Rafi Eitan: Israeli Dr. Strangelove

Sometimes, you don’t know whether the Israeli cabinet is a governing body or a 3-ring circus.  The latest circus act set up its tent at Der Spiegel, where minister Rafi Eitan, a veteran of many a Mossad special ops project, intimated that Israel might kidnap Iran’s president and send him to the International Court:

Eitan: It could very well be that a leader such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suddenly finds himself before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

SPIEGEL: Do you mean that seriously?

Eitan: Absolutely. Those who spread poison and want to eradicate another people has to expect such consequences.

Do I take any of this seriously?  Not really.  That’s why I called it a circus.  But the fact that an Israeli minister is willing to allow such accusations to escape his unbuttoned mouth indicates the level to which political discourse has sunk.

Even if Israel could kidnap him–which is a highly dubious proposition–what charge would Israel claim before an international tribunal?  That Ahmadinejad said nasty things against Israel?  Crimes usually require action.  So what crimes has he committed?  And even if there were proof that he personally had committed any does anyone in their right mind think that Israeli generals and political leaders haven’t been equally culpable in ordering military attacks that caused terrific mayhem on innocent civilians?  Where do such charges get Israel?  They only focus the spotlight ever more brightly on its own misdeeds.

So if Eitan wants to “go there” he’s got my blessing.  I’ve always said I’m in favor of Nasrallah going to the Hague as long as Olmert and Halutz accompany him for the mayhem all three caused in Lebanon.

Chances are this is just political posturing on Eitan’s part as he knows national elections are right around the corner and his Pensioners Party has lost almost all its popularity.  A spicy statement like this may be just what the political spin doctor ordered in terms of drumming up interest in a failed political program.

It’s just a shame that Israeli politicians are so selfish about their political power that they are willing to abuse their own nation’s international good name to score a few points.

Iran has rightly complained to the UN about Eitan’s goofball statement.  Israel’s response was outlandish:

Israel’s new U.N. ambassador, Gabriela Shalev, called Iran’s complaint “absurd”:

Iran’s president repeatedly denies the Holocaust and calls — again and again — for the destruction of the state of Israel…. [Ahmadinejad leads a country] that develops nuclear capabilities endangering the entire world…. As such, Iran is under United Nations sanctions for its non-compliance with the international community…. Furthermore, Iran openly and actively supports and arms terrorist organizations.

What claim above–even if they were all accurate, which is debatable–is actionable under international law? It’s simply ludicrous. The truth of the matter is you can’t have government ministers going around the world shooting their mouths off about kidnapping the presidents of other countries. If this was an everyday occurrence then pretty soon you’d have the prime minister of Israel kidnapped too (or at least an attempt to kidnap him would be made). Does Israel really want to go there? Does it want its former IDF generals subject to kidnapping under similar circumstances? Because you see that two can play this game.

Just to fill in the background here, Rafi Eitan is the spook who brought the world not only Adolph Eichmann’s capture, but Jonathan Pollard.  Yes, he “ran” Pollard and we have Eitan to thank for that tawdry affair.  You’ll notice that Eitan won’t be appearing at any fundraisers in the U.S.  If he did he’d likely end up in the federal clink, and rightfully so.  So this is the sterling character Israel is allowing to dictate its “diplomatic” approach to Iran.

Before and After images of Beirut coastline documenting extent of oil spill (NASA Observatory)

The chickens are finally coming home to roost.  After a failed war that ended up killing 1,000 Lebanese and 150 Israelis and caused billions in damage to both Israel and especially Lebanon, a partial bill will be presented to Israel by the UN:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will demand that Israel pay Lebanon $1 billion in compensation over damages caused during the Jewish state’s 2006 war against Hizbullah, Lebanese media reported Saturday.

According to the report the sum, based on World Bank appraisals, is aimed at covering the environmental and material damages caused by the Second Lebanon War to neighboring countries as well.

The fundamental part of the compensation demanded is for the damage caused to the Lebanese coast due to an oil spill following an Israeli bombing of a southern Beirut power plant, which the Lebanese said had caused “an ecological disaster.”

According to the report, Ban plans to submit a report to the United Nations General Assembly at the end of the month, stating that damage Israel caused to the oil reservoir polluted Lebanon’s coast, and that the pollution spread to neighboring countries, especially Syria.

…The oil spill, which was defined the greatest natural disaster in Lebanon’s history, took place after Israel Air Force planes hit a power plant and caused some 110,000 oil barrels to leak into the Mediterranean Sea.

The report said that the UN wants Israel to compensate the countries harmed by the oil spill and restore the environmental situation along the Lebanon coast.

By way of comparison, the Exxon Valdez disaster spilled 250,000 barrels of oil. The UN has basically called Israel the Joseph Hazelwood of the Mediterranean, with the only difference being the skipper of that boat didn’t set out to cause an environmental disaster while Israel arguably did. Or at the very least didn’t give a fig if it happened.

