What are the Israelis up to next?

Amazing article in Ha'aretz today. Check this one out (my comments added in blue):

Defense establishment paper: Golan for Syria peace, plan for Iran strike

By Barak Ravid

A defense establishment paper recommends making contingency plans to attack Iran, reaching an agreement with Syria that includes leaving the Golan Heights and preventing new elections in the Palestinian Authority, even if this means a confrontation with the United States.

The paper will be presented to the cabinet next month as part of the National Security Council's annual situation assessment.

The document warns that in 2009, Israel may find itself facing a nuclear Iran virtually alone, following a rapprochement between the U.S., Iran and the Arab world that would also undermine Israel's military superiority.

Additionally, it warns of a possible collapse of the PA, which would effectively kill the two-state solution (notice the wording here? it *warns* that a two-state solution might be killed by a collapse of the PA. This makes it quite clear that the so-called two-state solution is what *Israel* needs as opposed to an anti-Apartheid struggle for equality within one state, which is, of course, what the Palestinians really need)

"Iran's threat to Israel's survival" is at the top of the paper's list of threats, followed by the "strategic threat" of long-range missiles and rockets owned by various countries in the region.

"Israel faces these threats almost alone," the paper says. "It is imperative to mobilize the international community and obtain regional cooperation. The new American administration is an opportunity to do this." (very honest assessment here: Bush was hated world wide, whereas Obama will present the world with a kind of "Zionism with a human face" which will make is possible for Israel to get more support from the rest of the world)

The paper says Israel has a limited "window" in which to act before Iran obtains nuclear arms and regional hegemony. Israel must therefore establish a military option against Iran, in case other countries abandon the struggle. The defense establishment advises the cabinet to "work discreetly on contingency plans to deal with a nuclear Iran." (nothing new here)

It also recommends close cooperation with the U.S. to prevent a deal between Washington and Tehran that would undermine Israel's interests. (Interesting, no? on one side there is the absolutely clear *need* for the USA to get some kind of deal with Iran over Iraq and the rest of the region, on the other there is the equally clear need of Israel to prevent that from happening. Given the choice between US national interests and Israeli nation interests, which do you expect President Emanuel, excuse me, President Obama to choose?)

The paper warns that after PA President Mahmoud Abbas' term ends on January 9, 2009, he might "disappear" from the political arena. (Yeah? no kidding? The Zio-puppet Abbas who has exactly achieved *nothing* for his people might disappear?!) That could cause the PA to disintegrate, which would increase the risk of the two-state solution being taken off the table. (Amen to that! Not one moment too soon)

Due to this possibility, coupled with the fear that Hamas might win a new election, the paper recommends "preventing elections in the PA, even at the cost of a confrontation with the U.S. and the international community." (No worries here, the so-called "international community" does not given a damn about the Palestinians so the Israelis can merrily continue their little genocide in Gaza or even extend it to the West Bank with no adverse effects on being the "only democracy in the Middle-East").

The paper also advises continued Israeli pressure on Hamas to isolate and weaken it, along with bolstering alternatives to it. "If the truce collapses and conflict is resumed in the Gaza Strip, Israel must act to topple Hamas' rule there," it says. (Nonsense, Hamas is already quite busy toppling itself with is utterly naive negotiations with Mubarak and with its inability to make Israel pay a political price for its genocide in Gaza by, for example, large civil protests).

Regarding Syria, the paper says "an agreement with Syria must be advanced, despite the heavy price Israel would have to pay." The defense establishment believes that removing Syria from the conflict would lead to an agreement with Lebanon as well, thus significantly weakening the radical Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. (Here the Israelis are kidding themselves: there is not Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. The only real axis here is an alliance between Iran and Hezbollah which Israel will not be able to disrupt anyway).

