CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) posted an article today about an article that appeared last Wednesday in The Washington Post. The headline of the Washington Post states, “How the Iran deal is good for Israel, according to Israelis who know what they’re talking about.” I will admit that I saw the article, but did not do a story about it because it made no sense to me. I have read enough about the nuclear deal with Iran to understand that there is no way it could be good for Israel.
The CAMERA article explains:
Tharoor first mentions Ami Ayalon, a former head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, and links to a Daily Beast piece entitled “Ex-Intel Chief: Iran Deal Good for Israel.”
Unfortunately for Tharoor (and for Daily Beast commentator Jonathan Alter), Ayalon, who begrudgingly supports the deal because it is “the best plan currently on the table” and because he believes there are no available alternatives, nonetheless has said in no uncertain terms, “I think the deal is bad. It’s not good.”
The article then cites the next expert who approves of the deal:
Tharoor then cites former intelligence chief Efraim Halevy, and strangely links to an Op-Ed Halevy wrote after a framework agreement was finalized in Lausanne last April but before the details of this final deal were agreed upon in Vienna this month. In a more recent (and thus relevant) Op-Ed, Halevy described what he sees as several strong points in the agreement and concludes that it is “important to hold a profound debate in Israel on whether no agreement is preferable to an agreement which includes components that are crucial for Israel’s security.”
…What he does not say is that the deal signed in Vienna is, as a whole, “good.” In an interview with Israel’s Channel 2, he repeats his call for national debate, and paints a much more equivocal picture: “This is not an agreement that is entirely bad,” Halevy said. “There are positive elements in it.” Later, he added that “this agreement has a number of very good elements for Israel, and there are elements that are not as good.”
Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel’s Military Intelligence branch, is the next expert mentioned. He has stated, “This is not a good deal. This a problematic deal. You also could call it a bad deal.”
The next expert mentioned is Meir Dagan, another former Mossad chief, who has not gone on the record about the deal in either direction.
If you were a person who only gets their news from The Washington Post, you would believe that the Iranian nuclear agreement has strong support from some military and security experts in Israel. And you would be very wrong. This is the reason we need organizations like CAMERA and other alternative news sources. Our mainstream media has forgotten how to tell the truth.
