Netanyahu Draws Israel’s Red Line For Iran Amid A Secret Discussion With The US


The Attack Would Take Place Next Spring

My Prediction:  Obama Will Backtrack, Obama Will Betray Israel

Read Below the whole Text of Netanyahu’s Speech at the UN
As well as the Video of the Complete Speech

.

Netanyahu's red line shown to the UN

Netanyahu’s red line shown to the UN

Highlights of the Speech

Addressing the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27 Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu graphically depicted Israel’s red line for Iran. He held up a simple diagram showing that Iran had covered 70 percent of the distance to a nuclear bomb and must be stopped before it reached the critical stage next spring or early summer. He stressed that it is getting late, very late to stop a nuclear Iran.

The best way, he said, is to lay down a clear red line on the most vulnerable element of its nuclear program: uranium enrichment. “I believe that if faced with a clear and credible red line, Iran will back down and may even disband its nuclear program,” he said.  Red lines prevent wars, don’t start them and in fact deterred Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Israel and the US are in discussion over this issue, said Netanyahu. “I’m sure we can forge a way forward together.

Netanyahu went on to accuse Iran of spreading terrorist networks in two dozen countries and turning Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds. Hoping a nuclear-armed Iran will bring stability is like hoping a nuclear al Qaeda will bring peace, the prime minister remarked. debkafile quotes some Washington sources as disclosing that the White House and Israel emissaries have come to an understanding that Israel will hold back from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites before the US election in November, while a special team led set up by Barack Obama completes a new paper setting out the end game for Iran. He put the team to work after concluding that negotiations with Iran had exhausted their usefulness and placed at its head Gary Samore, top presidential adviser on nuclear proliferation.

Netanyahu’s citing of late spring, early summer 2013, as the critical point on Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb appears to confirm that he has agreed to delay military action against Iran in negotiations with the White House. Our sources report that the prime minister was represented in those talks by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and National Security Adviser Yakov Amidror.

According to another view, which is current in Washington’s intelligence community, Israel was finally persuaded by fresh intelligence [ most probably contrived ] presented by the Obama administration which showed that Israeli estimates were overly pessimistic in judging the timeline for Iran’s nuclear facilities to be buried in “immunity zones.” That time line extended to spring 2013, leaving Israel five to six months up to April-May for ordering a military operation against those sites. However, we have learned, Israeli intelligence circles dispute their American colleagues’ estimate as “interesting” but inaccurate.

Netanyahu in his speech confirmed that Washington and Jerusalem were constantly exchanging views and evaluations on the state of Iran’s nuclear program. He also made the point that while intelligence services, American and Israeli alike, had remarkable aptitudes, their estimates on Iran were not foolproof.

.

Text of the Speech of Benjamin Netanyahu
at the UN on September 27, 2012

.

Obama the Muslim Donkey gets a History Lesson 101

.

.

Thank you very much Mr. President.

It’s a pleasure to see the General Assembly presided by the Ambassador from Israel, and it’s good to see all of you, distinguished delegates.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Three thousand years ago, King David reigned over the Jewish state in our eternal capital, Jerusalem. I say that to all those who proclaim that the Jewish state has no roots in our region and that it will soon disappear.

Throughout our history, the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who have sought our destruction. It’s their ideologies that have been discarded by history.

The people of Israel live on. We say in Hebrew Am Yisrael Chai, and the Jewish state will live forever.

The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years. Even after most of our people were exiled from it, Jews continued to live in the land of Israel throughout the ages.  The masses of our people never gave up the dreamed of returning to our ancient homeland.

Defying the laws of history, we did just that. We ingathered the exiles, restored our independence and rebuilt our national life. The Jewish people have come home!

We will never be uprooted again!!!

Yesterday was Yom Kippur, the Holiest Day of the Jewish year.

Every year, for over three millennia, we have come together on this Day of reflection and Atonement. We take stock of our past. We pray for our future. We remember the sorrows of our persecution; we remember the great travails of our dispersion; we mourn the extermination of a third of our people — six million — in the Holocaust.