The new American administration must be harnessed to support this process, the paper adds (Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nansi Pelosi, Madeleine Albright, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, etc. etc. etc. I would say that the "harnessing" part is going very well)

Israel should support moderate factions in Lebanon in next year's scheduled parliamentary elections, but not at the expense of Israel's interests, it continues. At the same time, Israel must strengthen its deterrence against Hezbollah and take "low-profile" action against Hezbollah's arms smuggling. (Translation: stop supporting the Three Stooges - Hariri, Jumblatt and Siniora - in Lebanon and try to blockade Hezbollah)

The paper proposes various steps to strengthen Israel's ties with moderate Sunni Arab countries, and especially Saudi Arabia. "Israel must examine ways to expand its dialogue with Saudi Arabia on various shared interests," the document says. It must also act to neutralize potential risks in Saudi Arabia, such as its development of nuclear capability, its purchase of long-range missiles or its closing of the military gap with Israel. (Of course, this is part of the strategic anti-Shia "redirection" plan followed by US and Israel for a while already: use the Sunni, including the worst Wahabi crackpots, against the Shia).

Jordan, the paper says, is experiencing an acute political and economic crisis. "Jordan feels abandoned in the regional face-off and continues to see Israel and the West as strategic supports," it says. "Strengthening and stabilizing our ties with Jordan is crucial to Israel's security. Economic cooperation with Jordan must be strengthened." (Sure thing: Jordan is the only US-Israeli puppet which is still halfway stable; they better make sure it stays that way)

With regard to the new administration in Washington, the document warns that "the U.S. is interested in setting up a regional and international alignment against Iran (Against Iran?! Really? But I thought that it was a "deal" between Washington and Tehran which was on the agenda. I guess the "redirection" is problematic too since it will strengthen the Wahabis in the region. So which short term solution is better? Use the Sunnis against the Shia and strengthen the Sunnis, or not strengthen the Sunnis too much and loose much of the effects of the "redirection"? I am amazed at how blind and stupid such Israeli policies are, and how mistaken their hope for the usual "divide and conquer" policies is), and Israel is the one that might pay the price." It predicts that Iran and the U.S. will begin talks and warns that Israel must work to prevent any agreement that would be "problematic" from its point of view (Well, since *any* agreement between the US and Iran is "problematic" from the Israeli point of view, Israel will simply need to prevent any and all of them).

The paper recommends persuading the new administration to support the talks with Syria, to which the Bush administration objected. The U.S., for its part, is expected to demand that Israel bolster the moderates in Lebanon by making concessions in Shaba Farms and Ghajar and ending its objection to America's arming of the Lebanese Army (Like any of that will weaken Hezbollah! The Israelis are just so stupid, it always amazes me...)

Israel must also ensure that recommendations prepared by three American generals on Israeli-Palestinian security coordination, which are to be presented to the new administration, correspond with its interests, the paper says (Notice that there is never, ever, a mention of US interests? Israel does not even pretend to give a damn about that. Some "ally" for the USA...)

It also warns that the U.S. is arming moderate Arab states, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, "in a way that undermines the Israel Defense Forces' edge, especially in the air." Israel must act to prevent this as much as possible, it says.

The paper also discusses Israel's possible responses to a Hamas provocation in the south or a Hezbollah provocation in the north in 2009. It stresses that Israel must avoid a war of attrition or a two-front conflict, and therefore, it must first try to contain the provocation rather than be dragged into a retaliation that would escalate the situation. Afterward, however, it should send a "firm message of deterrence." (No kidding?! After getting beaten the hell by about 1000 Hezbollah fighters the "invincible Tsahal" has no stomach for another such war? Good. But how that is compatible with a message of "firm deterrence" is unclear. What is clear is that Israel fears Hezbollah whereas Hezbollah fears nobody, least of all Israel)

If the escalation continues, Israel must "consider embarking on a broad confrontation to hit the enemy severely and end the clash within a short time, and with as clear a result as possible," it adds. (Translation: attacking the Lebanese civilians with even more brutality than in 2006. Makes sense. After all, that's all that Israel is good at).