Israel must not let Arab states hijack UNESCO

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been treating Israel with hostility in recent years. Time and again, the organization adopts anti-Israelresolutions denying the Jewish people’s connection to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem and defining Jewish sites as "Palestinian heritage sites."

Time and again, Israel fails to prevent these resolutions, and time and again, it settles for complaints once they are adopted.

UNESCO headquarters (Photo: AP)

Sometimes, it seems as if Israel is suffering from some kind of personality disorder that makes it fall in love with complaining about a disease rather than preventing it.

The elections for the post of UNESCO director-general will be held in two weeks. This is Israel’s chance to show some initiative and active diplomacy, but it seems to have been caught off guard.

Of the nine nominations for the position, four come from Arab countries—Qatar, Iraq, Lebanon and an Egyptian representative who is in favor of applying Sharia laws. What we do know is that the election of an Iranian chairperson has already been secured. The only education a Qatari-Iranian coalition in UNESCO will offer the world is education to terror, hatred and extremism.

  

The State of Israel is well aware of that, as UNESCO concerns many bodies—government ministries, local authorities and plenty of organizations and NGOs. Everyone knows how important these elections are, but they seem to be continuing their summer vacation and have yet to do a thing to promote the election of a professional and decent director-general for the organization.

UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova may soon be replaced by an Iranian (Photo: AP)

This is exactly where Israel must use diplomatic counter-terrorism: identify the challenge, detect ways of action and create coalitions that will make it possible to reach the desired result.

Instead of fighting specific decisions, Israel must try to change the agenda. Instead of letting the Arab states hijack UNESCO for anti-Israel incitement purposes, Israel must try to influence the organization’s leadership. Instead of complaining in retrospect, Israel must wake up and act.

Israel is not the only country that would benefit from this; so would the entire world. A professional director-general would be committed to advancing culture in the world, and not medieval culture. He would work for the preservation of heritage sites rather than for their destruction. He would promote literature, not book-burning.

A professional director-general who sees the values of education, science and culture before his eyes would know that resolutions which deny the Jewish people’s connection to Jerusalem have no room in the organization, would recognize the Jewish people’s contribution to global culture over thousands of years and would not lend a hand to anti-Israel bias.

UNESCO famously denied Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Is this merely the beginning? (Photo: Reuters)

There are two candidates who meet this description, professionals of great stature. People who are working to promote education, culture and science in their countries and in international bodies, and even in UNESCO itself. Candidates who represent countries from different continents whose common ground is the rich cultures they represent. These candidates will be able to restore UNESCO’s glory and advance the universal and enlightened values the organization was established for.

Israeli officials know these people, know how talented they are and how much they could help the organization—and Israel as well. Instead of being polite, instead of thinking what the world will say if we promote the right candidates, Israel must demonstrate some chutzpah and initiative and put its interests first.

Some will say that Israeli support could be a double-edged sword, as it will prompt other countries to act against the candidate favored by Israel. But that’s no reason to sit idly by. Our diplomatic toolbox contains many diverse tools that could be used to try to influence the election: Alliances with different countries, offers for cooperation and plenty of ways to operate above and below the radar.

We are in the Jewish month of Tishrei, and Israelis like to postpone things until “after the Holy Days.” In UNESCO, we can’t afford to do that. We must act now, before it’s too late.

Amb. Ron Prosor, Israel’s former permanent representative to the United Nations, is the Abba Eban Chair of International Diplomacy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC).

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Israel must not let Arab states hijack UNESCO : http://ift.tt/2kdQhJW

Azaria affair: An Israeli tragedy with an ending foretold

The most important thing in any tragic narrative, Aristotle explained, is the ending, and especially the realization the ending was actually hidden in the beginning and was in fact foretold. That’s what makes the difference between a sad story and a tragedy. That’s what sets apart—and radicalizes—the tragic pain. And that’s what turns the Elor Azaria affair, which reached its foreseen ending with the chief of staff’s decision to reduce the sentence of the soldier convicted of manslaughter in Hebron, into an Israeli tragedy.

 

What makes this affair tragic isn’t the fact we always knew, deep in our hearts, it would end with a reduced sentence, but mainly the feeling we haven’t learned a thing from the affair.

The hubris can be divided between all parties, as it failed to distinguish between Right and Left and was evident both in the coalition and in the opposition. Almost everyone took part in it.

Elor Azaria shortly after shooting a neutralized terrorist in Hebron. Instead of drawing conclusions and correcting our ways, the affair ends exactly as it began

Most of Azaria’s supporters in the Right—from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who made every effort to conceal his initial condemnation of the shooting by publicly embracing the family, to the ministers and Knesset members who stood in line to defend the soldier and declare him a hero—were so busy trying to earn cheap “likes,” that they ignored the difficult and critical questions raised by the affair concerning the rightist-national worldview, including: What is the moral price claimed by a fulfillment of the vision of Greater Israel, and are we willing to pay it?

Moral corruption is an iron-clad rule that was and will be valid throughout history when it comes to one people controlling another people against its will. It’s a time issue that doesn’t necessarily delegitimize the continuation of the settlement enterprise, but does force those who believe in it to look in the mirror and admit this is the required price—and they are indeed willing to pay this price to continue the Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria.

The leftists stuck to their own predictable agenda: Not only did they rush to generalize and turn Azaria from a frightened young soldier who found himself in an impossible situation before the IDF’s collective evil in the territories into a killer, but they forgot there isn’t always time or room for civil rights in a war on terror. These rights are reserved for civilians—not for terrorists.

And it was actually the levelheaded, correct and allegedly moderate ones who were put to shame. Because the voices that kept arguing Azaria disgraced “the world’s most ethical army” in his conduct are the ones deluding themselves: Whoever insists it’s possible to sustain a military regime through non-violent—and even moral—means is sticking to an absurd premise. The world’s most ethical army can’t take part in an essentially immoral mission. And even if it has to do so, as it’s quite possible the IDF is forced to do so for security reasons, it should at least spare us the moral pretense in trying to justify it.