But at the end of Yom Kippur, we celebrate.

We celebrate the rebirth of Israel. We celebrate the heroism of our young men and women who have defended our people with the indomitable courage of Joshua, David, and the Maccabees of old. We celebrate the marvel of the flourishing modern Jewish state.

In Israel, we walk the same paths tread by our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But we blaze new trails in science, technology, medicine, agriculture.

In Israel, the past and the future find common ground.

Unfortunately, that is not the case in many other countries. For today, a great battle is being waged between the modern and the medieval.

The forces of modernity seek a bright future in which the rights of all are protected, in which an ever-expanding digital library is available in the palm of every child, in which every life is sacred.

The forces of medievalism seek a world in which women and minorities are subjugated, in which knowledge is suppressed, in which not life but death is glorified.

These forces clash around the globe, but nowhere more starkly than in the Middle East.

Israel stands proudly with the forces of modernity. We protect the rights of all our citizens: men and women, Jews and Arabs, Muslims and Christians — all are equal before the law.

Israel is also making the world a better place: our scientists win Nobel Prizes. Our know-how is in every cell-phone and computer that you’re using. We prevent hunger by irrigating arid lands in Africa and Asia.

Recently, I was deeply moved when I visited Technion, one of our technological institutes in Haifa, and I saw a man paralyzed from the waist down climb up a flight of stairs, quite easily, with the aid of an Israeli invention.

And Israel’s exceptional creativity is matched by our people’s remarkable compassion. When disaster strikes anywhere in the world — in Haiti, Japan, India, Turkey Indonesia and elsewhere — Israeli doctors are among the first on the scene, performing life-saving surgeries.

In the past year, I lost both my father and my father-in-law. In the same hospital wards where they were treated, Israeli doctors were treating Palestinian Arabs. In fact, every year, thousands of Arabs from the Palestinian territories and Arabs from throughout the Middle East come to Israel to be treated in Israeli hospitals by Israeli doctors.

I know you’re not going to hear that from speakers around this podium, but that’s the truth. It’s important that you are aware of this truth.

It’s because Israel cherishes life, that Israel cherishes peace and seeks peace.

We seek to preserve our historic ties and our historic peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. We seek to forge a durable peace with the Palestinians.

President Abbas just spoke here.

I say to him and I say to you:

We won’t solve our conflict with libelous speeches at the UN. That’s not the way to solve it. We won’t solve our conflict with unilateral declarations of statehood.

We have to sit together, negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the one and only Jewish State.

Israel wants to see a Middle East of progress and peace. We want to see the three great religions that sprang forth from our region — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — coexist in peace and in mutual respect.

Yet the medieval forces of radical Islam, whom you just saw storming the American embassies throughout the Middle East, they oppose this.

They seek supremacy over all Muslims. They are bent on world conquest. They want to destroy Israel, Europe, America. They want to extinguish freedom. They want to end the modern world.

Militant Islam has many branches – from the rulers of Iran with their Revolutionary Guards to Al Qaeda terrorists to the radical cells lurking in every part of the globe.

But despite their differences, they are all rooted in the same bitter soil of intolerance. That intolerance is directed first at their fellow Muslims, and then to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, secular people, anyone who doesn’t submit to their unforgiving creed.

They want to drag humanity back to an age of unquestioning dogma and unrelenting conflict.

I am sure of one thing. Ultimately they will fail. Ultimately, light will penetrate the darkness.

We’ve seen that happen before.

Some five hundred years ago, the printing press helped pry a cloistered Europe out of a dark age. Eventually, ignorance gave way to enlightenment.

So too, a cloistered Middle East will eventually yield to the irresistible power of freedom and technology. When this happens, our region will be guided not by fanaticism and conspiracy, but by reason and curiosity.

I think the relevant question is this:  It’s not whether this fanaticism will be defeated. It’s how many lives will be lost before it’s defeated.

