The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
The report on ill-tempered Bernie is here: “Sanders slams Israel for
not sending COVID vaccines to Palestinians,” by Sarah Chemla, Jerusalem Post, February 25, 2021:
US Sen. Bernie Sanders has criticized the Israeli government for
sending COVID-19 vaccines to foreign allies before sending them to
Palestinians.
Sanders was responding to a New York Times tweet
stating that “Israel’s vaccine donations to faraway countries have
angered Palestinians who say Israel is responsible for the well-being of
Palestinians in the occupied territories, where vaccines are scarce.
But why are vaccines “scarce” for the Palestinians? Isn’t it because
they did no planning, even many months into the pandemic, and chose to
spend their aid money on other things? In Gaza, Hamas spends huge sums
on building terror tunnels, and on arms that it hides throughout
civilian areas. The terror group has also been the victim of colossal
corruption; just two Hamas leaders, Khaled Meshaal and Mousa Abu
Marzouk, have amassed fortunes of at least $2.5 billion apiece. In the
West Bank, the head of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, has a nest egg of $400
million. That’s all money that might have gone to the medical care of
the Palestinians. And the PA spent $157 million last year on its
Pay-For-Slay program, money which could have paid for enough vaccines to
cover the entire Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank. It
chose not to. Why doesn’t Bernie Sanders deplore the behavior of the PA?
He could fulminate in the Senate: “It is unacceptable that the PA,
instead of buying vaccines that would have inoculated the entire
Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank, chose instead to spend
its money on the Pay-For-Slay program that rewards, and incentivizes,
terrorism.” Could Bernie begin to tell that obvious truth? I doubt it.
The former Democratic presidential contender claimed in a
tweet that “Israel is responsible for the health of all the people
under its control. It is outrageous that Netanyahu would use spare
vaccines to reward his foreign allies while so many Palestinians in the
occupied territories are still waiting.
Israel has been vaccinating “all the people under its control” –
both Arab and Jewish citizens of the state of Israel, at the same rate,
with the same vaccines. That is where Israel’s responsibility ends.
Bernie Sanders has apparently not read the Oslo Accords (1995), Annex
III, Article 17, paragraphs 1 and 2. They provide unambiguously for the
transfer of responsibility for medical care for the Palestinians,
including vaccinations, from Israel to the PA. And that transfer has
been in force for a quarter-century.
ARTICLE 17
Health
Powers and responsibilities in the sphere of Health
in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be transferred to the
Palestinian side, including the health insurance system.
The Palestinian side shall continue to apply the
present standards of vaccination of Palestinians and shall improve them
according to internationally accepted standards in the field, taking
into account WHO recommendations. In this regard, the Palestinian side
shall continue the vaccination of the population with the vaccines
listed in Schedule 3.
Does Sanders understand those clauses? “Powers and responsibilities
in the sphere of Health in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be
transferred to the Palestinian side”? On what basis does he now claim
that Israel is “responsible for the health of all the people under its
control”? And in fact, how can he claim that the Palestinians in Gaza
and in the West Bank are “under its control”? The last Israeli pulled
out of Gaza in 2005; its inhabitants have been under the control ever
since of Hamas. In the West Bank, the PA, ruling the roost from
Ramallah, controls the daily lives of Palestinians in Areas A and B. And
both in those areas, and even in Area C, the Palestinian Authority has
the responsibility for all medical and educational services.
As Israel began its vaccine rollout late last year, some
activists and foreign media outlets criticized it for not including the
Palestinians, arguing that under international law, Israel is the
“occupying power” and must vaccinate them.
The Jewish state responded by pointing out that the
internationally recognized Oslo Accords state that the PA is responsible
for its population’s healthcare, including vaccinations.
Let’s repeat it: Israel has no obligation – none – to vaccinate the
Palestinians. Those who criticize Israel for failing to do so simply
want us all to ignore the Oslo Accords. Under what “international law”
is Israel an “occupying power”? It is certainly not the “occupying
power” in Gaza, where there is not a single Israeli. As for the West
Bank, Israel cannot be accused of “occupying ” a territory that was
assigned, according to the Mandate for Palestine, to the future Jewish
National Home, which then became the state of Israel. Has Bernie read
the Palestine Mandate, including Article 6? Does he understand that in
the phrase “close settlement by Jews on the land,” which under Article 6
is to be encouraged, the “land” in question included all the land from
the Golan in the north, to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan
River in the east, to the Mediterranean in the west? Does he realize
that the mandates system was itself part of international law? Could it
be that Bernie Sanders has never read the Mandate for Palestine? Yes, I
think it could.
More study needed, Bernie, please, before you again presume to
lecture or hector on this matter. Please, go ahead and burn the midnight
oil.
Regardless of legal matters, the government has already
sent thousands of doses of coronavirus vaccines to the PA and
facilitated the entry of Russian donations of their Sputnik V vaccines.
Israel had no duty to supply the Palestinians with vaccines, but
nonetheless has sent 5,000 doses so that, Israel hoped, frontline
Palestinian health workers could be vaccinated. There is evidence that
some of those doses were used instead to inoculate Palestinian leaders,
their families, and relatives.
Israel has also bought one million dollars’ worth of Sputnik V
vaccines from Russia to send to Syria, so that an Israeli woman with
mental problems who had strayed into Syria, would be returned.
Last week, Netanyahu said Israel and the Palestinians were “in one epidemiological range.”
We have a clear interest that we don’t want illnesses and sick
people to pass through our borders from the Palestinian Authority and
Gaza,” he told Army Radio.
Israel has no interest in preventing the Palestinians from being
vaccinated. On the contrary: many tens of thousands of Palestinians
cross into Israel for work each day; their inoculation would make them
less dangerous to the Israelis among whom they work. “We have a clear
interest,” Prime Minister Netanyahu insists, in making sure that the
Palestinians who enter Israel are not carriers of the virus. Israel’s
Health Minister, Yuli Edelstein, says that once Israel has finished
vaccinating its own population, it will be sending unused doses of the
vaccine to the Palestinians. I don’t think Bernie Sanders is aware of
that promise.
One more thing: Sanders was exercised that Israel was sending some
doses of the vaccine to countries that Jerusalem wanted to thank for
their pro-Israel positions. These include: Guatemala, which has its
embassy in Jerusalem; Honduras, which has said it will soon be moving
its embassy to Jerusalem; and the Czech Republic, which has been a
steady supporter of Israel at the U.N. and has said it will add a
diplomatic presence to its office in Jerusalem.
Sanders finds this unacceptable. But why? Don’t all countries reward
their friends? Doesn’t the American government extend
Most-Favored-Nation status to some countries and not to others? Don’t
the Americans agree to sell certain advanced weapons to countries it
deems friendly, and not to others? Is it wrong to do so? Why shouldn’t
Israel do what other countries routinely do? In the case at hand, that
means Jerusalem has decided to reward with shipments of the coronavirus
three states that have taken, or are about to take, steps that will
further strengthen Israel’s position on Jerusalem. Despite the
fulminations of Bernie Sanders, there is nothing wrong with that.