The classic tragedies usually end in a conclusion-drawing process: The main characters understand where they went wrong and decide to change their ways, thereby basically justifying the ordeal they went through. But in an Israeli plot twist, the opposite appears to be true this time. Instead of drawing conclusions and correcting our ways, the affair ends exactly as it began. It seems that neither Azaria nor the politicians, nor the split and confused society that jailed him to keep its conscience clear, have learned anything.

Dr. Yoav Fromer teaches politics and history at Tel Aviv University.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Azaria affair: An Israeli tragedy with an ending foretold : http://ift.tt/2xGiezo

A modest hope for sanity instead of repeated clichs

There’s something frustrating in the predictable reactions to Tuesday morning’s terror attack in Har Adar. Once again, we heard clichés—the same clichés—repeated both by the Left and by the Right. The two camps' representatives, almost all of them, are fixated on an out-of-date division. Both the Left and the Right have failed, and this serious attack is only making them sink deeper into their own quagmire.

The Left wants a “renewal of the peace process.” Has the peace process ever prevented terror attacks? Are the people who carry out terror attacks pacifists who are trying to advance peace in somewhat violent ways? After all, there were deadly terror attacks in the years and days in which the peace process prospered and blossomed. After all, the major wave of terrorism, the second intifada, arrived after Israel crossed the Rubicon and accepted, for the first time, both a Palestinian state and a division of Jerusalem. It was a wasted effort.

Security forces in Har Adar. Between ‘a renewal of the peace process’ and ‘a proper Zionist response,’ both the Left and the Right are sinking deeper into their own mud (Photo: AP)

The Right wants “a proper Zionist response.” In other words, more outposts called “new neighborhoods.” Since when does mixing populations solve problems? Where exactly has it worked? And when did the PLO’s old dream, to create one big binational state, become a Zionist vision? That’s exactly what the "Palestinian Rejectionist Front" wants. It’s what BDS activists want. So it’s now the Right’s job to fulfill it? Does the response to terrorism have to be a fulfillment of the terror perpetrators’ vision?

 

Admittedly, there has been terrorism and there will be terrorism—with or without peace. Because terrorism exists both in places ruled by Sharia laws and in Germany, England and France, which do not maintain roadblocks or an occupation. And terrorism has its own logic, which isn’t directly connected to what Israel does or doesn’t do.

We must also remember and remind people that Israel actually accomplished the task of minimizing terrorism. The second intifada terrorism was defeated. And while it isn’t over yet, the wave of knifing attacks has calmed down. And there have been and will be, on both sides of the Green Line, individual attacks that are not affiliated with any organization.

But one thing is clear: The more we mix hostile populations, like outpost residents and Hamas supporters, the higher the level of violence is going to be. Whoever wants more terrorism should approve more outposts next to more and more villages. Separation doesn’t eliminate terrorism, it only reduces its level. But there is no partner today for separating through an agreement. And even if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offers the Clinton Parameters to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas tomorrow morning—and it’s a shame he isn’t doing so—we already know Abbas will say no.

So only one plan remains, a plan that many good people from the undogmatic Right and the undogmatic Left have been focusing on in recent years: Separation with continued control. This plan has been initiated and suggested by many former defense officials. It’s known as “the commanders’ plan.” On the one hand, the Palestinians would receive much more autonomy, much more self-government, while on the other hand, Israel would continue its control both on the Jordanian line and in every crucial security point.

There is no magic solution to the problem of terrorism and to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But there is a way that will save us from one binational state and put us back on the path to a Jewish state. This path doesn’t have the utopian glitter cliché lovers are trying to sell us. But it does offer a modest hope for a bit more sanity and normalcy.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

A modest hope for sanity instead of repeated clichs : http://ift.tt/2wmHQgJ

Supreme Court is Israel’s international fortress

There’s a symbolic, even ironic, connection between the Palestinian Authority’s admission into Interpol and the decision made by Supreme Court Chief Justice Miriam Naor not to include a representative of the judicial authority in the ceremony marking 50 years of Jewish settlement in the West Bank: Since the Supreme Court decided in 1967 to give Palestinians living in the occupied territories access to the High Court of Justice, it has been saving Israel from international sanctions.

In other words, although the Supreme Court refused to send a representative to the ceremony, one of the reasons the settlement enterprise which was celebrated Wednesday evening still exists without international sanctions—at least in terms of international law—is thanks to that decision made by the Supreme Court.

In the 50 years that have passed since then, and especially since the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague in 2000, the High Court has singlehandedly prevented lawsuits against Israel. Ask Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who often boasts during his visits abroad that Israel’s Supreme Court is considered one of the most prestigious legal institutions in the world. And while that hasn’t stopped his ministers from turning the Supreme Court justices into the enemies of the people, their rulings have prevented Israel from becoming the enemy of the world.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Miriam Naor not only defended judges against politicization, she also defended soldiers and police officers operating in West Bank (Photo: Gil Yohanan)

The fact is that the legal pyrotechnics performed by the High Court in a bid to solve the contradiction between international law and civil rights in the territories is studied by governments in Europe and in the United States—particularly in light of their war on terror.

The Supreme Court has rightfully earned its international prestige: Retired chief justices like Aharon Barak and Dorit Beinisch are highly acclaimed lecturers, and the world’s leading law faculties study their rulings. And one of the reasons for the High Court’s strong reputation is the fact that no one really knows its justices’ political views, at least until they complete their terms.