We’ve seen that happen before too.

Some 70 years ago, the world saw another fanatic ideology bent on world conquest. It went down in flames. But not before it took millions of people with it. Those who opposed that fanaticism waited too long to act. In the end they triumphed, but at an horrific cost.

My friends, we cannot let that happen again.

At stake is not merely the future of my own country. At stake is the future of the world. Nothing could imperil our common future more than the arming of Iran with nuclear weapons.

To understand what the world would be like with a nuclear-armed Iran, just imagine the world with a nuclear-armed Al-Qaeda.

It makes no difference whether these lethal weapons are in the hands of the world’s most dangerous terrorist regime or the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization. They’re both fired by the same hatred; they’re both driven by the same lust for violence.

Just look at what the Iranian regime has done up till now, without nuclear weapons.

In 2009, they brutally put down mass protests for democracy in their own country. Today, their henchmen are participating in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians, including thousands of children, directly participating in this murder.

They abetted the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Before that, Iranian proxies killed hundreds of American troops in Beirut and in Saudi Arabia. They’ve turned Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds, embedding nearly 100,000 missiles and rockets in civilian areas. Thousands of these rockets and missiles have already been fired at Israeli communities by their terrorist proxies.

In the last year, they’ve spread their international terror networks to two dozen countries across five continents — from India and Thailand to Kenya and Bulgaria. They’ve even plotted to blow up a restaurant a few blocks from the White House in order to kill a diplomat.

And of course, Iran’s rulers repeatedly deny the Holocaust and call for Israel’s destruction almost on a daily basis, as they did again this week from the United Nations.

So I ask you, given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons. Imagine their long range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs.

Who among you would feel safe in the Middle East? Who would be safe in Europe? Who would be safe in America? Who would be safe anywhere?

There are those who believe that a nuclear-armed Iran can be deterred like the Soviet Union.

That’s a very dangerous assumption.

Militant Jihadists behave very differently from secular Marxists. There were no Soviet suicide bombers. Yet Iran produces hordes of them.

Deterrence worked with the Soviets, because every time the Soviets faced a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival.

But deterrence may not work with the Iranians once they get nuclear weapons.

There’s a great scholar of the Middle East, Prof. Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.

Iran’s apocalyptic leaders believe that a medieval holy man will reappear in the wake of a devastating Holy War, thereby ensuring that their brand of radical Islam will rule the earth.

That’s not just what they believe. That’s what is actually guiding their policies and their actions.

Just listen to Ayatollah Rafsanjani who said, I quote:  “The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, however it would only harm the Islamic world.”

Rafsanjani said:  “It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”

Not irrational !!

And that’s coming from one of the so-called “moderates” of Iran.

Shockingly, some people have begun to peddle the absurd notion that a nuclear-armed Iran would actually “stabilize” the Middle East.

Yeah, right.

That’s like saying a nuclear-armed Al-Qaeda would usher in an era of “universal peace.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I’ve been speaking about the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for over 15 years.

I spoke about it in my first term in office as Prime Minister, and then I spoke about it when I left office. I spoke about it when it was fashionable, and I spoke about it when it wasn’t fashionable.

I speak about it now because the hour is getting late — very late!  I speak about it now because the Iranian nuclear calendar doesn’t take time out for anyone or for anything. I speak about it now because when it comes to the survival of my country, it’s not only my right to speak; it’s my duty to speak. And I believe that this is the duty of every responsible leader who wants to preserve world peace.

For nearly a decade, the international community has tried to stop the Iranian nuclear program with diplomacy.  That hasn’t worked.

Iran uses diplomatic negotiations as a means to buy time to advance its nuclear program.

For over seven years, the international community has tried sanctions with Iran. Under the leadership of President Obama, the international community has passed some of the strongest sanctions to date.

I want to thank the governments represented here that have joined in this effort. It’s had an effect. Oil exports have been curbed and the Iranian economy has been hit hard.