The seemingly biased decision of the International Criminal Court
(ICC) in The Hague (Netherlands), to investigate Israeli actions during
the 2014 Gaza War, prompted a sharp reaction from Israel’s Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Prime Minister Netanyahu observed in his
statement that Israel (as well as the US) is not a member of the ICC. He
stated that, “Today the Court (ICC) proved once again that it is a political body and not a judicial institution.”
He added, “The Court ignores real war crimes and instead persecutes the
State of Israel, a state with a firm democratic government which
sanctifies the rule of law, and it is not a member of the Court.”
The US State Department also reacted to the political nature of the
ICC determination. A pretrial chamber of the ICC determined on Friday,
February 5, 2021 that it has jurisdiction to probe Israel and Hamas on
the 2014 Gaza war, as well as Israel’s settlement policy, and Israel
Defense Forces (IDF) actions on the Gaza border.
Ned Price, the State Department spokesperson tweeted that, “The US
objects to today’s ICC decision regarding the Palestinian
situation. Israel is not a State party to the Rome Statute. (The ICC was
established in 2002 in Rome).” Price added, “We will continue to uphold
President Joe Biden’s strong commitment to Israel and its security,
including opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.”
The decision of the ICC is a precedent-setting one, and it comes
more than a year after ICC prosecutor Patou Bensouda requested the Court
to confirm its jurisdiction in this case. This case is essentially the
Court’s way of appeasing the Palestinians, and the dominant Arab-Muslim
bloc at the UN. Naturally, the Palestinians have hailed the decision as a
victory. Israel, on the other hand, excoriated the decision as a
contentious political move without a valid legal basis.
In a subsequent video statement, PM Netanyahu charged that, “When
the ICC investigates Israel for fake war crimes – this is pure
anti-Semitism. The Court was established (by Benjamin Ferencz, a
Jewish-American prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials following WWII and
the Holocaust) to prevent atrocities like the Holocaust against the
Jewish people, and is now targeting the one state of the Jewish
people. First, it outrageously claims that when Jews live in our
homeland, this is a war crime. Second, it claims that when democratic
Israel defends itself against (Hamas) terrorists who murder our children
and rocket our cities – we are committing another war crime. Yet, the
ICC refuses to investigate the brutal dictatorships like Iran and Syria,
who commit horrific atrocities almost daily.” Netanyahu concluded, “We
will fight this perversion of justice with all our might.”
The ICC decision came in a two-to-one vote. The French and Benin
justices voted to investigate; the Hungarian Justice was against it. In
the 60-page report, the Court ruled that Palestine qualifies as a state
on territory of which the conduct in question occurred. The Court
maintained that it has “territorial jurisdiction in the situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”
While Israel could argue its case on this matter to the ICC, it has
chosen not to do so. Israel believes that the Court has no legal or
moral authority to carry out the investigation. One of Israel’s
arguments in rejecting the ICC claim of jurisdiction on this matter is
that there is no sovereign Palestinian state that could delegate to the
court criminal investigation over its territory and nationals. In the
meantime, Israel’s Foreign Ministry charged that the ICC getting
involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, driving the parties
further apart. It comes just when the Palestinian Authority has resumed
security coordination with Israel. Israel’s Justice Ministry termed the
ICC decision to intervene as “harmful and superfluous.”
It is worth emphasizing that when Benjamin Ferencz dreamed up the
International Criminal Court of Justice, he had in mind Nazi Germany’s
atrocities against Jews and others. As part of the prosecution staff at
the Nuremburg Trials against Nazi criminals, he never envisioned that
his ICC would seek to prosecute a country like Israel, its government
leaders, and the Israel Defense Forces for protecting its civilian
population against murderous Palestinian terrorists who target women and
children.
Ferencz’s idea in founding the ICC was to investigate, and where
warranted, put on trial individuals charged with the gravest of crimes
including genocide, war crimes (deliberately murdering the innocent),
and crimes against humanity. Israel, in its Gaza wars against Hamas
terrorists, has done what no other army has done before it. It warned
civilians to evacuate where it intended to operate. It provided an
advantage for Hamas, and put in danger Israeli soldiers. Moreover,
Israel has reacted to crimes committed against its people, but never
deliberately initiated attacks on Palestinian combatants, let alone
civilians. Israel’s military actions are in self-defense, not
aggression. This is why the ICC action is scandalous.
Keeping in mind the ICC anti-Israel bias, and with a clear message
to the Court, Israel’s Chief-of-Staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, revealed
Israel’s strategy and operating methods at a conference held last month
at Tel Aviv University Institute for National Security Studies. Kochavi,
appealing to Lebanese and Gazan civilians in whose homes long-range
missiles are stored, suggested that they should evacuate their homes as
soon as a conflict or an escalation begins. He assured those civilians
that the IDF would give them advance warning and time to leave their
homes before unleashing deadly force aimed at the Hezbollah terrorists
in Lebanon, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
This clear and explicit warning to the civilian populations
following the next confrontation in Gaza or Lebanon is meant to insure
that IDF officers or Israeli politicians are not held responsible by the
ICC for Israeli retaliatory action in Gaza or Lebanon. It puts the ICC
on notice that Israel has provided the civilian population with an
appropriate and timely warning in accordance with international
law. Kochavi made it clear that the IDF would not violate the rules of
international law as part of such action.
Israel cannot afford to allow any international body, including the
ICC, to compromise its security particularly in urban areas where
Hezbollah and Hamas hide their missiles and rockets aimed at Israeli
civilians. This compromise applies equally to the US troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why the Biden administration was quick to
condemn the ICC decision. The ICC is clearly attempting to tie the hands
of democratic governments from operating against the malign forces of
terror while deliberately overlooking the most heinous crimes committed
by Iran and its subsidiaries as well its allies in Gaza, Iraq, and
Syria.
The bottom line is clear - the ICC is essentially a kangaroo court.
Although it flies in the face of traditional Israeli defense strategy, a preventative strike to eradicate the conventional threat of Hezbollah's precision missile project in Lebanon might be unavoidable.
Photo: AP
Hezbollah's missile arsenal is perhaps one of the only threats the
Israeli public is not aware of in terms of its full scope. The threat is
strategic and could force an Israeli preventative strike, even though
the catalyst is not nuclear weapons. It is also the most burning issue
facing the IDF's high command today.
It must be noted: Israel has no intention of launching a war in the
north. Neither does Hezbollah, to the best of everyone's knowledge.
Since 2006, the sides have built a mutual balance of deterrence along
the border, which in advance all but negates any adventurous
inclinations one of the sides might harbor. This is evidenced by
Hezbollah's hesitance, which for several months now hasn't followed
through with its threats of revenge for the killing of an operative at
Damascus airport in the summer. Israel, too, is proceeding with caution
and hasn't responded to Hezbollah's attempt to shoot down an air force
drone over Lebanon.
