Worried of Warring Livni
New in the Website
General Elections to the Knesset, 1999
Out of nowhere, Tsipi Livni was elected as a member of the Knesset for the Likud party, on the general elections held on May 17, 1999. Her sudden appearance there was enough to prove her credentials to the Israeli public, any formal mention that she was Mossad would have been superfluous; yet, reliable rumors appeared on the newspapers claiming she had been a low-rank Mossad agent.
In the Israeli jargon, the statement was clear. She had not been an officer like Victor Ostrovsky and probably held a position similar to the one of "Cindy," the code name for Mossad agent Cheryl Bentov. The last, apparently posing as a bar-girl, had a key-role in the kidnapping of Mordechai Vanunu by Israel in 1986.
Bar-girl or not, in the Israeli political life, a Mossad agent has the right (or maybe the information needed to blackmail others) to bypass the regular political path and to land as a prince at the parliament, right next to the top.
Her Warring Family
"Etzel" is the Hebrew acronym for "HaIrgun HaTzvai HaLeumi BeEretz Israel," or the "National Military Organization in the Land of Israel;" however, usually it is referred to in Hebrew as "HaMishpaha HaLohemet," literally meaning the "Warring Family." Widely known for its violent attacks against innocents, like the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (1946) and the Dir Yassin Massacre (1948), it became the predecessor of the Herut (now Likud) party.
Worryingly, both of Livni's parents were prominent members of the Warring Family. Eitan Livni – her father – was the Etsel's Chief Operations Officer. He married Sara Rosenberg – a fellow member of the organization – in what became the first official marriage in the State of Israel. Tsipi Livni grew up among people that in modern terms would be classified as "terrorists."
Internal Elections at the Kadima Party, 2008
On September 17, 2008, foreign minister Tsipi Livni won the internal elections of the Kadima Party, creating a real opportunity for her to become a prime minister of Israel in the near future.
"Is that good for the Jews?" is a typical Israeli phrase. There, every event is measured against this bigoted question. Let me put my people in the place they put others and ask: "Is Livni good for humanity?"
New Leaders, Old Wars
New leaders in Israel face the need to prove themselves better and tougher than their predecessors; high-profile nationalistic events, or military attacks are their usual methods. Usually, this is also their pitfall.
In 1996, newly elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to open an exit for the Western Wall Tunnel and sparked three days of rioting by Palestinians, resulting in many deaths. Later, he decided to assassinate Khaled Mashal; the failure and subsequent scandal almost convinced many Israelis that Netanyahu was nothing but a dangerous warmonger.
On January 2006, Ehud Olmert became the Acting Prime Minister of Israel, after Ariel Sharon collapsed. Following general elections, he became a full prime minister on May 4 of that year. Fearing to be unable to match his almost revered (at least in in the Israeli media) predecessor, he began on July 12 a brutal and undeserved attack on Lebanon, known in Israel as the Second Lebanese War. In this conflict, Hezbollah proved capable to inflict in-depth damage to Israel, while Israel proved (again) unable to defeat them. Most Israelis consider this event as the worst military defeat in the history of the country; not even in 1973 were such deep attacks. Having politically survived the Winograd Commission that investigated the war, Olmert soon fell on corruption allegations.
The list goes on and on. How would Tsipi Livni - another nobody newcomer - attempt to prove herself if she would become Prime Minister? In the recent past, she almost achieved that.
Would Livni attempt an attack on Iran? This type of conjecture may be popular in the American alternative media, but from the Israeli point the answer is clear and free from doubt: "No!"
Simply, Israel is too weak for that. A ground attack would be out of the question for such an event. An air strike must be analyzed under the light of the 2006 defeat. A fact largely ignored by the international media is that the Israeli army was led then, only for the second time in its history, by an air force general; traditionally that's a position held by officers from the ground forces - the "green army," as it is known in Israel. Chief of Staff Dan Halutz decided in 2006 to favor air strikes during the Second Lebanese War while holding back the "green army," since - as he phrased that - "he didn't trust them enough." In parallel, while the order to begin the attack was given, he rushed to his bank in order to sell his stocks. Since then, the Israeli air force suffers from a very bad reputation; it may be strong, but its officers are professionally and morally unreliable. It is unlikely that Livni would rely on them for the building of her military reputation.
She would not begin an attack on Lebanon. It was the pitfall of too many Israeli politicians. However, a safer option awaits nearby: Syria; such an event probably would not meet controversial reactions on the American media and would be welcomed by the American administration. A false flag attack would be easy to arrange and she would be able to rely on the green army; the air force would play only a supporting role in such scenario. False flag operations are designed to appear as if they were being carried out by a false entities, they originated in naval warfare, where the practice was acceptable, provided the false flag was exchanged by the national flag before engaging in battle. One of the best known false flag attacks was the Gleiwitz incident in August 1939, when Reinhard Heydrich fabricated evidence of a Polish attack against Nazi Germany as a justification for occupying Poland.
How would such an event look? Livni could cite the 11:1 ration between the respective artillery forces along the border in favor of the Syrians as a reason; for other types of weapons the situation is not much better. The fact that this is a static figure for more than twenty years would not be quoted. "Securing Our Border" could such an event be called. "Honcho Poncho on Syria," would be a less probable name. Any number of other false flag events could be fabricated; Israel has enough clout in the international media to publish it wherever it wants.
Attempting to put Damascus under siege through the direct path leading from the Golan Heights to the city would be difficult, mainly due to the large number of Syrian units on the path. However, Israel has another toy.
"Vertical bypass" is a type of force-multiplier technique. The last is amilitary term used for a technique that multiplies the military value of a force; a company well placed can equal a battalion in efficiency. Vertical bypass is a term referring to a parachuting of a large military force in the backside of an enemy army, thus creating a second frontline for it to deal with. Israel has a vertical bypass division that could be dropped behind Damascus and used to place an effective siege on that city. Would Livni go for that option? The human price would be dear, but, when did an Israeli politician ever cared about that?
Would the veil over her face be taken away on her Road to Damascus?
My articles on the web are my main income these days; please recognize my efforts in writing them by donating or buying a copy of The Cross of Bethlehem, or Back in Bethlehem.