It’s had an effect on the economy, but we must face the truth. Sanctions have not stopped Iran’s nuclear program either.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, during the last year alone, Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges in its underground nuclear facility in Qom.

At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That’s by placing a clear Red Line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Red Lines don’t lead to war;  Red Lines prevent war.

Look at NATO’s charter:  It made clear that an attack on one member country would be considered an attack on all.  NATO’s Red Line helped keep the peace in Europe for nearly half a century.

President Kennedy set a red line during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  That Red Line also prevented war and helped preserve the peace for decades.

In fact, it’s the failure to place Red Lines that has often invited aggression.

If the Western powers had drawn clear Red Lines during the 1930s, I believe they would have stopped Nazi aggression and World War II might have been avoided.

In 1990, if Saddam Hussein had been clearly told that his conquest of Kuwait would cross a Red Line, the first Gulf War might have been avoided.

Clear Red Lines have also worked with Iran.

Earlier this year, Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormouz. The United States drew a clear Red Line and Iran backed off.

Red Lines could be drawn in different parts of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  But to be credible, a Red Line must be drawn first and foremost in one vital part of their program: on Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium.  Now let me explain why:

Basically, any bomb consists of explosive material and a mechanism to ignite it.

The simplest example is gunpowder and a fuse. That is, you light the fuse and set off the gunpowder.

In the case of Iran’s plans to build a nuclear weapon, the gunpowder is enriched uranium.  The fuse is a nuclear detonator.

For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse.

For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb. That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in very big industrial plants. Those Iranian plants are visible and they’re still vulnerable.

In contrast, Iran could produce the nuclear detonator – the fuse – in a lot less time, maybe under a year, maybe only a few months.

The detonator can be made in a small workshop the size of a classroom.  It may be very difficult to find and target that workshop, especially in Iran. That’s a country that’s bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined.

The same is true for the small facility in which they could assemble a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. Chances are you won’t find that facility either.

So, in fact, the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

So, how much enriched uranium do you need for a bomb? And how close is Iran to getting it?

Let me show you. I brought a diagram for you. Here’s the diagram.

This is a bomb; this is a fuse.

In the case of Iran’s nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages.

The first stage:  they have to enrich enough of low enriched uranium.

The second stage:  they have to enrich enough medium enriched uranium.

And the third stage and final stage:  they have to enrich enough high enriched uranium for the first bomb.

Where’s Iran? Iran’s completed the first stage. It took them many years, but they completed it and they’re 70% of the way there.

Now they are well into the second stage. By next spring — at most by next summer at current enrichment rates — they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage.

From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

What I told you now is not based on secret information. It’s not based on military intelligence. It’s based on public reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Anybody can read them. They’re online.

So if these are the facts — and they are — where should the Red Line be drawn?

The Red Line should be drawn right here.  Before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.

Before Iran gets to a point where it’s a few months away, or a few weeks away, from amassing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

Each day, that point is getting closer. That’s why I speak today with such a sense of urgency. And that’s why everyone should have a sense of urgency.

Some who claim that even if Iran completes the enrichment process, even if it crosses that Red Line that I just drew, our intelligence agencies will know when and where Iran will make the fuse, assemble the bomb, and prepare the warhead.

Look, no one appreciates our intelligence agencies more than the Prime Minister of Israel.  All these leading intelligence agencies are superb, including ours. They’ve foiled many attacks. They’ve saved many lives.

But they are not foolproof.

For over two years, our intelligence agencies didn’t know that Iran was building a huge nuclear enrichment plant under a mountain.

Do we want to risk the security of the world on the assumption that we would find in time a small workshop in a country half the size of Europe?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb.

The Red Line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target.

I believe that faced with a clear Red Line, Iran will back down.

This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether.

Two days ago, from this podium, President Obama reiterated that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be contained.

I very much appreciate the President’s position as does everyone in my country. We share the goal of stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This goal unites the people of Israel. It unites Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike and it is shared by important leaders throughout the world.