Behind this restraint, however, both sides are preparing for war. It
could erupt at any moment: the death of a Hezbollah operative in Syria
that triggers an attack on Israeli soldiers or civilians, which in turn
forces a counter-response, at which point everything depends on nerves
and yet-untested containment mechanisms. It is no coincidence that the
IDF exercise two weeks ago or the air force drill last week, simulated
this exact scenario.
Hezbollah learned quite a few lessons from the Second Lebanon War.
Publicly, of course, it claims it won. As is the case with any terrorist
group, not losing is a victory. Internally, however, it was forced to
engage in difficult introspection due to the blows it sustained. Hassan
Nasrallah admitted at the time, in a rare moment of honesty, that he
wouldn't have abducted the Israeli soldiers had he known the outcome in
advance.
"Foreign sources" have attributed thousands of airstrikes in Syria to the Israel Air Force (IDF Spokesperson's Unit)
Like any serious organization (and Hezbollah is a very serious
organization), it implemented an organized process of inquiry and
learning. In terms of defense, it learned it is powerless against
Israel's air superiority and precision: In the Dahiyeh neighborhood in
south Beirut, the group's stronghold, some 180 buildings and other
targets were hit, all of them precisely. The organization was also
surprised at the breadth of Israeli intelligence, which at the start of
the war allowed Israel to strike its medium- and long-range rockets,
thus impeding its ability to target anything south of Haifa Bay.
In terms of its offensive capabilities, Hezbollah noted with
satisfaction that Israel was shell-shocked in the face of 4,000 rockets
and after direct hits in particular, for example at the train yard in
Haifa (eight killed) and the reservist gathering point at Kfar Giladi
(12 killed). Hezbollah also learned that it wants to move the fighting
into Israeli territory. The tunnels that were detected two years ago
along the Lebanese border were meant to allow the group to "conquer the
Galilee" and win the perceptual war in its earliest stages.
Immediately after the Second Lebanon War, in complete disregard for
UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which placed a full embargo on
Hezbollah weapons smuggling, the organization launched a massive
logistics operation – with $1 billion in Iranian funds – to acquire tens
of thousands of rockets, essentially making it the most powerful
terrorist army in the world. "Terrorist army" is commonly used in the
IDF even though the term is in dispute – some experts believe it gives
the organization too much credit because, after all, it is a terrorist
organization untethered to a government.
According to updated assessments, Hezbollah currently possesses
between 120,000-140,000 short-range rockets (range of 25-28 miles),
which cover Israel's north, including Haifa Bay and Tiberias; several
thousand medium-range rockets (range of 56 miles), which can reach the
Sharon coastal plain and northern suburbs of Gush Dan; and several
hundred long-range rockets and missiles (range of hundreds of miles),
including Scud missiles from Syrian military warehouses, capable of
hitting targets anywhere in Israel.
Hezbollah's rockets and missiles are dispersed throughout Lebanon.
Its short-range rockets are mostly stored in the country's south, in the
area near the Israeli border, to maximize their range. They are hidden
in homes in the 230 Shiite villages, ready to be activated at a moment's
notice. It is from here that Hezbollah intends to rain fire on the
Galilee, and essentially paralyze it. If the IDF decides to enter these
villages on the ground to stop this barrage, it will be met with an
array of fortifications and ambushes.
Hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockers and is not the strongest "terrorist army" in the world (AP)
The other missiles, made in Iran and Syria, are dispersed across the
country. The longer their range, the farther Hezbollah can store them
from the border with Israel. This makes hunting them far more
challenging for Israel's intelligence services and air force.
Israel's air-defense is not built to cope with this amount of
rockets. As a rule of thumb, it is designed to intercept all ranges, but
the brunt of its energy will be focused on intercepting long-range
missiles and defending strategic sites. Israel's Iron Dome (short-range)
and David's Sling (medium-long-range) missile defense systems will be
tasked with this countering this threat. David's Sling is also
responsible for intercepting cruise missiles. These systems are also
supposed to distinguish between precision and unguided missiles and
prioritize the interception as needed.
The purpose of Hezbollah's immense missile arsenal is to deter Israel
from launching a war. In actuality, however, it is part of a more
comprehensive plan spearheaded by the former commander of Iran's
clandestine Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani,
who was assassinated in Iraq last year by the Americans. His idea was
to surround Iran's enemies from all directions with a terroristic
missile threat, and Hezbollah's arsenal was just one component of this
plan.
Another component is the aid Iran gives to Hamas and Palestinian
Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Iran wants to solidify another front against
Israel, in Syria, comprising militias operating at its behest. The idea
was to build naval, air, and land bases manned by Afghani and Pakistani
fighters, arm them significantly (mainly with rockets but not only), and
carry out shooting attacks against Israel.
Israel identified this trend in time. Many of the airstrikes
attributed to it in recent years were intended to foil Iran's
entrenchment efforts, not just in Syrian territory near the border, but
throughout the country. For example, the Israel Air Force was accused
last month of attacking infrastructure in the Deir ez-Zor region near
the Syria-Iraq border, where these militias were stationed but have
since been forced to move eastward toward Iraq after failing to solidify
a foothold deep inside Syria. It was the first time Israeli jets
attacked this part of Syria since destroying the nuclear reactor there
in September 2007.
The resolute action Israel has taken in Syria is largely a
consequence of its failure in Lebanon. Up until the latter part of 2012,
Israel anxiously watched as Hezbollah armed itself, doing nothing
because the political echelon feared another war in the north.
Declarations by Israel's leaders after the Second Lebanon War, whereby
"Hezbollah will not be allowed to rebuild its strength," proved
baseless. A monster has been built in the north.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and former Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani
The Syrian civil war changed the picture. After a period of
orientation, Israel understood it had an opportunity – and began taking
action. Under the whitewashed codename "foreign sources" came reports of
thousands of Israeli airstrikes in Syria, and if, at first, every
attack was earthshattering news, today such attacks are barely reported.
These attacks are anything but normal: they are each is a complex and
often dangerous operation, which could result in a downed plane or
civilian casualties. The fact that this hasn't happened (except for one
instance in which an F-16 was hit and its pilots ejected safely over Israeli territory in 2018), is proof of the IAF's absolute superiority in the arena.
After its accelerated armament in the wake of the Second Lebanon War,
Hezbollah concluded it was oversaturated in terms of missile quantity,
and began investing in improving its precision capabilities. This term,
"precision," could be misleading for those unacquainted with the
subject, but it is critical: The majority of Hezbollah's arsenal today,
and that of Hamas, consists of "dumb" statistical rockets. The person
firing them cannot control where they hit, and to inflict real damage a
large number of rockets need to be launched. Hence, almost half of the
rockets fired by Hamas during Operation Protective Edge in 2014 landed
in open fields or in Gaza, similar to many of the Scud missiles Saddam
Hussein fired at Israel during the Gulf War in 1990-91.
Precision missiles are another world altogether. They are fitted with
navigation systems, which help them hit targets with considerable
accuracy. One of Hezbollah's key missiles is the M-600 ("Tishrin"),
manufactured in Syria and predicated on the Iranian Fateh-110 missile.
