Global IssuesMIDEAST: When a Spy Speaks
The man who, for the last eight years, embodied Israel's secret operations and had a penchant for the use of forged documents by his spies has been ordered by his former boss to relinquish his own diplomatic passport.
According to Israel's Channel Two on Sunday, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency Meir Dagan was told to return his diplomatic passport immediately. The report suggested the spy talked too much on sensitive matters such as Iran's nuclear quest and the Palestinian drive for UN-endorsed declaration of statehood.
The television report assumed that the request might point to a desire 'to get even' with Dagan, an outspoken critic of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In reaction to the report, the Prime Minister's office stated matter-of-factly that 'diplomatic passports are given to officials in order to assist them in their duties. According to the regulation, an individual no longer assuming an official position is requested to forgo his document.'
The Foreign Ministry, the statement added, allowed Dagan to keep his diplomatic passport for upcoming trips. Upon his return from abroad, he should return it immediately.
Yet, the decision is unusual. Customarily, a person who was issued such passport and is no longer assuming official responsibilities is allowed to use it until its expiration.
Dagan has indeed made several controversial public statements in recent weeks and months. In May, during a conference at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he declared bluntly that a military action against Iran would be 'a stupid idea.'
Then, at Tel Aviv University earlier this month, Dagan declared that an attack on Iran 'would mean regional war and in that case you would've given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear programme. The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible,' he stressed.
Dagan also warned that Israel could be ostracised as a result of the lack of a peace initiative with the Palestinians. He bemoaned the fact that successive leaders had discounted the Saudi peace initiative of 2002 which pledges full diplomatic ties with Israel in return for full withdrawal from the Palestinian occupied territories.
In recent months, other top security chiefs have retired. They are Chief-of- Staff Gaby Ashkenazi; head of the General Security Service (Shin Bet) Yuval Diskin; and Amos Yadlin, chief of Military Intelligence. With Dagan, the three have been widely regarded by security analysts as moderate forces within the decision-making process.
In contrast to Dagan, the retired officers have largely refrained from publicly expressing their personal views. They have kept a facade of statehood and officialdom. Yet, the controversy around Dagan's passport led Ashkenazi to break his silence, albeit cautiously. 'I trust the new heads of security will not hesitate to express their positions in the proper forums,' he declared.
The final straw that seems to have broken Netanyahu's tolerance to Dagan's criticism was recent interviews given by the latter to Israeli newspapers in which he questioned the judgment of the Prime Minister and his Defence Minister Ehud Barak.
Dagan was quoted as saying that he 'decided to speak out because when I was in office, Diskin, Ashkenazi and I could block any dangerous adventure…now I'm afraid that there's no one to stop Bibi and Barak,' he added, using Netanyahu’s nickname.
Dagan enjoys the admiration of fellow Israelis for his impeccable record under three prime ministers as Mossad chief. According to foreign media reports, he took charge of several brazen operations regarded as important security achievements, such as causing a delay of at least three years in Iran's nuclear programme by cooperating on the Stuxnet worm to the sabotage of the computers that regulate its centrifuges, and commanding the elimination of Iranian scientists.
He is also credited for preparing the groundwork for the 2007 bombing of the Syrian nuclear reactor in Deir al-Zor. And, he reportedly masterminded the assassination of Hezbollah's chief of operations Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus a year later.
One of the latest known infamous operations which Dagan allegedly masterminded was the assassination in Dubai last year of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a high-rank Hamas operative involved in arms purchasing from Iran and subsequent smuggling to Gaza.
Ironically, the Dubai police inquiry demonstrated that forged foreign passports from several countries with whom Israel has friendly relations were used during the operation. The findings caused embarrassment and ire in these countries. The UK and Australia expelled Israeli diplomats.
But what makes his rowdy declarations disruptive, and all the while trustworthy, is that Dagan, in opinions as in deeds, is no peace dove. He reportedly is no great believer in achieving peace with the Palestinians and strongly opposes a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines.
By law, an officer who retires from a top security position is disqualified for a 'cooling period' of three years from seeking to be elected. The precautious measure is meant to create a further separation of powers between the executive and the military.
But no law bars officers who stood at the heart of government decisions from voicing their views after years of disciplined silence. So, many concur Dagan isn't just genuinely worried. The belief is that he is preparing his way into politics like many other former generals. Barak himself served as chief-of-staff in the early 1990s.
Senior Netanyahu advisors have been quick to accuse Dagan of involvement in a political plot designed to topple the Prime Minister. Dagan acted without 'national responsibility', they assert; his declarations 'undermine Israel's democracy.'
Yet, the coup thesis has been dismissed by Nahum Barnea, Israel's foremost columnist: 'This is not a military junta that has conspired against the elected leadership,' Barnea wrote in the leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. 'These are people who, through their positions, were exposed to the state’s most closely guarded secrets and participated in the most intimate discussions with the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister. It is not so much that their opinion is important as civilians; their testimony is important as people who were there. And their testimony is troubling.'
© Inter Press Service (2011) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service