What I have said today will help ensure that this common goal is achieved.

Israel is in discussions with the United States over this issue, and I am confident that we can chart a path forward together.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The clash between modernity and medievalism need not be a clash between progress and tradition.

The traditions of the Jewish people go back thousands of years. They are the source of our collective values and the foundation of our national strength.

At the same time, the Jewish people have always looked towards the future. Throughout history, we have been at the forefront of efforts to expand liberty, promote equality, and advance human rights.

We champion these principles not despite of our traditions but because of them.

We heed the words of the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Jeremiah to treat all with dignity and compassion, to pursue justice and cherish life and to pray and strive for peace.

These are the timeless Values of my people and these are the Jewish people’s greatest gift to mankind.

Let us commit ourselves today to defend these values so that we can defend our freedom and protect our common civilization.

Thank you.

.

Source 1: DebkaFile  —  Source 2: FreeRepublic

Declassified Documents Reveal The Failures Of The Yom Kippur War In 1973


With a Major War on the Rise,

Are Our Leaders Paying Attention This Time?

Or Are They Repeating Similar Mistakes?

.

New testimonies from Agranat Commission reveal miscommunication, intelligence that fell between the cracks and lack of clear protocols led to major failings in days leading to Yom Kippur War.

In 1973 Alfred (Freddie) Eini was aide to Mossad Chief Zvi Zamir. He was the man who on the night between October 4th and 5th received a dramatic telegram from London, from the handler of Egyptian agent Ashraf Marwan, who was known as ‘The Angel’, with a clear warning that war was imminent.

Marwan also demanded to meet with Zamir urgently. “We had never had a telegram like that,” Eini said in his testimony before the Agranat Commission. He meant a telegram in which a source made sure that the head of Mossad would come to meet with him, noting that he had very important matters to discuss. “I understood it to be a warning that there would be a war.”

And yet, the political echelons in Israel failed to realize the importance of the telegram and the danger it warned of. Now, 39 years after the Yom Kippur War, the Defense Ministry (through the IDF archives and defense establishment) published classified testimonies given before the commission which was founded to investigate the failings of the war.

Yom Kippur War 1973

IDF Soldiers in Suez Canal in 1973

Eini, as well as then Prime Minister Golda Meir‘s military secretary Yisrael Lior, were demanded to explain why critical intelligence pointing to the fact that war was about to break out was delayed and how a warning from the Mossad’s most important source of information was kept from the prime minister.

The fact that the agent was Ashraf Marwan, the son-in-law of then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser has already been revealed in the past few years. Marwan fell to his death five years ago in mysterious circumstances.

After receiving the telegram (codename “chemistry”) Eini decided not to wait until morning and to wake Zamir immediately

“I called him right away, gave him the gist of the telegram, he heard, said thank you, ok and (said) I should come see him in the morning.”

Marwan had previously warned of an upcoming war, the alertness level was raised – and nothing happened. But this time, “The Angel” wanted a meeting.

The aide rushed to get Zamir a flight and called him once again to give him an update.

“The Mossad chief took the opportunity to tell me that the head of Military Intelligence called him and discussed the fact that the Soviets were preparing to leave Syria.

“I told him that what the Military Intelligence chief said to him fit with information I had given him and then I found out that the Mossad chief didn’t fully understand my first message. What I mean is, he was most likely half asleep and didn’t grasp that I had told him about a warning of imminent war.

“He said that if that was the case he would call the Military Intelligence chief again and tell him. Explain that it was actually a serious situation.”

According to Eini, the information from Military Intelligence about the Russian scientists leaving Syria together with Marwan’s intel, convinced him that there was no other possibility.

“I thought it was a warning of an imminent war, especially when the Mossad chief told me about the Russian families leaving. I had no doubt, which is why I told him again.”

Agranat Commission

The Agranat Commission

.