This missile has many variants, has a range of 250 kilometers (155
miles), and can carry a half-ton warhead. Its accuracy is currently a
radius of dozens of yards from the target. Other missiles are precise at
a radius of 100 yards. This means that if Hezbollah places the
crosshairs on IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv (the Kirya), the missile will
strike anywhere from Azrieli towers, Sarona market, Ichilov hospital
and Ibn Gavirol Street.
For anyone looking to kill as many civilians as possible, this is
accurate enough, but anyone who wants to paralyze a country needs more
than this. Hezbollah wants to be able to do to Israel what Israel did to
it during the Second Lebanon War: Hit strategic facilities (power
stations in particular), military bases (specifically air force),
government buildings (mainly in Jerusalem), to produce an image of
victory. Precision, therefore, is critical.
The person who orchestrated Hezbollah's aggressive missile armament project after the Second Lebanon War was Imad Mugniyeh.
Following his assassination in February 2008 in Damascus, in an
operation attributed to the Mossad and CIA, he was replaced by his
cousin and brother-in-law Mustafa Badredinne – also a founding member of
the organization. In May 2016, Badredinne was also assassinated in a
joint Hezbollah-Iran operation. The official excuse was his love of
alcohol, women, and side hustles, but the real reason he was killed was
his disagreement with Soleimani over Hezbollah's involvement in the
Syrian civil war. His death put the missile project in the sole hands of
Nasrallah and Soleimani.
Lt. Col. Eran Niv, the head of the IDF's Warfare Methods and Innovation Division (Oren Ben Hakoon)
In the beginning, Hezbollah's quest to acquire precision missiles was
clumsy. The precision missiles were manufactured in Iran and flown to
Damascus. In 2013, when current Defense Minister Benny Gantz was IDF
chief of staff and Amir Eshel was commander of the air force, Israel
launched a campaign to prevent precision capabilities from reaching
Lebanon. This campaign is still ongoing, and each operation or airstrike
carried out within its framework receives a different name.
The attacks in Lebanon accelerated in 2014, slowed down somewhat in
2015 when Russia joined the fray to save the Assad regime, and again
accelerated in 2016 when Israel understood it had considerable leeway to
act, despite the Russian presence in Syria.
At the same time, the other side also realized something: Soleimany
understood the Islamic State group had been defeated and the Assad
regime saved, and he identified the opportunity to entrench Iranian
hegemony in Syria. He had three primary objectives: establish a foothold
for Iran and its proxies on Syrian soil; indoctrinate the Syrian people
through Shiite clerics flown in from Iran; seize control of Syria's
weapons industry.
Syria is home to a developed weapons industry, which can be traced
back to Russian expertise and years of preparing the Syrian army for war
against Israel. Most of this activity comes out of the Scientific Studies and Research Center.
Soleimani's idea was simple: manufacture the missiles on Syrian soil,
thus negating the threat of attack on Iranian weapons shipments. Iran
would fund the project, Syria would make the missiles, and from there
they would be transferred to Lebanon. Assad was powerless to oppose this
plan; he owed his life to the Iranians and Hezbollah, and also owed
them $80 billion for equipment, aid, and loans he received. Beyond that,
the missile factories would provide jobs and wages for thousands of
Syrians.
Israel identified this process and began methodically attacking these
facilities and other manufacturing infrastructure in Syria. According
to published reports, many dozens of these airstrikes have been carried
out.
Israeli determination to attack was met with Iranian determination to
manufacture. If manufacturing in Iran had failed, and manufacturing in
Syria had failed, the next phase was to move the project to Lebanon.
This time, the plan didn't include making the whole missile from
scratch. Hezbollah doesn't have this ability, which requires a developed
military industry with dozens of scientists and large factories.
Instead, they opted for a process of conversion: take an old model of a
"dumb" rocket smuggled in from Iran and Syria, and fit it with GPS,
wingtips and a small-computer so it can be guided precisely to a target.
All of these components can be purchased online, but Hezbollah
receives them from Iran. The computer itself is based on an algorithm
with exceedingly simple aerodynamical equations. The conversion process,
too, is rather simple and takes several days, at which point more
adjustments and calibrations are likely required and the wingtips must
be tested to ensure proper movement.
According to various reports, the conversion process can produce a
rocket with a 20-30 yard precision radius. Accurate enough to hit a
power station or building, but not enough to put a missile through a
specific window or assassinate someone. This would require a different
level of technological sophistication and real-time intelligence
capabilities only possessed by the world's military superpowers.
The size (or lack thereof) of the components needed for this
conversion process, specifically the laptops, testify to the complexity
of the IDF's task, and to the magnitude of its success thus far.
Ultimately, a large number of the airstrikes attributed to Israel target
these tiny laptops, without which dumb rockets can't be made precise.
Considering the quality of the real-time intelligence required, and the
level of risk and precision undertaken by the air force, this is an
impressive operation by all standards. In the words of Maj. Gen. Tamir
Hayman, the outgoing commander of the IDF's Military Intelligence
Directorate, there are currently a few dozen precision missiles in
Lebanon.
IDF soldiers inspect a Hezbollah attack tunnel on the northern border (IDF Spokesperson's Unit)
During the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah fired some 200 rockets a day
at Israel. In the next war, it intends to fire thousands. Israel
doesn't have the ability to intercept all of them or even most of them,
which means the damage to the Galilee region will likely be immense. On
the other hand, the potential damage of each individual rocket is
relatively low, and the bomb shelters and fortified rooms should provide
sufficient protection.
As part of its war against this project, Israel isn't only employing
military means. It is using diplomacy and applying international
pressure; it is fighting economically and is openly waging a public
relations campaign. Twice in recent years, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly revealed the existence and location of Hezbollah's precision missile factories in Lebanon.
The first time was in 2018 at the UN General Assembly, when he exposed
three facilities; and the second time was in 2020 in a recorded address
to the General Assembly, in which he exposed other facilities, including
a rocket factory in the heart of a civilian neighborhood in Beirut.
In both cases, Hezbollah denied the allegations. These denials were
mostly intended for Lebanese ears: The situation in Lebanon has never
been worse, and the country is coping with the most severe economic and
social crises since its inception. Hezbollah, which has been part of the
Lebanese government for a while now and in many regards controls the
entire country, is perceived as partially responsible for the situation
and it's doubtful the Lebanese public would be empathetic toward anyone
who might trigger another calamity, certainly not after the trauma of
the devastating blast at Beirut port last summer.
Israel's decision to procure new aircraft and interceptor missiles
for the air force mainly stemmed from its assessments pertaining to the
northern front, where the Institute for National Security Studies said
in its annual report a war is most likely to erupt. The working
assumption is that such a war will not be confined to Lebanon, rather
will expand to include Syria (and maybe Iraq). It's possible that Syria
itself will act against Israel, to repay Iran and Hezbollah for their
generous aid throughout the civil war. It's also possible that Shiite
militias in Iraq will fire missiles at Israel, and perhaps even
Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen will join the fray.