Since the establishment of the ICC, the High Court has been serving as the State of Israel’s shield against lawsuits filed by states and international human rights organizations over war crimes committed against the Palestinians. How has it been doing it? Thanks to the complementarity principle in international law, which determines that if an Israeli court has already handled a complaint, it must be rejected. This principle depends on one important international acknowledgement—that the Israeli legal system is reliable, professional and moral, and can therefore be trusted.

So the next time right-wing ministers and activists complain about the Supreme Court, they should remember that one of the main reasons Israel isn’t internationally isolated is thanks to the Supreme Court justices. And when Chief Justice Naor decided not to send a representative to a ceremony in a settlement that is defined in international law as an “occupied territory,” she not only defended the judges against politicization, she essentially also defended the soldiers and police officers operating in Judea and Samaria.

Because now, upon the PA’s admission into Interpol, the Palestinians' complaints will become more dangerous. And it’s quite possible that the only thing standing between an international arrest warrant and IDF soldiers will be the Supreme Court justices in Jerusalem, the same judges who decided to skip Wednesday’s ceremony.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Supreme Court is Israel’s international fortress : http://ift.tt/2xCgogp

Four lessons from the Har Adar attack

Tuesday morning’s terror attack in Har Adar, which left three Israelis dead, requires us to draw immediate conclusions—both because of its sensitive timing and because it may encourage more Palestinians to imitate the terrorist or carry out attacks inspired by his.

  The first lesson stems from the fact the terrorist did what he did following feelings of guilt and frustration of a personal nature, which have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nevertheless, he wanted his act to be meaningful, beyond an act of personal despair. He wanted to leverage the attack and present himself as a martyr.

The Har Adar terrorist, Nimer Jamal. Feelings of guilt and frustration

This isn’t the first time Palestinian terrorists channel their social and personal frustrations into a violent act of terror, but this time we are talking about a relatively older man with four children. Nevertheless, he kills Israelis he knew, worked for, and had friendly relations with some of them. He carries out this killing spree because he is aware of the amount of hatred towards Jews and Israelis in the Palestinian territories, and he realizes he could become a national hero. More importantly, he not only commits suicide, but also secures the economic future of his children and estranged wife, who will receive their monthly allowance from the Palestinian Authority. That way, he kills two birds with one stone—he becomes a national hero and secures his family’s economic future.

The message the terrorist wrote to his wife before carrying out the attack

These facts are important because we are in the middle of the High Holy Days, and according to Shin Bet Director Nadav Argaman, this is a particularly explosive period in the territories, during which any spark could lead to escalation. The terrorist’s motives could lead to copycat attacks, especially among people with similar motives in similar situations. We must be careful the 2017 High Holy Days don’t turn into the beginning of a new wave of terrorism, which is why the defense establishment must uphold the policy distinguishing between terrorists and the rest of the population so as not to provoke it.

Scene of the attack in Har Adar (Photo: AP)

The second lesson is that the Israeli intelligence still has a lot to learn and improve in producing preventive intelligence from social media. Collecting intelligence from a mass of posts and tweets on social media was once considered science fiction. The IDF’s Intelligence Directorate and the Shin Bet were the pioneers in the field of producing preventive information from social media following the wave of terrorism that broke out in October 2015. The conclusions drawn by the Israeli intelligence and the methods it uses are learned all over the world. The intelligence community has thwarted hundreds of terror attacks based on analyzed information from social media, but it has also missed some targets. Tuesday’s terrorist was one of them. The message he sent his wife and his request that she share it on her Facebook page could have served as an alarm bell and a sign of the need for preventive action. Somehow, it slipped under the intelligence community’s advanced technological measures and the searching eyes of the operators.

Photo: AFP

It happens, it could happen and it will happen in the future, but we must try to investigate in-depth—like in previous incidents—why it happened and try to improve the methods of collecting preventive intelligence. The third lesson is that even in small passageways, known as “agricultural gates,” which are used by Palestinian laborers to cross into Israel, the security checks methods must be changed to create a distance between the security forces and potential attackers, until they can guarantee they are not carrying any weapons.

Palestinian laborers. Work permits are necessary to distinguish between terrorists and the Palestinian population that wants to live its life

The fourth lesson is that Tuesday morning’s attack shouldn’t have implications on the work permits granted to Palestinians. It has been proven in the past that people who receive permits to work in Israel avoid carrying out attacks so as not to harm their source of income. This rule is still effective. The Har Adar terrorist, who came from the village of Beit Surik, had a permit to work in Judea and Samaria—not inside Israel. The fact he carried out an attack proves how desperate and agitated he was on a personal level rather than determined to calmly carry out an attack on a purely nationalistic motive. The work permits are necessary to distinguish between terrorists and the Palestinian population that wants to live its life. Denying the permits also serves as a sanction against accomplices and the terrorists’ family members. We shouldn’t rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Four lessons from the Har Adar attack : http://ift.tt/2xCkoh4

Har Adar attack: A painful but local incident

Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Herzl Halevy recently cautioned against an escalation in the Palestinian arena, stressing the humanitarian distress in the Gaza Strip. The existing warnings didn’t point to a possibility of an attack in Har Adar, which is why the IDF’s evaluation of the situation hasn’t changed: It was a painful but local incident.

 

With all our grief and the heavy price that has been claimed, this terror attack must be put in the right context, as it doesn’t necessarily correspond with the substantial changes taking place in the Palestinian arena. Even if it seems like a local event, which may generate copycat attacks, we must remember we have already seen similar incidents quite a few times in the past two years.

  

The perpetrator of the attack, Nimer Mahmoud Ahmed Jamal, doesn’t match the definitions of the “classic” terrorist or of a lone-wolf terrorist inspired by terror organizations. The fact he had a work permit made headlines on Tuesday, but it must be clarified he could have walked about Judea and Samaria and carried out attacks even without a work permit.

