will not be level-headed enough and that it won’t properly assess the aftershocks of a military strike on Iran.” Alex Fishmann, JED 16.02.10 Partners against Iran “There is profound concern in Israel that the fine words, even backed up by a new seriousness in seeking more effective economic sanctions, will prove insufficient to deter the ayatollahs. Clearly, the flurry of visits by high-level US officials marks a heightened era of dialogue between Washington and Jerusalem, as the US steps up its campaign to resolve the Iranian crisis without a resort to force.[…] Ultimately, Israel must and will take the decisions it feels necessary to safeguard its basic security interests. Ultimately, Israel will gauge the risks, assess the consequences, and act accordingly.” JPO 16.02.10 Legimitation für den Iran “Sollte Deutschland tatsächlich irgendeine Lehre aus seiner Vergangenheit gezogen haben – eine immer noch umstrittene Frage – dann darf es ein politisch-moralisches Fiasko, wie es sich am vergangenen Wochenende ereignet hat, nicht zulassen: Die Rede des iranischen Außenministers Mottaki bei der angesehenen Sicherheitskonferenz in München. Der deutsche Außenminister[…] hat den Bemühungen um eine Isolation des iranischen Regimes stark geschadet, als er einem Treffen mit seinem Amtskollegen aus Teheran zustimmte.[…] Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel treibt zwar persönlich die internationalen Sanktionen gegen den Iran voran und sorgt dafür, dass deutsche Firmen ihre vielseitigen Geschäftsverbindungen mit Teheran einschränken, das deutsche Establishment achtet jedoch geflissentlich darauf, die Kommunikation mit den iranischen Vertretern in Gang zu halten und ihnen öffentliche Bühnen zu bieten, damit sie ihre perversen Meinungen verbreiten können.“ Eldad Beck, JED 09.02.10 Plus ça change “National interests do not change when regimes change. The Islamic Republic loves to remind the West, especially Washington, that Iran first planned to become a nuclear power under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was always interested in any weapon he could buy. Those who assume that replacing Ahmadinejad with more reform-minded leaders on the theory of‘Anyone-but-Ahmadinejad’ will be disappointed. However Ahmadinejad is replaced, Iranian national interests and security strategies will remain the same.” Judith S. Yaphne, JPO 15.02.10 2

2. Attentat auf Mahmoud alMabhouh Nachdem die Polizei in Dubai Details zu dem Mordanschlag auf den Hamas-Funktionär Mahmoud al-Mabhouh veröffentlich hat, verdichten sich die Anhaltspunkte, dass der israelische Geheimdienst Mossad dafür verantwortlich ist. Die Behörden in Dubai präsentierten Fotos und(falsche) Namen von elf Beteiligten, die mit falschen Pässen aus verschiedenen europäischen Ländern und gestohlenen Identitäten eingereist waren. Einige der Pässe waren auf Namen von in Israel lebenden Briten ausgestellt worden. Obwohl Israel keine Verantwortung für den Anschlag übernommen hat, wurden die israelischen Botschafter in Irland und Großbritannien zum Gespräch über die gefälschten und gestohlenen Dokumente vorgeladen. Dubais Polizei Chef kündigte indes einen internationalen Haftbefehl für den Mossad-Direktor Meir Dagan an, sobald genügend Beweise zur Verfügung stünden. No screw up in Dubai “Let’s assume for a moment that Mossad operatives indeed executed arch-terrorist Mahmoud alMabhouh in Dubai. Moreover, let’s assume for a moment that the Mossad members who took part in the operation were exposed by the cameras and the photos were published worldwide. So what? […] I am much happier that we are rid of a bitter and cruel enemy, Mr. Mabhouh, who we sought out for many years before his demise.[…] So now this is the question being asked: Was Mabhouh worth the effort and the anxious moments? There is an idiom we commonly use around here about‘being able to replace anyone.’ Yet this is not true in Mabhouh’s case.[…] Because he was the driving force, a great bigwig in the terror world; a man involved in everything.[…] As to the unpleasant moments vis-à-vis other governments – Britain, Ireland, and France in this case – no need to worry. They said what they said yesterday, and will likely not say more. And they have a good reason for that.” Eitan Haber, JED 18.02.10 Passport‘rage’ “Mabhouh was a key link in the unlawful syndicate which delivers Iranian weapons to Gaza.[…] You can tell a great deal about the moral compass and political leanings of a society by observing its reaction to the Mabhouh liquidation. There is unease in Europe because the purported assassins identified by Dubai were travelling under forged French, German, Irish and British passports; and identities of Israelis with dual-citizenship were utilized.