Beyond a certain missile barrage, is also the threat of cross-border infiltration. Unearthing Hezbollah's underground tunnel project
severely damaged the group's plans, but this threat hasn't been
completely negated. Hezbollah's elite Radwan Unit intends to raid
Israeli territory and seize control of communities or military outposts.
In an effort to counter this threat, Israel has built high walls to
buttress certain parts of the border.
In recent years, Hezbollah has also invested in drones. Although it
used them in the Second Lebanon War, since then it has made considerable
progress in this field and today possesses a wide array of small
drones, including those that can carry explosive payloads hundreds of
kilometers.
The IDF has numerous tools at its disposal to counter this threat.
One of them is jamming their frequencies, which disrupts the flight path
and sometimes causes the targeted drone to crash. The challenge is to
do this without compromising communication on the Israeli side.
But above all else, as stated, the most pressing threat from the
IDF's perspective are the precision missiles. The matter is so grave,
that the chief of staff and his deputy handle it personally on a
permanent basis. This means routine briefings, planning, and closely
monitoring developments on both sides of the border.
The overriding view in the IDF, as of now, is that the "precision"
threat is tolerable and can be countered. This calculation takes into
account the nature of the missiles in Hezbollah's arsenal, their damage
potential, the intelligence picture that will facilitate their
destruction at the outset of the next war, and the army's ability to
disrupt and intercept missile launches. Assuming that a few precision
missiles will make it through, the question is how much damage they will
cause.
All of this is supposed to produce a magic number, which needs to be
Israel's red line. A line which, if crossed, the IDF must launch a
preventative strike, in the estimation that doing so will come at a
lower cost than a future war. Thus far, Israel has not specified such a
number. Some experts say the number is 500 precision missiles, others
say the number should be 1,000 missiles. As stated, Hezbollah is still
far from these numbers, but the horizon is clear: It is continuing to
manufacture and smuggle them.
PM Benjamin Netanyahu displays the location of a hidden Hezbollah depot (GPO
Those who argue that setting a specific red line is a bad idea
believe the situation is dynamic and that Israel is continually
acquiring tools that alter the picture and equation. Conversely, the
concern is that Israel will constantly acclimate itself to a new
reality. Like a frog in the pot, slowly stewing until it is completely
boiled. Israel stewed idly as Hezbollah accumulated tens of thousands of
"dumb" rockets and could do the same with the precision threat.
The common view in the IDF and among civilian experts is that Israel
must define its red lines, and the fact that it hasn't done so yet is a
serious problem that needs immediate fixing.
"If Hezbollah crosses a quantitative or qualitative threshold for
precision weapons, we will have to act against it. This is a serious
decision, but one from which we cannot run away," Lt. Col. Eran Niv, the
head of the IDF's Warfare Methods and Innovation Division, told Israel Hayom.
"Beyond Iran's nuclear program, this is the greatest threat to Israel
today. This is the event, with a capital T. It is the focus of
situational assessments. It is the scenario used in training exercises.
Everything is geared in that direction, but so is the response. In the
meantime, we are trying to act in other creative ways, which won't allow
[Hezbollah] to get there," said Niv.
Niv is among those who believe it's imperative for Israel to
determine its red lines. Not just in terms of quantity but quality. For
example, if Hezbollah were to transition from smuggling precision
components to mass-scale production of precision missiles in Lebanon.
"We need to mark a quantitative and qualitative threshold, which if
crossed will require us to take other actions," he emphasized.
Hezbollah isn't there yet, but this could change soon. Lifting the economic sanctions imposed on Iran, as part of the United States' expected return to the nuclear deal,
will free up considerable funds for Iran's proxies in the region, chief
among them Hezbollah. If Tehran and Beirut sense that the Americans are
restricting Israeli activity, or support the Jewish state less, they
could feel emboldened enough to accelerate and greatly expand the
precision missile project.
"Hezbollah views us exactly how we view it – as someone plotting to
attack it," says Middle East expert Prof. Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv
University. "It wants precision capabilities to deter us. A few thousand
more missiles won't change anything, but precision missiles, from its
perspective, are a tiebreaker. And because it is struggling to smuggle
precision components from Syria, it wants to manufacture them in
Lebanon."
Former MID chief Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, who is currently head
of the Institute for National Security Studies, is a firm believer and
prominent voice calling for Israel to define its red lines now.
Former head of the IDF's Military Intelligence Directorate Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin (KOKO)
"We must examine and designate the right timing for taking action
against the precision weapon project, in the understanding that it can
trigger a broad conflagration. Hundreds of precision missiles in the
hands of the Iranian axis, particularly Hezbollah, which can cause
comprehensive civilian damage in Israel and paralyze vital systems, is a
strategic threat that can't be allowed to develop."
believes that if Hezbollah accelerates its armament efforts, Israel
will have to consider a preventative strike to negate the threat.
According to other defense officials, Israel mustn't initiate such a
strike as doing so would assuredly spark a war. They believe Israel
should consider "exploiting the opportunity" of a limited escalation on
the northern border to target Hezbollah's precision capabilities.
As a result of this event, the Iranians realized that precision is
indeed paramount, and therefore decided to pursue this capability, on
all fronts, with everything in their power. This is more difficult for
them without Soleimani, but in Yadlin's words: "The train has left the
station" and beyond already reaching Yemen could eventually reach
Lebanon as well.
"Israel's situation is not the same as the Saudis' situation," Yadlin
says. "We have better intelligence, and it's reasonable to assume we'll
know about an attack such as [the oil refinery attack] in advance. We
have impressive preventative capabilities and we can attack before the
launch, and we have detection and defensive capabilities as well, but
the threat, in general, is problematic and requires a change of
strategy."
Yadlin lists four possible strategies at Israel's disposal:
Deterrence (make Nasrallah understand that firing precision missiles at
Israel will lead to the destruction of Lebanon); defense (greater
investment in interceptors and other systems); pinpoint airstrikes and
other operations (which simply delay the inevitable); a preventative
strike (which will remove this capability from Hezbollah's hands but
open Israel to a broad war).
"The problem is that deterrence could erode or cease to exist if
Hezbollah acquires a large stockpile of precision missiles, and defense
is incredibly expensive and could still prove insufficient against
massive barrages. Therefore, the important discussion should be about
prevention. In theory, we do this all the time, but we already need to
start thinking about the next stage. It's possible we'll have to
implement the Begin doctrine (to prevent nuclear proliferation in the
Middle East) against the precision missile threat as well," says Yadlin.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
Brig. Gen. (res.) Itai Brun, the former head of MID's Intelligence
Analysis Division, who penned the annual situational assessment
published by the INSS, has a different opinion.
"The precision missiles are indeed an extraordinarily powerful threat, but these are not nuclear weapons," he tells Israel Hayom.
"The precision missiles are not the end-all and be-all from Hezbollah's perspective. They are part of a broader picture."
Brun continues: "Hezbollah doesn't want a lengthy war; it wants to
deliver painful blows that shorten the war and mitigate its fallout. To
this end, perhaps all it needs is to launch a small number of precision
missiles amid a massive barrage and ground infiltration into Israel.
