CRAZY COUNTRY

Saturday, January 24, 2015

About buried phosphorus and thuggish diplomacy

In 1974, as a young soldier just inducted into the ranks of

the Israel Defense Forces, I was among a group of soldiers
whom the platoon sergeant took on a tour of the munitions
dump, showing us the different types of ammunition used
by the army. Among other things, he pointed to a pile of
wooden boxes which were marked "Exploding Smoke" and
said with a sligh wink "In fact, these are phosphorus bombs,
but do not write the name explicitly because it might create
international problems." I have to admit that at that
moment I did not pay much attention to this; still, it
somehow stuck in my memory.
Much later, in 2009, I suddenly remembered the winking
sergeant and his Exploding Smoke. During the Israeli Air
Force bombings of Gaza ("Cast Lead Operation") news
started to get out of what happened to those on whom such
phosphorus bombs happened to fall. Burning phosphorus
particles stick to the body, penetrating deeper and deeper
inside, causing excruciating pain. Shifa Hospital in central
Gaza was crowded with whole families affected by the
phosphorus which had fallen on them from the sky, the
doctors seeing it happen, often unable to stop it in time.
Even phosphorus smoke dissipating in the air can cause
severe damage, sometimes death, to those who breath it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
Israeli and international Human Rights organizations made
an outcry, and the use of phosphorus in Gaza had a central
place in the famous report of the Goldstone Commission.

The Government of Israel and the IDF asserted that

phosphorus was used only in uninhabited areas (is there any
part of the Gaza Strip which is truly uninhabited?). But in
the next rounds of Gaza bombings, 2012 and 2014
phosphorus was no longer used. At least this particular
horror was spared the inhabitants.
This week, intensive earthworks were going on at the
Schneller Compound in Jerusalem, a former military camp
on whose site an upscale residential neighborhood is to be
erected. Suddenly, severe toxic fumes rose from the ground
and spread throughout the whole area. Residents within a
hundred meters radius were urgently required to stay
indoors and close hermetically all windows. Only after
several hours, rescue teams in sealed protective suits
managed to locate and neutralize a buried old phosphorus
bomb which had been touched by the bulldozers.
The phosphorus vapors which rose this week from the soil
of a quiet Jerusalem neighborhood - as if it is a metaphor for
the State of Israel coming this week for the first time under
the direct scrutiny of the International Criminal Court in
The Hague
No longer science fiction, no more an apocalyptic forecast of
a future when the Palestinians might wield "their
"Doomsday Weapon", but a concrete reality. A dry, formal
notification by the Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda that a
preliminary probe had been initiated about the possibility of
war crimes having been committed in the Palestinian
Territories; that the probe may relate to crimes committed
by Israel, by Palestinian organizations, or both; that the
probe is not a full-scale investigation, but the information
collected might lead to the decision to open a full
investigation; that the decision on such a full investigation

would be made by the judges of the court, under the

prescribed procedures; and that the probe will be conducted
in a "fully independent and impartial manner", with no
deadline set for its completion. Fatou Bensouda of Gambia,
who had been involved in prosecuting war criminals in
Rwanda, was included by Time Magazine in its list of the
hundred most influential people in the world.
The professional echelon at the Foreign Ministry in
Jerusalem recommended
to Prime Minister Netanyahu to make a moderate and
measured response and concentrate on discreet behind-thescenes action, especially since the prosecutors probe is
preliminary only, and it would take a long time to crystallize
into a formal charge-sheet - if at all.
Netanyahu ignored the recommendation and decided on an
all-out international campaign, a frontal attack on the Court,
its prosecutors and judges even to the extent of exerting
international efforts to get funding to the International
Court cut if it dares to institute proceedings against officers
of the "most moral army in the world". Foreign Minister
Lieberman, in his usual blunt way, stated that the court
should be dismantled. Several observers noted that such
angry and a bit hysterical reactions had less to do with
apprehension of some Israeli officers being actually
prosecuted in absentia at some future time, and more with
the realization that even this initial probe might be enough
to change significantly the international discourse regarding
Israel and the Palestinians.
And then, the focus of attention suddenly shifted away from
the court halls in the Hague to the skies of war-torn Syria.
There, combat helicopters (or by another version, drones)
suddenly appeared and launched an accurate barrage on a