[…] Actually, what troubles us is the question of whose passport Mabhouh was traveling under and why he was allowed to enter neutral Dubai on gun-running business.[…] […T]his pigheaded refusal to acknowledge that sometimes the ends do justify the means reflects a moral impoverishment that’s not limited to Britain. […] In fact, removing a Mabhouh or a Mughniyeh[…] significantly disrupts Hamas and Hizbullah. It sows distrust within enemy ranks. And it forces whoever replaces them to dissipate their energies just trying to stay alive.” JPO 19.02.10 “In London, Paris und Berlin weiß man sehr wohl wer von den beiden – Hamas oder Israel – auf der Seite der Guten ist. Es gibt keinen Grund zur Annahme, dass man dort über den Tod von Mabhouh sonderlich trauert. Aus diesem Grund kann und muss die Sache – sollte es sich tatsächlich um Israel handeln – still geregelt werden. Unsere guten Leute und ihre guten Leute müssen die Köpfe zusammenstecken. Wenn das nicht passiert, befinden wir uns auf einem sehr glatten Hang. Brown, Merkel und Sarkozy stehen unter Medien-, politischem und öffentlichem Druck.“ Yoav Limor, IHY 19.02.10 Too much for the Mossad to handle “There is a lesson to be learned from the Dubai affair: Even the best of the world's spy organizations aren't perfect.[…] The belief that intelligence information can supply the solution to every predicament is dangerous. It can lull countries to sleep at fateful times.[…] The facts speak for themselves. Two prime ministers have relied on [Mossad chief] Dagan. They tasked him with thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. To judge by the results, Israel has not readied itself in time to face the menace of a nuclear Iran or to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The head of the Mossad does not bear the responsibility for this. The people who entertained impossible expectations of him are responsible. The conclusion is unequivocal: With all due respect to the Mossad, Iran is too much for it to handle alone.” Ari Shavit, HAA 18.02.10 3

Liquidation sale “We eliminated Abbas al-Musawi? Well done, Israel Defense Forces. We got Hassan Nasrallah. We killed Ahmed Yassin? Well done, Shin Bet security service. We got a Hamas many times stronger.[…] Do we really want to live in a country that has death squads, that sends the cream of its youth to suffocate people with pillows in hotel rooms[…]? What do these liquidators tell their children when they get home safe and sound?[…] That all's fair and right in the war on terror? That they have made a contribution to the state's security?[…] Although assassinations are neither effective nor legal and sometimes not moral- when the target is a political leader or someone who could have been detained we have not only awarded the assassins a kashrut certificate but also an aura of heroism.[…] We have long forgotten that the Mossad is supposed to be an intelligence-gathering organization, not one that sows death, and that a lawful state does not operate hit squads.” Gideon Levy, HAA 18.02.10 3. Wahlrecht für Israelis im Ausland? Anfang Februar kündigten Premierminister Netanyahu und Außenminister Avigdor Lieberman eine Gesetzesinitiative an, die es im Ausland lebenden Israelis ermöglichen würde, an den Wahlen in Israel teilzunehmen. Bisher haben nur Diplomaten und Angehörige der Marine dieses Recht. Allerdings können Israelis, die nicht in Israel gemeldet sind, wählen, sofern Sie sich am Wahltag in Israel befinden. Ähnliche Initiativen hat es in der Vergangenheit bereits gegeben. Viele Israelis empfinden ein solches Gesetz als problematisch, weil laut israelischer Gesetzeslage alle Juden der Welt Recht auf die israelische Staatsbürgerschaft haben und somit auch ohne länger im Land gelebt zu haben, Einfluss auf die Politik nehmen könnten. Netanyahu sagte nun, Wahlrecht für im Ausland lebende Bürger sei in den westlichen Demokratien Standard und festige die Bindungen an die Heimat. Die Mehrheit der Oppositionsparteien sowie die Koalitionspartner Shas und Arbeitspartei haben sich gegen die Gesetzesinitiativeausgesprochen. Who should vote? “Voting rights needn’t necessarily be denied Israelis without dual citizenship or permanent residence in other countries or Israelis with clear fixed-term stays abroad. […] The real question is where to draw the line.[…] Unambiguous guidelines must be devised to ascertain a tangible link to Israel before granting the vote overseas. Our ballots mustn’t be rendered trivial nostalgia-vehicles.[…] True, most Western democracies allow expatriate voting.