Scene of Har Adar attack. The expanded policy of granting work permits—even at times of escalated violence—proved itself in the current wave of terror (Photo: AFP)

Furthermore, we must remember the expanded policy of granting work permits even at times of escalated violence, has proven itself in the current wave of terrorism, and only few people with work permits carried out attacks. The policy of distinguishing between terrorists and the civil population has also been deemed successful and helped reduce the number of terror attacks. Out of more than 450 attempted terror attacks, only two were carried out by Palestinians with work permits—one who had a regular permit and the other who had a temporary one.

This brings us to the operational angle: We must admit the Shin Bet and the Military Intelligence Directorate are actually incapable of identifying a potential terrorist like Jamal, a 37-year-old father of four who had no security-related background and decided to carry out an attack following a spat with his wife, who fled to Jordan. This terrorist didn’t leave any social media posts indicating he was planning to carry out an attack, like the post left by the Halamish terrorist, which Israeli intelligence nevertheless failed to detect. And even if he had written a post, we must understand it’s unrealistic to expect the Shin Bet and IDF to identify such intentions in advance—especially in a technological era in which the world’s intelligence organizations have trouble identifying ballistic missile launches.

 

Shin Bet and Military Intelligence Directorate are incapable of locating a potential terrorist like Nimer Jamal, a 37-year-old father of four who had no security-related background and decided to carry out an attack following a conflict with his wife

On the other hand, we should be concerned about the operational conduct on the ground: The terrorist was able to fire 13 bullets, hitting four people and killing three of them. That’s a very bad outcome considering the fact it wasn’t citizens he was facing, but the security forces. This incident must be investigated and immediate conclusions must be drawn. For example, improving the structural shielding and making changes to the forces deployment in the crossing.

More broadly speaking, we must not ignore the defense establishment’s main strategic warning of possible escalation over the crisis in Gaza in the West Bank as well. This isn’t a new warning, but the previous warning regarding the possibility of renewed violence in Judea and Samaria has already been realized. In light of the fear of additional copycat attacks, and the fact we are in the middle of the High Holy Days, we must take it seriously even if what happened on Tuesday we a local incident.

The other thing we must remember is that the policy of distinguishing between terrorists and the civil population, which has been led by IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot since the beginning of the wave of terror attacks two years ago, has proven itself. So as long as there is no clear change of direction, it should be maintained—precisely now, while the blood is still boiling.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Har Adar attack: A painful but local incident : http://ift.tt/2fxURRw

Despite justified fears of the AfD, not all nationalism is Nazism

With Angela Merkel maintaining her grip on power following the German elections, the real shock victory is claimed by the anti-migration rightist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Almost immediately after the election results cleared the way for their first-time entry into the German parliament, European Jews began voicing concern, urging all moderate parties to refrain from assembling a coalition that would comprise the AfD. For Jews, any whiff of a rightist rise is terrifying. When it happens in Germany of all places, the trepidation and foreboding are infinitely magnified. The mere sound of the word “Deutschland” uttered in any nationalistic context is enough to send a shiver down the collective spine of European Jewry, conjuring up the images as it does of Hitler violently screaming out anti-Jewish vitriol as he called for their destruction. The rise of the AfD could be a prelude to the rise of Nazi-style anti-Semitism, some fear. Are we witnessing a repeat of the 1930s?

Photo: Reuters

The simple answer is no. The AfD and the Nazi party and the reasons behind their successes are not even remotely similar. Scarcely any time had elapsed after the electoral exit poll results were announced before Germans were marching the streets in protest calling for “Nazis out!” regardless of the fact that the AfD is not a Nazi party. It is simply far too easy to label and stigmatize any nationalists as Nazis. The problem is that Nazis are very real and very hateful. Their lust for violence goes far beyond the realm of baseless xenophobia. They wish to see nothing more than millions of Jews forced into gas chambers once again. To stigmatize any form of nationalism, however rational, however non-violent, as Nazism is a gross falsification of the truth; it is to trivialize just what the Nazis perpetrated against Jews and what real Nazis are prepared to commit once again. It is a cheap appellation which lacks any credibility and it is high time that people who are guided by the pursuit of truth rather than blind acceptance of unwarranted political rectitude banish this lie from political discourse where it has no place. To be sure, the AfD have been exposed in the past for containing members who have signalled a willingness to open dangerous doors, particularly on discussions bordering on Holocaust denial. Some have been expelled or forced to resign from the party and undoubtedly some of the rank and file are likely not particularly fond of Jews while some are probably virulently anti-Semitic. But the party’s main rallying point has absolutely nothing to do with Jews and its birth stems from the fact that people in Germany, as well as elsewhere in Europe, have snapped out of their delirium and woken up to the reality that their politicians have unashamedly wrenched control of their national destiny from their hands when it comes to the demographic composition of their countries. They have comprehensively hijacked the countries’ respective languages by snatching common and innocuous words and tenuously associating them with the most vulgar forms of racism. They have prohibited any form dialogue about mass - particularly Islamic - migration, and they have stifled Europe’s freedom to ask some fundamental questions:

AfD co-leader Alexander Gauland (Photo: Reuters)

Are we ok with the level of migration into this country? Are they truly bona fide refugees fleeing potential persecution or are they merely economic migrants? Can stricter checks be imposed without infringing on their human rights in order to filter out the genuine refugees from those pretending to be? Does the influx of foreign people bring to Europe, and in this case Germany, an ideology that is compatible with liberal values? If not, what can be done to facilitate a system of integration that is not constantly open to the accusation that authorities are attempting to strip minorities of their beliefs or cultures? The list goes on. As a Jew from the UK, I fully recognize the dangers of any right-wing elements, and I too shudder at the thought, particularly in Germany for obvious reasons, that the rise of any ultra-right force could be the prelude to an age in which Jews are forced to bow their heads once more. Any Jew conscious of his or her history should always be circumspect about parties like the AfD. We should all have learned, as Europe’s leaders may or may not have yet internalized, that they cannot be indefinitely entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding Jewish security. But to brandish the phony labels of “racist,” “Nazi,” “fascist,” and the like against all proponents of any variation whatsoever of nationalism is to jump on a bandwagon that is simply leading us down a dark and dangerous path that ends with the deprivation of free speech, the distortion of history and complete intellectual servitude. Ultimately, those people in Germany, many of whom cannot be dismissed as bigoted Nazis, who voted for this rightist party did so because it was the only one telling them that their desire to salvage the last vestiges of the national heritage which they cherish is not inherently filthy, even if their history is indelibly stained by their Nazi past. The AfD has told them that they do not need to sleepwalk into a future where Islam either dominates, or occupies a significant portion of, their everyday lives and the thoughts that precede their expression.