convoy of senior operatives of Hezbollah the Lebanese

Shiite militia which is one of the main supporters of
President Bashar Assad and his regime. The Government of
Israel refrained from taking formal responsibility for the
attack, but Israels mass-circulation newspapers were quick
to place headlines praising "the accurate action of our
forces," and the "liquidation of the Prince of Terror".
Jihad Mughniyah, a young man without much experience or
special skills, had gained the position of command over the
forces sent by Hezbollah to the Israeli border in the Golan
Heights mainly because of being the son of Imad
Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah operations chief who was killed
in a mysterious explosion in Damascus eight years ago.
Yedioth Ahronoth published on its front page the photo of
father and son, Imad and Jihad, with the prominent red
captions "liquidated 2008" near the one and "liquidated
2015" next to the other. On the inside pages was the further
information, unearthed by some diligent researcher, that
also two uncles from the Mughniyah terrorist family" had
been "liquidated" in the past. Also, there was a warning to
readers not to be misled by the photographs of Jihad
Mughniyeh, in which he looked like a shy schoolboy, but to
understand that he had been a dangerous terrorist and it
had been well done to rid the world of his presence.
There was some confusion when it came out that among the
twelve killed in the bombing were also an Iranian general
and some of his officers. Official Israel responded with a
number of conflicting voices: one unnamed Israeli military
source apologetically told Reuters that Israel did not know
about the presence of an Iranian general in the convoy.
Another unnamed source contradicted this a few hours later
and reiterated the version that Israel does not accept any
responsibility for the attack in Syria.

"Would Iran and Hezbollah accept meekly such a blow?"

wondered the commentators. "A helicopter attack is a
method which leaves clear Israeli fingerprints, it is not a
bomb planted by somebody somewhere to which you can
plausibly disclaim responsibility. This is poking a finger in
the eye of Hezbollah, they cant afford not to respond" wrote
Alon Ben-David in "Ma'ariv".
Indeed, there were angry protests in Beirut and Tehran, and
threats were made of "dire and painful retaliation". The
northern region of Israel was placed under an alert higher
than at any time since 2006, tanks were stationed along the
Lebanese border, as were the Iron Dome anti-missile
missiles. Deep in the Mediterranean waters Israeli navy
missile boats were stationed to defend against a possible
attack on the Israeli natural gas rigs, and Defense Minister
Yaalon made dire threats against anyone who dares to
violate Israeli sovereignty (sic!). And the tension continues.
Someone threw a match into a powder keg and is now
waiting to see whether it will explode or not. This is a
dangerous exercise in practical chemistry conducted on the
eve of the final exam: The elections in Israel" wrote veteran
commentator Alex Fishman.
While the alert in the north reached its peak, a violent
incident took place in Tel Aviv a young Palestinian stabbed
and wounded passengers in an Israeli bus, and an eighthgrader has become the hero of the hour for throwing his
satchel at the stabber. However, this probably did not come
from Hezbollah; rather, it was one more of the Palestinians
fed up with the ongoing occupation, taking a private
initiative. As he told in police investigation, what the young
knife-man sought to avenge was the deadly bombings of
Gaza which Palestinians remember very well, though

Israelis have managed to forget them at record speed. The

northern powder keg of which Fishman wrote had not yet
exploded. The retaliation, when it comes, might be at an
unpredictable place and time chosen by Hezbollah and its
Iranian partners.
An immediate Hezbollah revenge could have ensured the
victory of Netanyahu in the March general elections: a
missile barrage from Lebanon on Israeli cities, which would
have required a powerful response by the Israeli Air Force
and initiated an open-ended military operation ("Operation
Protective Stiff Cloud"?) which would have continued to
escalate until shortly before the election date - and during all
that time, opposition leaders Herzog and
Livni would have been constrained to express patriotic
support for the government and avoid all criticism and
propaganda. Alas, up to this moment Hezbollah did not
deliver the goods. Even so, our Prime Minister did
apparently make some electoral modest gain from the winds
of war blowing this week. Weekend polls indicated an
increase in the Likud Partys showing, not very big but
enough to close the gap which separated the ruling party
from its Labor Party rival, the two now running neck and
neck.
The electoral aspects of the attack in Syria have already been
discussed quite a bit. Not so much attention was given to the
fact that among those killed in the attack was the officer in
charge of the Hezbollah force fighting against the Islamic
State (IS or ISIS or ISIL) which makes him a de-facto ally
of the US, even if figuring on its list of terrorists.
Coincidentally or not, just this week was published an
interesting strategic assessment by Israel Ziv - formerly an
IDF general and now heading a company which provides