If so, commission member and former Chief of Staff Yigal Yadin asked, why did the Mossad not pass on the urgent telegram to Golda Meir’s military secretary Yisrael Lior? Eini said in response that Military Intelligence received the information.

“There was a set procedure with anything relating to information received from — you do transfer it to the prime minister but it can take a few hours. I never thought to wake Lior at night.”

Eini stuck with protocol and said that he called the military secretary in the morning, but he was in a meeting.

“I left a message for him to call me as soon as he was out. Lior called before lunch and said that the cabinet held a meeting during which the prime minister heard that the Mossad chief had flown out of the country.

“During our conversation Lior said it would have been better had I taken him out of the cabinet meeting rather than waiting for him to become available.”

Yadin then asked: Was there no fault in the procedure when a piece of information like this doesn’t get to the Prime Minister and Defense Minister? Eini answered:

“Presenting the information to the prime minister was not intended for operational purposes; it seemed unnatural for me to wake Lior in the middle of the night. I’ll wake Lior to tell him of a possible terror attack, which lies within his jurisdiction,”

The theory alleging that Marwan was a double agent has been a major controversy within the intelligence community for decades – a theory which then Military Intelligence Chief Eli Zeira still believes – it was also an issue raised during Eini’s testimony.

Yom Kippur War

Yom Kippur War

On December 6, 1973, two months after the war, Brigadier General Lior presented his testimony before the commission. The questions addressed to Lior focused on whether precious time was lost from the moment the warning about the war came in.

According to Lior, even when Meir was abroad days before war broke out, he made sure to pass on all the sensitive information in light of the situation.

“It gets to her by hook or by crook?” asked Laskov. “Yes,” Lior responded. “If we think it’s necessary, then it gets to her quickly.”

Lior told those present of information he gave to Meir two weeks before war broke out. The intelligence pointed to the fact that Russia was transferring Scud missiles to Egypt. That was the first clue to the fact that war was imminent.

“You know that we recently received reports of 300-kilometer range missiles,” Lior read out from the protocol of a conversation between himself and the prime minister to the commission members. “These are probably Scuds, this has been confirmed. Between 100 and 300 kilometers, it has nuclear and chemical warheads.”

Commission member Nebenzahl was shocked to hear this: “That’s what it says? I want to be sure.” “It has chemical and nuclear warheads,” Lior reiterated, adding: “I have to say, I was surprised that the Russians would do that,” he quoted Zamir from the meeting.

According to the military secretary, Zamir warned Meir that this was a clear escalation. “There are signs pointing to the fact that they are already in or on their way to Egypt. Prime Minister, are we talking to — about this?” Zamir asked. He most likely meant the Americans.

Sinai War

Golda Meir, Ariel Sharon in Sinai during war

The missile transfer, Lior believed, had dramatic implications vis-à-vis Egypt’s future intentions. “The Egyptians and the Arab countries claimed over the years that since the Six Day War their problem was that they could not hit out against us deep in our territory, their problem was depth.

“Penetrating deep into (Israeli) territory is difficult, there were arguments. I won’t go into that now; I’m not here instead of Eli Zeira and Zamir.” Lior then went on to read portions of the meeting protocols . According to Lior, Zamir estimated that this was part of a “master plan.”

On September 30, Commission member Yadin notes, the CIA asked Israel for details with regards to the Military Intelligence alert on a Syrian war plan. Who approved the final response? Yadin asks Lior. Were the Prime Minister or Defense Minister aware of the question, or did Military Intelligence respond independently?

“I believe that 99% of assessments are done periodically. It is done through the services without the military echelons giving any guidance,” Lior claimed.

At no point, says the military secretary, did Meir hear various assessments vis-à-vis military information. “In most cases she received the final intel; she did not hear about disagreements or alternatives… I don’t remember anyone coming to her in one way or another and saying – I’m against this.”