Angela Merkel after the elections (Photo: Getty Images)

If the AfD is indeed regarded as a Nazi-style party by some, the people who ultimately bear responsibility for their ascent are the self-styled liberals who have subjugated millions of people with their unbridled browbeating, with the besmirching of the reputation of any person who dared to espouse views on racial issues contrary to their own, even when such views are clearly bereft of hate.

These same people have still not recovered from Donald Trump’s victory, but regardless of what anyone thinks of him, they put him into office. By their very browbeating, they unintentionally but most definitely convinced millions of voters, who are neither Nazis nor fascists, that their right to freedom of speech was constantly being corroded. Consequently those same voters and therefore quietly expressed their thoughts through the ballot box only to give rise to an individual who is too loud for his opponents to handle, even though those very same brow beating opponents put him there. Similarly, that is why Nigel Farage’s UKIP party managed to gain the third largest number of the popular vote in the pre-Brexit 2015 general elections. This is precisely what has happened with the AfD and why if the waves of migration in Europe continues unabated, we can expect their electoral popularity to rise to such levels that European Jews’ desperate pleas to moderate parties to shun it will simply be ignored.

This article is in no way intended to support the AfD or advocate for a German coalition with its inclusion. Nor is it an attempt to suggest that Jews have nothing to fear. Rather it is simply a recommendation that the most prudent way to stave off the rise of any hard-right party is to allow the people who are too often unjustly pigeonholed as racists or Nazis to have a say without fear of abuse or recrimination.If this does not happen, the prospect of success of alternative parties to which they could well turn in future ballots are far more worrisome.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Despite justified fears of the AfD, not all nationalism is Nazism : http://ift.tt/2wjurGe

What if a war breaks out tomorrow morning?

The public report about the IDF’s security perception and force building, issued Monday by the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, which did a commendable and unprecedented job, likely does the classified report injustice. It includes a lot of esoteric hints, which can only be understood by a small group of expert authorities on the IDF. But the public report is intended for the man on the street, who wants to get a simple answer to the following question: Is the IDF ready for war tomorrow morning? The clear answer can likely be found in the classified and detailed report, while parts made available to the public are vague and sophisticated. After reading it, the answer is: It depends which war we find ourselves in. The report indicates that the five-year Gideon Plan, which is supposed to prepare the army for the next war, is first of all an admission by the IDF that until Operation Protective Edge the army had been building itself for the wrong war, and that it must prepare differently. Throughout the public report, therefore, the chief of staff is praised for admitting that there is a need for a change and for a strategy for the army, as well as for a plan matching the threats that the army predicts it will have to face.

The army didn’t build itself properly for the Protective Edge threat, and definitely not for the timetable imposed on it (Photo: AFP)

The decisions made by the chief of staff so far, according to the report, are essentially right. It turns out, however, that the army is playing chess with itself. It’s determining the security needs, the threats and how to prepare for them. The political echelon isn’t involved. At best, it is a rubber stamp. But when a crucial day arrives, like in all the recent conflicts, the political echelon makes different strategic decisions to the ones the IDF has been building itself for. In the Second Lebanon War, for example, the IDF wasn’t well prepared for the prolonged conflict imposed by the political echelon. The army didn’t build itself properly for the Protective Edge threat either, and definitely not for the timetable imposed on it. Can anyone promise that what Chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot is doing today will match the political echelon’s needs and demands in the next conflict? The army began working on the Gideon plan before the great turmoil was unleashed in the region during the past decades: The Russians entered Syria with a military force and are planning to stay there for a long time. As a result, Syrian President Bashar Assad is winning the war and the Iranians are settling down in Syria. When Gideon was launched and the IDF talked about building maneuvering strike forces, it had the Lebanese arena in mind. The plan was built according to a scenario of one main arena and a marginal Palestinian arena. Today, another significant front could be created in Syria, possibly forcing the IDF to act in full force in several arenas simultaneously. Does Gideon match this scenario? The report raises this question, and the answer can likely be found in its confidential part. Has the IDF reached a critical mass with primary weapons for a defeat? Probably not, the available part of the report implies.

There may be a situation in which the cabinet convenes and decides to adopt a certain strategy. For example, the main threat is Tehran and the nuclear program. It can then take the Gideon plan, use selected parts of it, and make a kite out of the rest.

The committee states that at the moment the cabinet isn’t guided by the IDF, but the other way around. The reference scenario and the response are dictated by the army. The committee is also critical of the IDF’s reference scenario, which it sees as unrealistic: “The operative plans must be adjusted to the real situation and to a realistic examination of the abilities.”