I’m pleased that an international body like the General Assembly will take up this matter. One can argue from the left or right whether Israel deserves to be brought up on war crimes charges for its behavior in Lebanon. But it’s much harder to make an environmental claim into a political one. The damage was done and it is quantifiable. The author of the damage is not in doubt. The only item at issue is whether Israel can be made to own responsibility for this environmental crime.

I say this monetary claim is a good thing because the Israeli people need to know that war waged in their name which ravages an entire region will have a price not just in human life, but in cold, hard cash. And if Israel does not pay, then it will face the opprobrium of the international community not just for its military actions, but for the ecological disaster it caused.

If one thinks back, the last Middle Eastern leader to cause such an environmental disaster was Saddam, who blew up Kuwait’s oil wells. Does Israel want to be thought of in the same breath with him?

NOTE: I subsequently found a far more comprehensive and well-reported article at The National.  It sources the story more fully and reliably than the Ynetnews article above.

While Dick Cheney is in Georgia and the Ukraine jabbing needles in the eye of the Russian bear with promises to both of NATO membership (as if an unpopular lame-duck vice president can remotely deliver on his promise), Condi Rice is playing a different tune in Libya.  For the first time in 55 years, an American secretary of state is visiting that country and its leader:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi — once reviled as a “mad dog” by a U.S. president — on Friday on a historic visit which she said proved that Washington had no permanent enemies. Rice’s trip…is intended to end decades of enmity,

Her words were not just meant to be heard by Gaddafi, her interlocutor.  They were also meant to waft 2,000 miles to the east to Persian ears, if they were sharp enough to hear them:

“This demonstrates that the U.S. doesn’t have permanent enemies,” Rice said of her visit.

“It demonstrates that when countries are prepared to make strategic changes in direction, the United States is prepared to respond. Quite frankly I never thought I would be visiting Libya and so it is quite something,” she said.

Clearly, Rice and the realists in the Bush Administration are trying to make Libya a test case for what could happen should Iran moderate its own stance regarding its nuclear program.  She’s sending clear signals that she’s prepared to negotiate an end to the enmity that has ruled the U.S.-Iran relationship since 1979.  One only wishes a U.S. secretary of state had taken this bull by the horns in 2003 when the then-Iranian president had offered to end the stalemate in relations between the two countries.  Sometimes in international relations you can’t go back once you’ve lost the moment.

One also wonders how Condi proposes to persuade the Iranians of her good faith when they hear practically every other day that Israel is planning to take out its nuclear facilities.  Iran looks on Israel as little more than a U.S. client state, so it would be nice if a firmer signal would be sent that Bush had called off the “dogs” and hawks in the IDF who are eager to ride the Persian tiger.

Originally posted at Tikun Olam

Defying all odds and Israeli threats of force to stop them, two boats of the Free Gaza Movement reached port in Gaza earlier today:

Two boats carrying dozens of international activists sailed into the Gaza Strip Saturday in defiance of an Israeli blockade, receiving a jubilant welcome from thousands of Palestinians.

The boats docked in Gaza City’s tiny port after a two-day journey marred by communications troubles and rough seas. As they arrived, children swarmed around and leaped into the water in joy, while thousands of cheering residents looked on from the shore.

It is the first time that anyone has broken the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza, in force since Gazans chose Hamas to represent them in 2006 elections.

The boats were greeted by scores of Gaza fishing vessels which sailed out to meet the peace activists who began their journey in Crete two weeks ago and reached Gaza after a 180 mile, 30 hour journey from Cyprus.

I’ve been following with interest the Free Gaza Movement effort to break the Israeli Navy’s blockade of Gaza by sailing two unarmed sloops from Cyprus to the Palestinian enclave. Due to stormy weather, the project has been forced to put back their scheduled departure date from several days ago.

Israel is ratcheting up the pressure on participants in the voyage. Haaretz reveals that the Israeli foreign ministry has released a legal white paper claiming its navy has the right to use force against the ships:

Defense officials favor forcefully blocking two boats which a group of U.S.-based activists plan to sail to Gaza to protest what they call “the Israeli siege on the Strip,” Haaretz has learned.

…Allowing the ships to reach the Gaza coastline could create a dangerous precedent.

…A position paper by the Foreign Ministry’s legal department says Israel has the right to use force against the demonstrators as part of the Oslo Accords, which names Israel as responsible for Gaza’s territorial waters.

This seems typically out of proportion to the “threat” represented by the enterprise. And one wonders what “dangerous precedent” it could create? Hamas militants disguised as peace activists smuggling Iranian missiles into Gaza by boat? It seems ludicrous that Israeli gunboats will have their weapons targeted on a group of defenseless peace activists attempting to do something no more dangerous than deliver two tons of medical supplies to the local population.