Former Chief of Staff Haim Laskov asked whether Mossad Chief Zamir expressed his opinion to Golda in the days before the war. “Do you recall in that period, lets say, from After Rosh Hashanah, that the Mossad chief put his weight behind (the information) and told the Prime Minister …we’re heading towards war?”

Lior responded in the negative.

“On October 4, one day before the report about Russian families leaving Syria and Egypt there was a meeting where he was updated on the situation by a colonel who took the place of the Military Intelligence chief, who presented the situation as Military Intelligence saw it, that there was low probability for war. The Mossad chief did not address it.”

According to Lior, the Military Intelligence assessment was always considered to be decisive.

“Even in the most difficult hours, which was during the sixth day, every assessment or consideration was always built on Military Intelligence’s assessments. On that day we transferred a final assessment to the Americans that it was going to happen, the assessment was from Military Intelligence.”

Eini’s testimony also focused on the warnings that failed to make it to the Prime Minister’s desk. Yadin notes that on October 1 he received a telegram regarding Syria’s attack plans and the next day more telegrams arrived, strengthening fears that Syria was planning an attack.

Yom Kippur War

Yom Kippur War

None of them stressed the former chief of staff, were brought before Meir’s military secretary. “None of these telegrams?” Asks Commission Chairman Justice Agranat. “Not one,” answered Yadin.

According to Eini, the criteria for transferring raw intelligence to the prime minister was

“things that the Mossad chief believes could interest her personally, not because it could have an effect on anything operational.

“That’s how I understood it. If we look at these files, take two to three months before the war, it would seem that hardly any of the reports on the matter of strengthening forces, purchases or preparation for war were brought before the Prime Minister.”

Eini added that he held daily phone conversations with Lior: “Those calls included transferring information.”

Yadin: “We asked Brigadier General Lior – I didn’t know he didn’t receive it – what his and Golda’s response was to the telegrams. And he says: I’m hearing about these telegrams for the first time in my life.”

The protocol, notes Yadin, was that the Prime Minister be given raw intelligence on any important report.

“Post factum we discovered that the telegrams were transferred as raw material by Military Intelligence to the defense minister and chief of staff but for some reason they were not included in the Military Intelligence briefings.”

According to Eini, the Mossad is not the correct pipeline through which the Prime Minister should be updated on certain matters, rather it is there to clarify things.

“When someone reads a briefing, then the raw material, he understands the briefing a little better because the raw material includes additional details.”

Yom Kippur War

Yom Kippur War

The fact that Military Intelligence received the information and then failed to include it in the final briefing is what, according to the Mossad chief’s aide, caused a loss of sensitive information.

“It created a situation where something slipped through the cracks,” Yadin said, wondering how it was possible that in light of the sensitivity of the intelligence and the urgency of the warning, no Mossad personnel noticed that the intel supplied by the source was missing from the Military Intelligence briefing.

“I’m not examining whether Military Intelligence transfers this kind of intelligence or another to the Prime Mnister, I know that Military Intelligence, according to my estimation, passes on all the material we transfer to them to the prime minister.”

Commission member Justice Moshe Landau: “As always, you relied on intelligence assessments carried out by Military Intelligence as the assessing body?”

Eini: “Not assessment, processing (of intelligence). We assumed that whatever we transfer gets to the Prime Minister.”

This, claims Yadin, is where the roots of the intelligence fiasco lie. According to Yadin

“this creates a doubly dangerous situation. Everyone relies on the Military Intelligence assessment, which is already not good.

“And here we discover that apparently distributing reports, not just assessments, should the information come to the Prime Minister’s ears, are also under the jurisdiction of Military Intelligence, sharing reports – not assessments.”

So did the Mossad cave to the low probability concept? Yadin tells Eini that according to documentation before the commission members, two months before that, in April 1973, when the source warned of a possible war which led to a raising of the alertness level in the IDF, the Mossad did transfer the raw intelligence to the Prime Minister directly. “What was the difference between this document and the previous one?” Yadin asked. “I cannot tell you why,” Eini responded.

.

Source: YNet