Political survival, not Iran, was uppermost on PM Netanyahu's mind when he called for early elections in Israel just a few days ago, as well as when he pulled a brilliant trick out of his sleeve and co-opted the Kadima Party in his coalition.
The fact that so many commentators, both inside and outside Israel, related Netanyahu's moves solely to the question of if and when Israel should strike Iran's nuclear program is a clear indication that Netanyahu succeeded in turning this issue into a focal point of world interest. However, Iran notwithstanding, Netanyahu has been confronted and still is with a string of domestic issues, particularly regarding the fate of settlements in the West Bank declared illegal by the Supreme Court, and the question of drafting ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students to the IDF. In that regard, places like Migron and Givat Haulpana in Beit-El (near Ramallah), were more on his mind than even Iran; but then, how many people outside of Israel really know about them? The old coalition, one of the most right-wing in Israel's history, made it impossible for Netanyahu to follow the rulings of the Court without risking the continuation of his alliance with the settlers and their supporters both in Likud and in the religious parties. The question of drafting the Yeshiva students became a thorny issue for another coalition member, the Israel Beitenu Party of his foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
The question of Iran, on the other hand, was not the issue that seemed to present Netanyahu with his greatest challenge inside his own coalition. Most of the pressure on him not to strike Iran, at least not in the foreseeable future, came from people outside of the coalition, and in some cases, outside of the political system altogether. The Iran question is not the number 1 issue on the agenda of many settlers and their representatives in the Netanyahu coalition.
Just some weeks ago, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, one of the most influential Rabbis in the West Bank, published an article blaming Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak for playing up the Iran issue because of ego problems... the Rabbi made it very clear that the future of settlements, not Iran, and the "manufactured" danger posed by her, happen to be the most important priority. Many settlers and their supporters share this view of Israel's security woes, though surely not all of them. The fact is that the threats to break up the government came from these people, not from those who hold Iran as their most important problem.
If Netanyahu needed a reminder from these people about their concerns, he got it just two days ago, when he talked to a special Likud convention, amid continuous interruptions from religious members of the party protesting his "anti-settlements" policy.
The call for new elections was therefore meant to scare his right-wing opponents, but in the process it did the trick on the Kadima Party and its newly-elected leader General [Ret.] Shaul Mofaz. Facing up to public opinion polls indicating a complete rout, Mofaz chose survival over principle and decided to join Netanyahu. It was political interest, not Iran or the Palestinian issue, that motivated him. A few days ago, Mofaz publicly called Netanyahu a liar, and when asked about it yesterday, he said nonchalantly, that it was "behind him"...
The same Mofaz was one of those who criticized what seemed to be Netanyahu's rush to strike Iran. He also said in public that Israel should offer the Palestinians 100% of the West Bank, only to be attacked by some hawkish members of his own caucus. Complicated? Well, welcome to Israeli politics, where there is never a dull moment. Will Mofaz relate to these statements the same way he shrugged off questions about calling Netanyahu a "liar"?
Time will tell, of course, and in the meantime I am reminded of one of the more folkloristic lines of Hosni Mubarak of all people. The deposed dictator said once to one of his Israeli visitors that he is tired of listening to Israeli complaints about Iran. "You have so many Iranian-speaking Jews in senior positions in Israel, so send them to talk to the Ayatollahs in their language, and settle your differences with them..."
Shaul Mofaz, a former Chief-of-Staff of the IDF and defense Minister is one of those that Mubarrak referred to, but I will not advise anyone to read too much into that. His inclusion in the government will, in itself, not be the decisive factor insofar as a possible strike against Iran is concerned. The key man continues to be PM Netanyahu, who has made a move which widened his scope of maneuverability with regard to Iran, and also about the possibility of reactivating the moribund peace process with the Palestinians. So, a few more days for Netanyahu to celebrate a political victory and he will be confronted again with two crucial issues, that until now he proved indecisive about. The difference is that from now on he will not be able to blame coalition problems for his indecision.
Daoud Kuttab: Is Mofaz-Netanyahu Deal Really Good for Peace?
