|
8
ISRAELI
POLICIES TOWARD
IRAN AND SYRIA
1 October
1994
Here I am going to discuss the continuation
and the results of the Israeli anti-Iranian
campaign described before. I rely primarily on
Aluf Ben (Haarerz, 28 September), whose article
obviously echoes the views of highly-placed
sources in the Israeli establishment, and in
particular, the Foreign Affairs Ministry, in the
way it presents the Israeli anti-Iranian
policies up to the date of its publication.
It seems impossible to write about Israeli
foreign policy in general, and Shimon Peres in
particular, without bearing in mind Orwell's
Ministry of Truth from his novel 1984. Ben
reveals the hitherto unknown fact that under
Peres the Israeli Foreign Ministry has had a
`Peace in the Middle East Department'. Right
after the Buenos Aires terror assault `Peres
appointed the deputy-director, of this
department, Yo'av Biran as a coordinator of
Israeli measures against Iran', writes Ben,
because `Israel instantly perceived this assault
as a convenient opportunity' to form an
anti-Iranian coalition. The fact that Israeli
Intelligence has failed to establish any link
between Iran and that terror assault, was of
course no obstacle in this `convenient
opportunity'. But one may ask a deeper question
here: why do terrorist assaults have a tendency
to occur exactly when their occurrence is for
Israel a `convenient opportunity'? Leaving this
issue aside for the time being, let me quote Ben
who invokes `top-ranking [Israeli]
politician' (possibly Peres) as one who `several
days earlier briefed the more notable Jerusalem
political correspondents' about the results of a
worldwide campaign against Iran.
The campaign was to follow Rabin's strategy
and Peres' tactics and to be carried out by
Biran in `Peace in the Middle East Department'.
Rabin and Peres agree that 'Iran is the greatest
risk Israel has ever faced and a major threat to
the stability of the entire Middle East.' This
is due not only to `its support for terror and
sabotage and its attempt to become nuclearized',
but to its `being an examplar not only for
Islamic fundamentalists but for other resistance
movements in Arab countries'. Judging from myo
familiarity with what goes under the name of
Israeli strategic thinking, the reference to
'resistance movements' means that many
(91)
Middle Easterners (not necessarily Arabs)
take pride in the fact that Iran has not
succumbed to American diktat for nearly twenty
years. This proves to them that resistance to US
policy schemes in the Middle East is possible
and conflicts with Israeli attempts `to
convince' everyone concerned that resisting the
US is an exercise in futility; and that, since
Israel has US support, resisting Israel is
futile as well. Iran provides the best evidence
to the contrary. Rabin's strategy was `to push
the US and other western powers into a
confrontation with Iran' because if `Israel
confronts Iran on its own, it may get involved
in a religious war against the entire Muslim
world'. To forestall this danger `Israeli
propaganda [Hasbara] was ordered to
depict the rulers of Iran as "a danger to peace
in the entire world and a threat to equilibrium
between Western civilization and Islam".' Peres
exerted himself towards this aim by `sending his
personal representatives to capitals of states
in the world at large, in order to first
announce that Israel and Jordan had reached an
agreement and right thereafter to demand that
the state concerned should stop giving credits
to Iran and radically reduce the volume of trade
with it, until it ceases supporting terrorism
and gives up attempts to nuclearize'. Peres'
representatives were also instructed to say that
Israel was highly critical of any state willing
to reschedule Iranian debts. The chief of Tender
in Israel's eyes was Germany 'which the was
first to sign with Iran a debt-rescheduling
accord', but Japan, France, Italy, Switzerland
and South Korea were by no means blameless in
Israeli eyes either. Let me omit Ben's reports
about the course of this campaign, except to
report on the behaviour of Iranian diplomats
attending international conferences who, to
Israeli regret, didn't behave in conformity with
expectations. The Israeli diplomats had
instructions to accuse Iran of 'undermining the
peace process', expecting Iranians 'either to
leave the hall during our speeches or else to
corroborate our allegations by admitting that
they indeed opposed the peace process'. Instead,
the Iranian diplomats used to listen to Israeli
representatives' accusations and then take the
podium to argue that the word `peace' has plural
meanings. If by using that word Israel means to
withdraw from all territories conquered since
June 1967 including East Jerusalem and South
Lebanon, Iran will by no means oppose it. The
Israeli diplomats couldn't but refuse to answer
the Iranians straight. Instead, they quoted some
admittedly provocative interviews Iranian
politicians had previously given to the western
press. That was answered by an assertion that
the interviewers `didn't understand what they
had been told' and by reiterating the request to
discuss the peace that could be brought to
fruition by a total Israeli withdrawal.
|