[…] However, nowhere are the decisions required of voters as crucial and potentially risky to life, limb and livelihood as here. Day-to-day existence in Israel isn’t always as trouble-free as in greener pastures, a fact which underscores the moral quandary of permitting Israelis who opted for opportunities elsewhere to decide how we here live. […] The vote, in short, should be reserved for those who live with the consequences.” JPO 10.02.10 Our government in Miami The benefits of granting voting rights to Israelis living abroad are still[…] unclear.[…] The populist considerations of the politicians who initiated the bill are clear and not too interesting but they connect nicely to their sub consciousness:[…] The first obligation of elected officials here is not to the people who live here now, but rather to ‘principles’ and to history. This state does not intend to be functioning any time soon as a normal country that serves its residents- many of whom live here without any rights or legal status.[…] In any case, we should hope that the Israelis living abroad will continue to save us from ourselves, and that they won't make do with voting rights but also establish their own expat party. Considering the grim situation on the electoral front here and the ongoing search for a‘new face’ that had not be tainted by local dirt, such party will likely be the surprise of the elections and hit the jackpot. And then, from its headquarters in Miami, it will teach us how we should really be managing our affairs in the Middle East.” Assaf Gefen, JED 13.02.10 A uniqueness that justifies voting rights “Last week saw a multitude of political, legal and moral claims against the proposal to grant voting rights to Israeli expatriates.[…] There's no doubt that unlike other countries, Israel must make fateful decisions, so the right to vote acquires particular weight and value. But I think a more in-depth reading of the claim leads to the 4

opposite conclusion: It is precisely Israel's uniqueness that justifies voting rights for expats.[…] Israel actually has a vested interest in strengthening its connection with Israelis living abroad because many of them have not yet decided whether to return. As for the moral aspect of the fact that the expatriates' votes will not directly affect their lives abroad, we should remember that many of them have every intention of returning to Israel and their stay abroad is strictly temporary.[…] Voting rights could be granted to Israelis studying abroad or residing there for short periods, say, up to five years. Voting rights can also be considered for people who live abroad for longer periods but have contributed to Israel greatly enough through their military service to justify receiving the vote.” Yaron Gottlieb, HAA 14.02.10 Whose right? “If the Zionist project is to have a future, it will have to reach an understanding of its connection with the Jews of the world, to make its Arab citizens full partners and say farewell to the Palestinians as they begin constructing their own state. Expatriate voting, if it can be justified at all, is the sort of luxury that only established democracies can afford, and certainly not one available to a work in progress like Israel. The extension of voting rights to expat Israelis seems like another short-sighted attempt to ameliorate the so-called‘demographic’ issue. And it is clear which political camp would benefit, since Israelis living abroad, in the tradition of all diaspora groups, are far more inflexible and right-wing than those who have to deal with the consequences of political decisions every day.[…] The main force behind the proposal for voting abroad is Avigdor Lieberman.[…] Over a million Jews from the former Soviet Union immigrated to Israel over the last two decades[…], at least 200,000 decided this wasn't for them[…] and all carry Israeli passports. Their votes could be pivotal in an election campaign in which Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu may hold the balance of power.[…] Lieberman's desire to transform the global RussianJewish community into his own political fiefdom is the antithesis of Zionism, and all proposals to expand voting overseas should be postponed until we get our house in order.” Anshel Pfeffer, HAA 12.02.10 4. Medienquerschnitt Die Vielfalt der in Israel relevanten Themen kann in einem Medienspiegel natürlich nicht umfassend wiedergegeben werden. Um den deutschen Lesern/innen dennoch einen Einblick in das große Themenspektrum, das in den Medien behandelt wird, zu gewähren, veröffentlichen wir in dieser Schlaglichtausgabe wieder eine kleine Auswahl an weiteren Themen, die in den letzten Wochen die israelische Gesellschaft bewegten. Über Premierminister Netanyahus Besuch in Russland und Gespräche über Waffengeschäfte mit dem Iran: Oh, those Russians “The Russians[…] were never members of the Israel fan club. There were times when they openly stood by the State of Israel’s bitterest enemies.