"'Undercover Israeli combatants threw stones at IDF soldiers in West Bank'
Testimony by commander of the Israeli Prison Service's elite 'Masada' unit sheds light on IDF methods in countering demonstrations against barrier."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/undercover-israeli-combatants-threw-stones-at-idf-soldiers-in-west-bank-1.428584
"How the settlers embarrassed Netanyahu, again
Of the 130,000 registered Likud members, only about 9,000 are settlers. But in Sunday night's Likud party convention they were the majority."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/how-the-settlers-embarrassed-netanyahu-again-1.428581
The difference here is that only a few short years earlier the world adopted the U.N Charter that recognised the right of self-determination. Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was illegal Jordan had no right to the west bank because the Palestinians had the right to self-determination.
Because Israel saw a threat from Jordan and decided to make pre-emptive war, does not change the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination on their own land. Jordan did not take the West Bank from Israel. Jordan took it from the Palestinians. In 1948 Israel never had legal possession of the west bank.
Will a more moderate Israeli coalition have an effect on the PA elections? Will we see a resurgence of Fayyad?
(If your answer is yes, then we have nothing to discuss further...)
Bibi will not attack Iran because he is too scared to besmirching his place in history any more than it already has been. Israel can't fight a war against Iran. It lacks the manpower and physical resources but like Ahmadinejad he has the lung power to keep making vague and less than sane threats.
Your paranoia and certainty that Iran will attack Israel in a suicidal attempt for glory is your baseless fear and is a bit like religion.
It remind me of an insane man in my city who keeps attacking his neighbor's house and breaking all the windows because his brain tells him that the neighbor stole his wife. (The wife has been dead for 5 years.)
Watch tensions drop dramatically.
Iran has never attacked/threatened to attack Israel, or anyone in the last ten years. In fact, the only time in the 20th century that Iran has attacked anyone was against in Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War in the '80s, which was initiated by Iraq.
Who has Israel attacked/invaded in the last ten years? Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon & Syria.
You see, simple facts added up bring out the truth.
The Arab League...
Total Area: 13,333,296 km2 (5,148,048 sq mi)
Population: 349,870,608 (2011 est.)
Islamic Republic of Iran...
Total Area: 1,648,195 km2 (636,372 sq mi)
Population: 78,868,711 (2012 est.)
Israel:
Total Area: 20,770/22,072 km2 (8,019/8,522 sq mi) (Israel proper/Israel plus disputed territories)
Population: 7,869,900 (2012 est.)
so whats the problem?
Well, welcome to Israeli politics, where there is never a dull moment.
No different then American politics, do you read the HP Post?
what is HP post? Is it a newsletter from Hewlett Packard?
nothing more then a few bombing... Israel and Iran are 1000 KM away from each other.
You seem to have coined a term that is meaningful to you but to no one else, at least no sane person.
What does it mean? Are you a native speaker of Hebrew?
"The "P5+1", also known as the "Iran Six" - the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia) plus Germany - are due for another round of talks this month with Iran in Baghdad, Iraq.
That is, success in those talks means net failure for Israel, despite its official pretensions of being genuinely rattled by an "existential Iran nuclear threat", a wild claim questioned even by some Israeli pundits who have pointed out that Israel may also lose billions of dollars of foreign aid currently streaming into its coffers partly as a result of the Iran threat.
That is, the real threat to Israel's vested interests seemingly comes from the absence of such an Iran threat."
Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, Ph.D. in political science
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NE08Ak01.html
He may be a ''hawk", but he knows the nuts and bolts of security, and the Israel electorate is not going to choose a restaurant celebrity who doesn't know the wall from the wallpaper. But within that, at least it's someone who has enough simple logic to know that attacking Iran is BS, and that you can't simultaneously set up a Pal state in the WB and annex it. Maybe he's just a logical thinker. His certainly good at reading the map and outguessing rivals.
You'd expect him to have a lot of support amongst the Mizrahim, given all that. Maybe now he will.
The two prominent journalists say in the book that the chief of staff at one stage of the Jerusalem meeting – "in an exceptional act" – ordered the person customarily responsible for recording the pronouncements of the military's top officer on such occasions to stop doing so. The general then warned, says the book, without placing his remarks in direct quotes, that there would be "no more messages to the Palestinian Authority so that it will act". The authors say that Mr Mofaz instead laid down that they call "a price to be set exactly". The authors say that he said he wanted "10 slain Palestinians" in each territorial brigade area.
The book goes on to record that one senior officer then whispered to the Central Command commander, Yitzhak Eitan, that he would be well advised to ask for such an order in writing and added: "It comes to 70 killed a day".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/candidate-who-wants-olmerts-job-once-sought-deaths-of-70-palestinians-a-day-882628.html