The committee members aren’t certain, despite the excellent Gideon Plan, that the IDF is prepared for a wide-scale war. The public report includes a sentence which conceals many pages behind it in the confidential report: “The arming and force building pace is derived from the options and doesn’t always solve the gaps in different areas that the committee discovered in its work… There are a number of critical fields which require adjustments in the force building pace, even at the expense of other abilities…” This sentence points to a difficulty which makes it impossible to say for certain that the IDF is properly prepared for war tomorrow morning.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

What if a war breaks out tomorrow morning? : http://ift.tt/2yFFKuj

Kurds and Palestinians? There’s no comparison

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Op-ed: Unlike the Kurdish people, the Palestinian people’s national identity is based exclusively on denying Zionism. Political independence for the Palestinians means harming Israel’s security; political independence for the Kurds means a contribution to regional stability. Kurds and Palestinians? There’s no comparison : http://ift.tt/2fp6OFo

Israelis don’t believe Netanyahu, but see no alternative

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Op-ed: On one hand, most Israelis reject Netanyahu’s version that he’s innocent and believe he should resign if indicted. On the other hand, he is considered best suited to be prime minister. Special New Year survey also shows Israelis are more concerned about cost of living than about security situation, and 86 percent are satisfied with their personal situation. Israelis don’t believe Netanyahu, but see no alternative : http://ift.tt/2yCnrGg

Mohammad Bakri, enemy of the Palestinians

The Israeli Arabs’ disaster is manifested in people like Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi, Sheikh Raed Salah and filmmaker Mohammad Bakri.

 

According to every single poll, most Israeli Arabs are loyal citizens—something that must be mentioned repeatedly. Most of them support the two-states-for-two-people solution, recognizing Israel—directly and unequivocally—as a Jewish and democratic state; volunteer rates for community and national service among young Israeli Arabs are growing, in spite of the political leadership’s defiance; furthermore, according to the Israel Democracy Institute, 55 percent of Israel’s Arabs are “proud to be Israelis.”

This situation bothers strife mongers like Bakri, who has made every effort to create the opposite impression. His film Jenin, Jenin has already been officially recognized as false propaganda. But a person like Bakri doesn’t stop. He has gone all the way to Lebanon to screen his films, which were made “under the occupation government.” It’s not that people there are in need of incitement against Israel, but Bakri went there to add more fuel to the fire of hatred.

Bakri on the cover of Hezbollah-affiliated newspaper Al-Akhbar. ‘Normalization with the Zionist enemy is treason’

The Arab world does have, after all, a movement that supports peace and reconciliation. In light of what is going on in Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq, it should already be clear the enemies are not the Zionists, but rather the Islamists—Sunnis or Shiites. And of all the different movements, Bakri chose to give an interview to a Hezbollah-affiliated newspaper, to convey the following messages: “Normalization with the Zionist enemy is treason.”

In Lebanon of all places? Why, even if Israel tries, and it won’t, it won’t reach one-tenth of the oppression and killing the Palestinians have been subject to from Lebanon or from Hezbollah forces in Syria. Because Lebanon has adopted an official apartheid policy. The Palestinians have no right to use the country’s health services, they have no right to own any property and they are banned from a long list of occupations.

The Palestinians' descendants have been living in Lebanon for decades, but have yet to be granted citizenship. To be more accurate, the Christians and the Shiites, who arrived following the Nakba, did receive citizenship. But the Sunnis, who are the large majority, didn’t. Both groups are no longer Palestinians; they are Lebanese for all intents and purposes. But they are inferior Lebanese. According to a 2010 report, 56 percent of them are unemployed, and according to a UN Refugee Agency report from last year, their situation has only gotten worse.

The former grand mufti of Lebanon, Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani, referred to the Palestinians as “unwanted trash,” and the Lebanese are about to complete the construction of a separation wall around the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp. Because that’s what should be done to those unwanted “brethren,” although they are members of the same families, the same religion, the same language and the same culture. The result is great misery.

According to every possible parameter, the Arabs’ situation under Israeli rule—within and beyond the Green Line—is far better than the situation of their brethren in Lebanon. Bakri visited refugee camps near Beirut and saw the poverty and the misery there, but his incitement was directed at Israel. That’s what propagandists do. They nurture deception, especially the worst deception of all—self-deception.

Bakri arrived in Lebanon to attend the Palestinian Days film festival, which was dedicated to him and to his work. It’s the worst country in the world for Palestinians—not as a result of a temporary crisis, but as a matter of policy— but to hell with the facts. He didn’t go there to improve his brothers’ situation. Between working for Palestinian prosperity and inciting against Israel, Bakri—just like Hamas—has chosen incitement. That’s the only thing that matters, and to hell with the Palestinians.

Culture Minister Miri Regev is wrong to demand an investigation against Bakri. That’s exactly what he wants. That’s exactly how he will turn into a martyr. There’s no need to give him the pleasure. He should be presented as the enemy of the Palestinians, because that’s what he is.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Mohammad Bakri, enemy of the Palestinians : http://ift.tt/2hr67j8

Despite alleged Israeli strikes, Hezbollah will keep building its arsenal

Last Friday, according to foreign sources, Israel attacked a military target in the Damascus airport once again. There seems to be a routine of Israeli strikes in Syria, which no longer interests anyone. The Syrians, Iran and Hezbollah don’t seem too excited by it either. Have they come to terms with the successful Israeli preventive measures? Are they failing to respond because the Israeli deterrence is still very effective? Is Russian pressure stopping them from acting? I’m afraid there may be a different explanation. Our enemies are willing to occasionally sacrifice means or targets that Israel allegedly manages to destroy, but at the same time, they have found other ways to transfer the advanced weapons from Iran through Syria to Lebanon. This isn’t particularly complicated in light of three things: One, the Syria-Lebanon border is 300-kilometers long, and most of the area is tree-covered and mountainous; two, hundreds of trucks travel from Syria to Lebanon every day; three, there is no one between Tehran and Beirut who is interested in and capable of thwarting this activity. There’s no escape from concluding, therefore, that despite the alleged Israeli thwarting operations, Hezbollah will continue building its power almost undisturbed. The Israeli activity is reportedly focused on an attempt to prevent Hezbollah from receiving or producing precision missiles. That is, undoubtedly, the preferred target. There is a huge difference between the damage potential of precision weapons and statistical weapons. Israel is a small country with a small number of vital sites and low redundancy. If power stations, airport, seaports, railway stations or hospitals are damaged in the next war, Israel will pay an almost unbearable price—in addition to hundreds of casualties.

