Amazing article giving insight in a nation’s leadership graduated from Kissinger’s School of Foreign Policy in search of a blueprint of US National Security Council (NSC)
with supreme power to wage war to provide for national security.
(Haaretz) March 4, 2012 – The tale of the relationship between former National Security Adviser Uzi Arad and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu …
Dr. Uzi Arad, bleeding, returned some sharp jabs during a Yediot Aharonot interview with Shimon Shiffer and Nahum Barnea, along with some duller ones during an appearance in Channel 2’s “Meet the Press,” all aimed at the man who, until recently, was his object of admiration. Arad’s [information comes down to] two essential points: decision-making on vital defense issues – topped by the possibility of a military strike of Iran – and investigations of leaks initiated by the prime minister and executed by the Shin Bet.
Netanyahu, still recovering from the ouster of his bureau chief Natan Eshel, now reeks, as far as his closest aides are concerned, of weakness and distrust. A few days ago, it was his military adviser, the cabinet secretary, and his spokesman; now, the former national security adviser, the most ardent of his followers.
Netanyahu and Arad earned their education in prestigious American schools in the 1970s, when Henry Kissinger was at the height of his powers as national security adviser to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
The U.S. National Security Council was formed following the Second World War, alongside a multi-wing Department of Defense, a Central Intelligence Agency, and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, as a result of lessons learned from mistakes that led to American defeats in the war’s earlier stages, such as Pearl Harbor.
Netanyahu and Arad both dreamed of creating a similar institution in Israel, while taking into account all the obvious differences between the two systems of governance. When Netanyahu arrived at the prime minister’s office – the first to do so after being voted in personally – it was natural that Dr. Arad would hope to be his Dr. Kissinger.
The council, headed by the national security adviser, must “execute, follow, and lead the command aspects of national security issues for the prime minister,” Netanyahu preached. “For instance, today that council should have convened every day with the relevant functionaries, the Mossad chief, or the head of the Atomic Energy Commission, or the IDF chief, or the heads of intelligence, to form a master plan to remove the Iranian threat, because that’s a classic case in which you need a national security council, since you need a significant international effort, political work, hasbara [media] work, legal work. Such as, for example prosecuting [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad as a supporter of genocide, or, alternatively, bolstering deterrence. It has major economic consequences. Someone needs to coordinate that project and that isn’t being done. Countless things need to be organized into a project. I don’t want to say a “Manhattan Project,” but, yes.”
Netanyahu got his wish. The National Security Command (NSC) – now a command, not a council – was anchored by law, and when Netanyahu was reelected he named Arad to head it.
(Israel Hayom) – Netanyahu should sustain the can-do and independent image of Israel, refusing to subordinate the independence of military action to presidential pressure, promises or electoral concerns. The only way for Israel to refrain from a military preemption against Iran’s lethal nuclear threat is for the U.S. to undertake such preemption. Considering the failed track record of sanctions and diplomacy – which have played into the hands of Iran – the only way to prevent is to preempt, at all costs.
(JPost) – The report, “The 2011 Arab Uprisings and Israel’s National Security,” was released by Bar-Ilan University’s Begin- Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and authored by the center’s director, Prof.Efraim Inbar.
The report portrays the United States as a former regional power broker now widely viewed as in decline. “In the Middle East, leaders have witnessed America’s retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan, its engagement (or appeasement, in Middle Eastern eyes) of US enemies Iran and Syria, and the desertion of friendly rulers,” it says. “This strengthens the general perception of a weak and confused American foreign policy.”
Islamists have a greater presence in government in every Arab state to have experienced popular revolt, from Morocco to Tunisia, to Libya and Egypt. The report says that development could have been easily predicted: “Islam, `the heart and soul’ of the identity of most Middle Easterners, has always had great appeal in the region. This reality makes Islamic political forces the strongest alternative to the current dictators of the Arab states.”
The document describes the security situation in Israel’s immediate vicinity as dire.