Perhaps all they need is one precise missile hitting a power station or
the Knesset to provide the effect they want."
If Hezbollah persists at its present pace of producing precision
missiles, it will take it years to reach Israel's red line. But if it
accelerates the pace or transitions to manufacturing precision missiles
in Lebanon, this timeframe could be reduced significantly. In this
scenario, Israel will have to decide whether or not to act to eradicate
the greatest and most dangerous conventional threat it faces, or to live
with it
[W]ith an intensifying crisis in
Lebanon and Israel’s preoccupation with its own internal affairs,
Nasrallah may feel sufficiently comfortable to risk escalation in order
to restore deterrence. How should Israel act?
In the final months of the Trump
administration, Hezbollah was careful not to fan the flames along the
border with Israel for fear of a painful reaction. Now, however, with a
new administration in Washington, and with an intensifying crisis in
Lebanon and Israel’s preoccupation with its own internal affairs,
Nasrallah may feel sufficiently comfortable to risk escalation in order
to restore deterrence. How should Israel act?
There are signs that Hezbollah is
more ready than in the past to take risks vis-Ã -vis Israel, though at
this stage it is unclear whether the organization will further escalate
the situation. No deliberate reversal is evident – Hezbollah is still
interested in avoiding war – but it is making an effort to consolidate
the deterrence equation with Israel. This approach represents a shift
from the restraint the organization displayed in the final months of
President Trump's tenure, in order to preclude any excessive response.
Although the Biden administration has not yet formulated its policy
vis-Ã -vis Lebanon and Hezbollah, the organization's leadership, like its
patron Iran, believes there is a window of opportunity to advance
interests with respect to Israel and the Lebanese arena. According to
the Israeli intelligence estimate published recently, in the coming year
Hezbollah may choose limited and short confrontations ("battle days").
The exchange of public messages between the organization and Israel
supports this impression. If Hezbollah initiates an attack that will
lead to a military confrontation, Israel will face a dilemma regarding
if and how to respond: should Israel contain the incidents, or should it
view them as a strategic threat and cause for widespread military
action that would harm the organization's infrastructure. As for the
Biden administration's policy toward Lebanon and Hezbollah, Israel
should encourage the United States to continue its political and
economic pressure on the organization, alongside ongoing involvement and
assistance in Lebanon.
Hezbollah
has recently shown greater willingness to take risks regarding a
possible military confrontation with Israel, which contrasts with the
period of restraint the organization imposed on itself in the last
months of the Trump administration. Since the new administration entered
the White House, this has been reflected mainly in the realization of
Hezbollah's threats to try and harm Israeli flights in Lebanese skies –
after a long period (since October 2019) of avoiding such action – when
on February 3, 2021 it launched an anti-aircraft missile against an
Israeli drone; the missile failed to hit the drone. Spokesmen for the
organization boasted of the action as evidence of their determination to
prevent Israeli activity in Lebanese airspace and to preserve the
deterrence equation with Israel.
Hezbollah's temerity seems to be
coordinated with Iran and stems from the organization's assessment that
Israel is preoccupied with its internal affairs in light of the ongoing
pandemic and political crisis, and is therefore not in a place to
conduct a risky military campaign. In addition, the organization
perceives a window of opportunity created by the change of command in
the United States. In the final months of the Trump administration, it
was clear that the organization exercised caution in its operations
along the Israel-Lebanon border, and had difficulty demonstrating the
deterrence equation that Nasrallah promised to implement by force
against the IDF. For example:
After
two failed attempts at revenge, Hezbollah refrained from the action
against Israel it promised in response to the killing of one of its
combatants in Syria (July 2020). The only achievement that Nasrallah
could present in this context is the pressure imposed on the IDF
following the ongoing tensions on the Lebanese border, which prompted
reinforced deployment. Nasrallah attributed this deployment to
Hezbollah's deterrent force and IDF concerns about its military
strength.
Hezbollah's lack of response to the widespread
attacks attributed to Israel on its assets in Syria – attacks that were
intended to thwart weapons transfers from Iran and damage Hezbollah’s
infrastructure in the Golan Heights.
Hezbollah has also
refrained from any action against Israel along the Lebanese border
following the killing of Iranian nuclear scientist Fakhrizadeh (November
2020), attributed to Israel, arguing that the response should come from
the side targeted, namely Iran. It seems that publicizing this position
was designed to calm internal criticism in Lebanon that the
organization is in the service of Iran.
In a speech delivered on February 16
(commemorating the anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Mousavi,
who was killed by Israel), Nasrallah discussed the possibility of a
confrontation with Israel. His reference was to the speech by IDF Chief
of Staff Aviv Kochavi at the annual conference of the Institute for
National Security Studies (January 26), and to the Israeli intelligence
assessment published recently regarding the feasibility of "battle
days," i.e., limited rounds of confrontation. His remarks underscored
the importance he attaches to the deterrence equation vis-Ã -vis Israel
and the organization's determination – even though he claimed he was not
interested in war – to respond strongly to any Israeli move. Regarding
Kochavi, who insisted on the legitimacy of a "moral and effective"
attack by the IDF on Hezbollah's missile deposits hidden among the
Lebanese civilian population, Nasrallah warned that if Israel harmed
Lebanese civilians, Hezbollah would cause severe damage to the Israeli
home front – the worst since 1948. He claimed that this too is
justified, since all Israelis are military reservists. Regarding the
assessment that Hezbollah is interested in "battle days" with the IDF,
Nasrallah clarified that Israel is "playing with fire" when it thinks
that exchanges of blows between the parties will be limited and not lead
to a broad campaign. He added that although it does not want a
confrontation, his organization will fight back if it happens.
Although
the Biden administration has not yet fully formulated its policy
vis-Ã -vis the Lebanese theater, or specifically with regard to
Hezbollah, it seems that the organization, like its patron Iran,
identifies a window of opportunity to advance its interests in view of
Biden's expected change in policy from the Trump stance toward the
Shiite axis. The previous administration advocated "maximum pressure" on
Hezbollah, in parallel with the pressure it exerted on Iran (expanding
sanctions on its members and its supporters in the Lebanese system;
demanding a reduction in Hezbollah's influence in the new Lebanese
government, in contrast to France, which is willing to accept
Hezbollah's political status in the Lebanese system; and pressuring
Lebanon to compromise and move forward with negotiations with Israel on
the maritime border). At the same time, Hezbollah has suffered a few
blows in the international arena in the past year, reflected mainly by
the wave of 13 new countries that now recognize it as a terrorist
organization.
A policy paper was
submitted recently to the Biden administration by the Washington
International Crisis Group, headed by Robert Malley, until his recent
appointment as Biden's envoy on the Iranian issue. The paper advised the
administration to change the US perspective on Lebanon, and instead of
promoting an effort to weaken Hezbollah, adopt a new approach aimed at
strengthening the Lebanese state and preventing its collapse, by
supporting the French initiative and forming a government with
Hezbollah.