Major military exercise in northern Israel, earlier this month. Ensuring the next war will be short requires us to fight the state of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah (Photo: EPA)

There are two conclusions from this serious change in the nature of the threat. First of all, Israel should keep trying to stop Hezbollah from arming itself with accurate weapons. However, as I doubt we will be able to prevent that over time, the second conclusion should be stressed: If someone opens fire at Israel from Lebanon, dragging us into the “third Lebanon war,” we must not let the war last 33 days like in 2006. A long war will cause intolerable damage to Israel’s military and civilian infrastructures. The only way to ensure that the next war is short requires us to fight the state of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. Israel can destroy Lebanon’s infrastructures and army within several days. Since there is no one in the world—neither the Lebanese nor Hezbollah, Syria or Iran, and of course Saudi Arabia, France, Russia and the United States—who wants to see Lebanon destroyed, it will lead to massive international pressure to reach a ceasefire within a week or less, and that’s just what Israel needs. Reaching such a decision in real time, when the conflict erupts, is insufficient. Israel should already start conveying this message, for two reasons: First of all, we will achieve deterrence and possibly prevent the next war since, as mentioned, no one in the world wants to see Lebanon destroyed. Second, if a war does break out in the end, it’s important that the Western states—at least the US—understand in advance that Israel chose this strategy having no other choice. Unfortunately, Israel is conveying the opposite messages.

About a week ago, at the end of the major military exercise in northern Israel, the defense minister and army chiefs conveyed the message that Israel is capable of defeating Hezbollah. That’s a mistake. Even if Israel wins, but the war lasts about five weeks like in 2006, we will all pay a huge price which we will have trouble living with.

Major-General (res.) Giora Eiland is a former head of Israel's National Security Council.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Despite alleged Israeli strikes, Hezbollah will keep building its arsenal : http://ift.tt/2wMF8pm

Why face facts when it’s easier to pretend settlements don’t exist?

In a recent op-ed, Yoaz Hendel sharply criticized the latest report by Molad – the Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy, which shows how the West Bank settlements are actually a national security burden, contrary to popular belief in the Right. Sadly, it appears that Hendel didn’t bother reading the entire document before penning his rant, otherwise he would have known that all his claims were addressed at length in the report.

The column began with the usual baseless accusations against Molad. To be honest, it’s embarrassing to see right-wing aficionados squirm whenever they’re faced with the results of our investigations. When we exposed the corruption at the Settlement Division, they said we invented it; soon after, the attorney general stopped state funding of the division and the police raided its offices in connection with the Yisrael Beytenu affair.

When we exposed Minister Uri Ariel’s corruption, they said our conclusions were unfounded—yet the state comptroller confirmed the findings and went even further in his criticism. When we exposed the growing presence of religious right-wing non-profits in public schools, Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s representatives denied that the indoctrination project was underway, while teachers and parents continue to report instances of National Service volunteers affiliated with the Bayit Yehudi party replacing trained teachers.

The settlement of Efrat. Serious criticism is based on knowing what you are railing against (Photo: Ilan Arad, Lowshot.com)

Let us, then, dismiss these ridiculous slurs and get to the point. Hendel based his criticism on three arguments: One, that we did not interview security experts such as Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen, whose opinion differs from the majority of Israel’s defense establishment. Two, that we did not address the role of the settlements in Mapai’s security perception after the Six-Day War, which culminated in the Allon Plan. Three, that we did not discuss the importance of the settlements for dealing with a possible collapse of the regime in Jordan or with threats within the West Bank. Hendel concluded by asking: “Should the ‘research’ not have broached these questions as well?”

He’s absolutely right. It should have—and it did.

Since I don’t dare believe that Hendel would criticize something he has not actually read, let me jog his memory. We didn’t interview Maj. Gen. Hacohen because he already laid out his arguments in his book, “What Is National about National Security.” An entire chapter of the report was devoted to addressing these arguments in detail.

It’s also puzzling how Hendel failed to notice our lengthy explanation—including maps—of why the Allon Plan is no longer relevant. To recap: The loss of relevance is the result of the eastern front collapsing (due to the diminished threat from Iraq and the peace treaty with Jordan), coupled with developments in the IDF’s technological capacities and its combat doctrine. On a side note, Gush Emunim and the settlements that followed went far beyond the borders of the Allon Plan as early as the 1970s.

Finally, Hendel laments our overlooking the significance of the settlements for the future of the Jordanian regime. In reality, an entire section of the report is devoted to analyzing a scenario in which the Hashemite regime were to collapse, and a long chapter lays out strategies for defending Israel after the settlements are evacuated. Two separate “day after” scenarios are meticulously analyzed, the conclusion being that until Israel reaches an agreement with the Palestinians, it will need to maintain security measures in the West Bank, albeit on a smaller scale.

As combing through the report took up so much of Hendel’s time, I don’t blame him for failing to address the fact that the settlements have become a milestone around Israel’s neck, in terms of security. He simply had no time to come up with a counter-argument for the fact that the settlements extend Israel’s lines of defense in defiance of military logic, that they are the obstacle to completing the separation barrier, that they are draining Israel’s security resources and reducing IDF preparedness for an emergency, or that some settlers are actively battling the IDF.

Hendel doesn’t have to like the conclusions of our report, but serious criticism is based on knowing what you are railing against. The thing is, when you don’t have a good response to arguments against the settlements, it’s easier to pretend they don’t exist.