[…] This is the case at this time as well. The Russians understand very well that Iran jeopardizes world peace, while threatening Moscow too; however, the need to feed millions of people is stronger than values, caution, and calculated risks when it comes to the Russians.[…] Netanyahu has all the reasons in the world to be satisfied upon his return from his Russia visit: The Russians again promised him to refrain from selling the abovementioned weapons to Iran. However, we already gained plenty of experience with these Cossacks. At the end of the day, they will sell to the Iranians whatever Tehran wants. Whoever is planning to operate in Iran should take this into consideration. So welcome back from the cold countries, PM Netanyahu – as long as you don’t have any illusions.” Eitan Haber, JED 16.02.10 Is Russia as‘orderly’ as we think? “Many viewed with consternation comments made by a high-level Russian official – just hours before Netanyahu came to Moscow on Monday – that Russia would sell state-of-the-art S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.[…] But Russia is not monolithic, there are different focuses of power in this enormous country[…] with each at times trying to nudge policy in opposite directions. So when Nazarov is quoted by Interfax as saying that in regard to the S-300s,‘there is a signed contract which we must follow through on,’ both the speaker and the institution he represents must be 5

examined in order to interpret how much weight to give the comments.[…] And, indeed, though it signed the agreement in 2007, Russia still has not delivered the weapons system to Teheran, something that is causing more than just a little frustration inside Iran.” Herb Keinon, 16.02.10 Über den prominenten Rabbi Mordechai Elon, der sexueller Belästigung beschuldigt wird, und die Organisation Takana, die die Anschuldigungen nun öffentlich machte: Pursue justice – within the community “The Rabbi Mordechai Elon affair very quickly became the Takana affair. The public debate has shifted[…] from shock at Elon's alleged sexual misconduct to a discussion of the legitimacy of Takana, an umbrella group of religious Zionist organizations aimed at combating sexual harassment by religious figures.[…] One could say a community-based course of action like the kind represented by Takana has advantages over the criminal procedure. Going the criminal justice route requires quite a bit of exposure, and is also formalistic and technical- a difficult ordeal, especially when it comes to delicate issues like sexual assault. In such cases, community action has a better chance of doing justice while treading carefully to preserve the dignity of all concerned, as apparently was done in this case.” Yair Sheleg, HAA 18.02.10 Trust but check, our sages tell us “Our first and foremost concern must always be for the victim.[…] More than one community, having detected a sexual predator in its midst, has simply transferred the criminal to another, unsuspecting community so as to avoid a legal battle and all the negative publicity that comes along with it. Meanwhile, the victims are denied their right to justice and the fox is now transferred to a new henhouse, where he may continue his deviant behavior on new victims.[…] Takana claims that it acted as it did because complainants refused to press charges(as often happens in these cases); but any ad-hoc vigilance committee must see its first responsibility as being to the public at large.” Stewart Weiss, JPO 17.02.10 Arrogance in a skullcap “The fact that in the State of Israel there is an alternative law enforcement system such as the Takana forum, which investigates and metes out punishment only to religious Zionists, is intolerable. […] A high school teacher at a secular school who sexually assaults his students would be turned over to the police. A rabbi at a yeshiva suspected of the same thing would be turned over to Takana.[…] The fact that now, after the suspicions were reported, additional complaints against Elon have begun to surface, as Takana has also acknowledged, just reinforces the need that there was to disclose them immediately when they became known to Takana.[…] The fact that Takana also notified the attorney general at the time, who the movement claims prevented the police from entering the picture, does not absolve Takana in this failed case, even if the attorney general conducted himself outrageously.” Gideon Levy, HAA 21.02.10 HAA= Haaretz HZO= Ha Tzofe IHY= Israeli HaYom JED= Jedioth Ahronoth JPO= Jerusalem Post MAA= Maariv Der Artikel aus IHY wurde dem Medienspiegel der Deutschen Botschaft Israel entnommen. Veröffentlicht im: Februar 2010 Verantwortlich: Dr. Ralf Hexel, Leiter der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Israel Redaktion: Maike Harel Anita Haviv Homepage: www.fes.org.il Email: fes@fes.org.il 6