"security advice and military training for security forces in

Latin America and Africa". Ziv stated unequivocally that
"For Israel, ISIS is the lesser evil. The existence of the ISIS
State breaks up the dangerous Shiite territorial continuity
from Tehran to Beirut which Iran had spent great efforts to
build up. It is preferable for us to have there a swordwielding force moving about in converted vans, rather than
a nuclear power stationing missiles at our borders.
Moreover, the ideological priorities of ISIS are first of all to
fight the Shiites and other minorities, rather than dealing
with The Zionists'. In this respect they have many years of
'work' laid out for them before having time and energy for us
"(Yediot Aharonot, January 19, 2015).
As we know, the approach of President Obama is quite
different. Obama regards ISIS as a threat serious enough to
warrant the reversal of the planned American departure
from Iraq, a threat justifying and necessitating the launching
of an air campaign and even the forming of a de-facto
alliance with Iran and Irans allies, waging war on ISIS on
their own account. In that context, Obama seeks to reach in
the near future an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue
- an agreement which would ensure that Iran does not
actually build a nuclear bomb, but which would not
necessarily require Iran to completely dismantle all its
nuclear capabilities.
In the eyes of Prime Minister Netanyahu, such an agreement
between the US and Iran would be very bad and dangerous.
After for a while keeping a low profile on the Iranian issue,
Netanyahu took it up again in full swing, with the
encouragement of his Republicans partners who now
control Capitol Hill. On the agenda of the Republicans and
of Netanyahu - is a proposal to impose further sanctions on
Iran. As Mossad chief Tamir Pardo stated to US Senators

(though later forced to publish a denial), such new sanctions

would lead to the collapse of negotiations between Iran and
the West. Which, it clearly seems, is precisely Netanyhaus
purpose
Through his close associate Ron Dermer - Israeli
Ambassador to the United States, who is in practice mainly
Netanyahus ambassador to the Republican Party Netanyahu arranged to get himself invited to Washington
and address a joint session of Congress. The date set: March
3, just two weeks before elections in Israel. It would be a
first-rate electioneering broadcast: the Prime Minister of
Israel, speaking impeccable English to the American
legislators, who get up on their feet and give him a standing
ovation (AIPAC will take care of their all clapping in unison)
with everything broadcast live on Israeli TV. And in this
speech Netanyahu would presumably concentrate on the
Iranian Threat and spur Congress to impose more sanctions
even (and especially) contrary to the clearly expressed
wishes of the President of the United States.
As has already been reported extensively, Netanyahu did not
bother to give the White House or the State Department any
hint of his intentions to get to Washington and blatantly
interfere in the American political power struggle. And as
has been made clear unmistakeably, President Obama and
Secretary of State Kerry are truly furious at Netanyahu.
Unnamed US officials told Haaretz: We thought weve seen
everything, but Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are
things you simply dont do. He spat in our face publicly and
thats no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that
President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency,
and that there will be a price to pay. Today's headlines in
the press published the announcement of President Obama
that he will not meet with Netanyahu during this visit to

Washington - nor will Vice President Biden, Secretary of

State Kerry or any other member of the administration.
Is this enough to make Netanyahu pay a real price? Quite
doubtful. The Prime Minister may regard a public cold
shoulder from Obama as a tolerable and even negligible
price to pay, as long as Obama continues to give support to
Netanyahu's policies where it really counts, for example in
the UN Security Council. In the near future, however,
Obama might be given an opportunity to exact from
Netanyahu a real price: Palestinians are considering
resuming their application to the Security Council, whose
composition has changed since the failed vote in December.
And perhaps it is just barely possible that the American vote
will also change, this time?

BibiKingKongatCapitolHill(Haaretz,Biderman)