Even in the Lebanese domestic arena, despite claims that Hezbollah has benefited from the paralysis of the political system and continues to strengthen its power bases among the country's Shiite population, the dismal Lebanese reality has led to increased public criticism of the organization. This emerges from the results of a public opinion poll conducted in Lebanon (November 2020) by David Pollock of the Washington Institute, which indicated a clear decline in support for Hezbollah in recent years among the Lebanese public, including among the Shiite community. Hezbollah's extensive campaign, marking the anniversary of the killing of Qasem Soleimani (January 2020) and bordering on worship of his persona, also drew widespread criticism in Lebanon that Hezbollah was operating in the service of Iran.
Looking ahead, a possible change in US policy toward Iran (and in Hezbollah’s view, perhaps toward the organization as well) concomitant with Lebanon's continued deterioration, as well as the organization's sense that Israel is preoccupied with its internal affairs, may increase Hezbollah’s boldness vis-Ã -vis Israel. It may try again to carry out the promised revenge attack, which could create a round of conflict, in the spirit of the military intelligence division's assessment. The organization's immediate goal is to consolidate its deterrence equation, but it seems that the renewed tension on the Israel-Lebanon border may, in its view, also serve to improve its image in the internal arena as the "defender of Lebanon" and perhaps even indirectly provide Iran with leverage with the new US administration – at least until a resumption of nuclear negotiations. However, following any resumption of negotiations between the United States and Iran, Hezbollah will presumably restrain its activities with Israel so as not to sabotage the dialogue, which is supposed to serve Iran.
Therefore, IDF vigilance on the northern border must be maintained, and in light of the possibility that Hezbollah will try to carry out its threats to increase tensions in the coming months, Israel's reaction must be re-examined to best serve Israeli interests. The two main options are ensuring an appropriate but measured response that will limit events and prevent degeneration into large-scale fighting, or exploiting the event in order to carry out extensive action to significantly impair Hezbollah's precision missile capability, which poses a strategic threat to Israel.
It is recommended that the Lebanon issue be raised as soon as possible in a dialogue between the Israel and the new US administration. The US should be encouraged to continue its involvement in Lebanon while formulating its policy toward it, which should include two parallel efforts: continued economic-political pressure on Hezbollah, and aid to the Lebanese state, which is on the verge of collapse.
The Hague-based tribunal ruled last month that it has jurisdiction over the occupied West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. Israel is not a member of the ICC and rejects its jurisdictions, but the Palestinians have welcomed the ruling as a chance for "justice for victims."
Israel estimates that hundreds of its citizens might be subject to war crimes probes
by the International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction it rejects, and
is working on how to protect them, the Defense Ministry said on
Tuesday.
Including himself among Israelis who could be threatened with arrest,
Defense Minister Benny Gantz said, "I was never afraid to go across
enemy lines, I will continue to stand wherever I have to."
The Hague-based tribunal ruled last month that it has jurisdiction
over the occupied West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. The
ruling could lead to criminal investigations of Israel and of
Palestinian militant groups including Hamas.
Israel is not a member of the court and rejects its jurisdiction, a
position backed by its close ally the United States. Palestinians have
welcomed the ruling as a chance for justice for victims of Israeli
attacks.
In an interview on Israel's fortified border with Gaza, Gantz, who
also holds Israel's justice portfolio, called the ruling a "negative
development" and added: "We have our own teams working in different
[places] to try [and] influence," the ICC.
Gantz was the military's chief of staff during a 2014 war between
Israel and militants in Hamas-controlled Gaza. The ICC has pointed to
that conflict as a potential issue to be probed.
Asked by Reuters how many Israelis, including himself, might expect
to be subject to arrest should the probe lead to criminal
investigations, Gantz said: "I guess several hundred, but we will take
care of everybody."
Gantz called that "an estimate", declining to say if Israel had drawn
up a list of officials. Israel will provide legal assistance to any
implicated Israelis and will give them legal warnings regarding travel
if necessary, Gantz said.
Asked if he himself might change his travel plans in light of the ICC probe, Gantz said: "So far, no."
Democracy cannot survive in a country where a few technocrats and
oligarchs can choose to deny access to information or platforms to
candidates running for office.
The power-sharing of the U.S.
Federal government with Big Tech appears a recipe for unharnessed power
and corruption. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny caught on
right away, saying: "This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of
freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when
they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common
practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter.'"
Fortunately, governors such as Ron DeSantis in Florida, Greg
Abbott in Texas and Kevin Stitt in Oklahoma are now moving legislatively
to counter federal laws that may have adverse effects on freedom of
speech, jobs, election integrity, the energy industry, the first or
second amendments and general constitutional rights.
Democracy cannot survive in a country where a few technocrats and
oligarchs can choose to deny access to information or platforms to
candidates running for office. It is simply unacceptable that they alone
-- unelected, unappointed, untransparent and unaccountable -- can deem
what is "harmful" to society. The job now for all of us is to prevent
the United States from slowly becoming a full-blown tyranny.
"Digital giants have been playing an increasingly significant role in
wider society... how well does this monopolism correlate with the
public interest?," Russian President Vladimir Putin said on January 27, 2021.
"Where is the distinction between successful global
businesses, sought-after services and big data consolidation on the one
hand, and the efforts to rule society[...] by substituting legitimate
democratic institutions, by restricting the natural right for people to
decide how to live and what view to express freely on the other hand?"
Was Mr. Putin defending democracy? Hardly. What apparently worries
him is that the Big Tech might gain the power to control society at the
expense of his government. What must be a nightmare for him -- as for
many Americans -- is that the Tech giants were able to censor news
favorable to Trump and then censor Trump himself. How could the U.S. do
this to the president of a great and free country?
Putin made these comments at the Davos World Economic Forum, in which
he and Chinese President Xi Jinping, sped on by the "Great Reset" of a
fourth industrial revolution, used enlightened phrases
to mask dark plans for nation states in a globalist New World Order.
Thus did Xi caution attendees "to adapt to and guide globalization,
cushion its negative impact, and deliver its benefits to all countries
and all nations."
In March 2019, Putin signed a law
"imposing penalties for Russian internet users caught spread 'fake
news' and information that presents 'clear disrespect for society,
government, state symbols the constitution and government
institutions.'" Punishments got even heavier with new laws in December.
Meanwhile, opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been sentenced to
prison for more than three years (with a year off for time served), in
part because he revealed photos of a lavish Russian palace allegedly
belonging to Putin on the coast of the Black Sea. Its accouterments
supposedly include an $824 toilet brush.
Many of the thousands of people protesting Navalny's imprisonment have
since been protesting Putin by waving gold-painted toilet brushes.
How nice that American Big Tech companies is pushing democracy in Russia
-- even while it is denying it at home. Do you notice how many leaders
in Europe have risen to condemn censorship in America even though many
in Europe are censoring their citizens as well, and are not exactly fans
of the person who was being censored, former President Donald J. Trump?
Like Putin, they probably do not want Big Tech competing with their
governments, either.
The power-sharing of the U.S. Federal government with Big Tech appears a recipe for unharnessed power and corruption. Navalny caught on right away, saying:
"This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of
freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when
they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common
practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter.'"
What watchdog, if any, is now restraining Big Tech in America? It has
become quite clear that Big Tech's censorship may well have cost Trump
the election, even if one ultimately finds that election fraud did not.
The Media Research Center (MRC) found
that "One of every six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would
have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about
one or more of these news stories". That information might well have
changed the outcome in all six of the swing states Biden reportedly won.
Last August, Twitter also undertook censoring the trailer of an explosive documentary entitled "The Plot Against the President."
The film, narrated by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) with commentary by
leading members of the Republican Party, exposes leading members of the
Democratic Party and their deep state allies, many of whom knowingly
used phony evidence to frame President Trump and some in his circle to
try convince Americans that he and his campaign had colluded with the
Russian government to win the 2016 election.
The film claims, using with recently declassified information, that President Barack Obama, as well Hillary Clinton,
were involved in an almost four-year attempted coup incomparably more
undemocratic than any riot at the Capital Building on January 6.
Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, claimed
in August 2020 that Biden also knew of the ongoing efforts to unseat
Trump. Nevertheless, Trump did not target them, perhaps to avoid
dividing the country even further.
According to the Washington Times, the Twitter account of the movie, which debuted in October 2020, attracted 30,000 followers.
Twitter blacklisted it for a day, but after a public uproar, put the
popular documentary back. Our question is: How many blacklistings did
Twitter not put back?
The January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was a pivotal event for Trump
and the Republican Party. Prior to January 6, President Trump had
offered to deploy 10,000 troops to the capitol, according to his former
Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows. The Pentagon and the Department of Justice
had also offered help but were also reportedly turned down by the US Capitol Police The problem, apparently, was "optics" -- about a Capitol now surrounded by barbed wire and thousands of troops, which the current Administration now seems to like.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for further details about
the event were also rejected -- it is not clear by whom. It is
ridiculous, therefore, for anyone to frame the riots, ugly as they were,
as a seditious "insurrection," particularly in light of what appears to
be a massive security failure that could have averted the violence. One
thing is certain: the timing of the event could not have been more
perfect for opposition groups, which is probably why it had been planned
for weeks before January 6.
What these efforts and the media did achieve was an end to all
attempts to ascertain election fraud at a time when Vice President Mike
Pence was counting Electoral College ballots, and allowing speeches from
those supporting that claim. Some politicians even called for the resignation of Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, and referred them to the ethics committee for even suggesting an election audit of battleground states, despite questions having been asked -- with no objections -- concerning the results of the 2000, 2004 and 2016 presidential elections.
Ultimately, the result of the latest "witch hunt" against President Trump, as it has been called,
was a contrived impeachment attempt to bar Trump from a future
presidential bid -- a kangaroo court devoid of due process, hearings,
witnesses, and evidence. The prosecution, however, was undeniably
eloquent in evoking "democracy" for a totally undemocratic procedure
that justly resulted in Trump's acquittal.
Meanwhile, Facebook and Twitter banned Trump and some of his
supporters from their cyber domains. An alternative social media
platform, Parler, was banned from the Apple and Google app stores, and then completely closed down by Amazon.
Meanwhile, mainstream social media platforms were reportedly used to rally and organize carry out riots in American cities last year. No one was penalized.
Do not, however, expect such slackness now. According to Fox News:
"People like Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan and Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have made various public statements
labeling Republicans as extremists -- with Ocasio-Cortez claiming the
GOP has 'white supremacist sympathizers' within its ranks, and Brennan
claiming 'domestic violent extremists' in the form of far-right
supporters of President Trump are more dangerous than Al Qaeda."
Columnist and radio host Jeffrey Kuhner warns
that a new bill, H.R. 350, "is the liberals' equivalent of the Patriot
Act redux. This time, however, it is not aimed at Islamic jihadists.
Rather, it directly targets Trump patriots." Kuhner writes that the bill
"has the full backing of the Democratic congressional leadership, the
Biden administration... Big Media and Big Tech."
"The bill empowers the Deep State to monitor, surveil and
spy on American citizens' social media accounts, phone calls, political
meetings and even infiltrate pro-Trump or 'Stop the Steal' rallies.
"Conservatives who are deemed potentially 'seditious' or 'treasonous'
can be arrested and jailed, fined and/or lose their employment. The
goal is simple: to crush all dissent to the Biden regime."
Moreover, last month the new Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, ordered
a "stand down "of the entire military for 60 days, "so each service,
each command and each unit can have a deeper conversation about this
issue [extremism]." Normally stand downs last only a few hours or days
and do not involve the entire military. Austin, in addition, has pledged
to "rid our ranks of racists and extremists."
These are words that can be applied to anyone dreamed up, including
Trump supporters, and based, of course, on nothing but propaganda.
Austin's plan is therefore needless, divisive and dangerous,
considering the foreign dangers now circling their prey. This punishment
of the regime's "foes" makes one wonder what is next. Are we already
marching in lockstep with Russia and China? The way to unite and
strengthen the United States is not through suppression and punishment
but through political power with checks and balances, a free press and
closer adherence to the Constitution.
But here, again, there seems to be. a problem. The Federalist wrote in July:
"According to a new Quillette survey released
last month, 70 percent of self-identifying liberals want to rewrite the
U.S. Constitution 'to a new Americans constitution that better reflects
our diversity as a people.'"
Oh, so that is what we lack: diversity!
What can Americans Do? We are presently at a tipping point in
America. Communist China is working hard and is focused on global
domination; we are just messing around. In an increasingly digital
world, the war against infringements on our freedoms most probably needs
to be fought largely in the digital and cyber-space. That is why ending
censorship in both the traditional and social media is such an
important priority. First, break up the Big Tech companies. Let them
become the utilities they originally claimed to be, or else be liable to
lawsuits as other publishers are.
We do take some comfort that whereas dictatorships in authoritarian
countries such as China and Russia is vertical -- from the top down --
in America, the central government shares power with the states from the
bottom up, and with powers separated: the executive, the judiciary and
the legislative. Fortunately, governors such as Ron DeSantis in Florida,
Greg Abbott in Texas and Kevin Stitt in Oklahoma are now moving legislatively
to counter federal laws that may have adverse effects on freedom of
speech, jobs, election integrity, the energy industry, the first or
second amendments and general constitutional rights.
This does not speak, however, to the major issue here -- that
democracy cannot survive in a country where a few technocrats and
oligarchs can choose to deny access to information or platforms to
candidates running for office. It is simply unacceptable that they alone
-- unelected, unappointed, untransparent and unaccountable -- can deem
what is "harmful" to society. The job now for all of us is to prevent
the United States from slowly becoming a full-blown tyranny.
Leni Friedman Valenta is a graduate of Brandeis and
Yale (playwriting) and has written articles for the Begin-Sadat Center
for Strategic Studies, the Gatestone Institute, Circanada, The National
Interest, Aspen Review and other publications. She is married to
international expert Dr. Jiri Valenta, a non-resident, senior research
associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. Their website
is valenta-center.com