Avishay Ben-Sasson Gordis, a retired Israel Defense Intelligence major, is a research fellow at Molad and a PhD student at the Harvard Department of Government.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Why face facts when it’s easier to pretend settlements don’t exist? : http://ift.tt/2wKMARH

Iran missile test: Nuclear deal’s rotten fruit

Why does Iran need a heavy, one-stage, inaccurate missile, with a liquid fuel engine and a huge 1.5-meter warhead that can carry more than 1 ton to a range of 2,000 kilometers? The only logical answer is that the Khorramshahr missiles, which are being developed along with the Shahab missiles, are designed to carry a nuclear warhead. Provided that is the case, accuracy plays a marginal role.

  The most advanced models of the Shahab-3 missile, on the other hand, can already reach a range of 1,950 kilometers, according to the Iranians, basically covering every spot in Israel. Their warhead, however, weighs half the Khorramshahr warhead, which explains why the Iranians are developing another family of missiles that would be able to carry nuclear warheads. The Khorramshahr missile test, which was conducted in Iran in recent months and reported Saturday, is the rotten fruit of the nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers. To be more exact, it’s one of the prices Israel is paying for its failed conduct throughout the negotiations between the world powers and Iran, which led to its exclusion from talks and the loss of any ability it might've had to influence both the open agreement and its concealed and informal clauses.

Khorramshahr missile test. The Americans clearly approved the Iranians’ red lines (Photo: AFP, IRIB TV)

In 2013, when Iran and the world powers signed the interim agreement, Israeli officials were already aware of the secret side agreement being devised between then-US President Barack Obama’s representatives and the Iranian representatives, and there were already reports the Iranians had received the Americans' permission to keep developing missiles up to a range of 2,000 kilometers. At the same time, the Iranians were already busy developing missiles with longer ranges of 2,500 to 5,000 kilometers, which could reach Europe and the United States. In the secret talks, the Americans restricted them to 2,000 kilometers—the exact effective range to Iran’s main enemy, Israel. And, if one insists, to Saudi Arabia as well. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) quoted Iranian officials openly discussing the understanding reached with the Americans on the missiles. Revolutionary Guards commander Ali Jafari said immediately after the interim agreement that “Iran can produce missiles beyond the 2,000-kilometer range, but we have been restricted by our leader Khamenei. Our missiles must reach Israel. The regime’s red lines were not crossed in the nuclear talks.” The commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ aerospace force admitted as well that “our missiles’ 2,000-kilometer range is intended for a conflict with the Zionist regime.” Clearly, the Americans approved the Iranians’ red lines—the range to Israel. Today, the Iranians are provoking the Americans because they can. The way the Americans are handling the crisis with North Korea is only encouraging the Iranians to act like hooligans. While the US is threatening to review the nuclear agreement, the Iranians are revealing the missile with the nuclear potential to convey a message: The US should talk to them, rather than work to change the nuclear agreement. The Khorramshahr is clearly a North Korean missile, reflecting the tight cooperation between the two countries. It is based on a Russian ballistic missile fired from submarines, which was converted into a surface-to-surface missile. In 2005, North Korea transferred 20 of these missiles to Iran. It took the Iranians about a decade to adjust them to their own needs and make them launchable. Saturday’s reports on the missile test in Iran included information that the missile is capable of carrying three split warheads. If this information is true, this is the first time it is revealed that Iran has a multiple independently targetable missile. Israel should proceed on the assumption that North Korea already provided Syria with nuclear abilities in the reactor that was bombed in 2007. Similarly, it should be assumed that as part of the intimate relations between Iran and North Korea, Iran is enjoying North Korean's cooperation in the nuclear field for a generous payment. Israel should also consider the fact that Iran is now capable of producing a missile carrying a nuclear warhead—single or multiple.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Iran missile test: Nuclear deal’s rotten fruit : http://ift.tt/2fhUFlC

Peres's book a memoir for millennials

Shimon Peres wrote his own monument. Not the one over his Mount Herzl grave, mind you, but a monument in the form of a book, a sort of final epilogue recounting the ninth president's decades-long impressive work, running parallels to most of Israel's existence.

 

And as someone who has boasted throughout the years of his rather close relations with reality, and especially with the younger the generation, Peres delivered a book that's contemporary through and through, written in today's language: short, to the point, slender and saccharine.

Peres's new book, 'No room for small dreams'

 Each successful (figurative) chapter in the life of the deceased leader received only a scant number of pages. Short and to the point. "Veni, vidi, vici." At times, it seemed Peres sat at his desk to write this memoir, and decided to use a multilayered filter, removing everything you don't need to know from the finished book. And if you did know about it, it's probably best you forget. Indeed, No Room for Small Dreams leaves out the despicable, small-minded politicking aspects of his esteemed career. It won't be telling you about his rivalry-cum-enmity with Yitzhak Rabin, for instance, nor would it be sharing the former prime minister's resounding electoral defeats.

Even Peres's exoduses from Mapai, and then from the Labor Party, weren't deemed worthy of mention, perhaps because in his twilight years Peres did not consider them worth boasting over.

Shimon Peres's tomb (Photo: Galit Etzion)

Ever the artist of words and phrasing, the master of clever wordplay, Peres left in only a laundry list of success: the Dimona reactor, the Aerospace Industries, Operation Entebbe, the economic recuperation and killing off inflation, the non dream, the Lavi, the start-up nation and, naturally, peace with Jordan and the Palestinians.

Peres provides the whole shebang, ladies and gentlemen, in only 200 pages, neatly packaged in small, cholesterol-free portions. Not just cholesterol-free, in fact, but also failure- and disappointment-free. Peres leaves behind a spotless, shining monument inscribed with insights engraved in marble. If you've ever seen or read a Peres interview, you'll be able to recite these in your sleep. I, for instance, am exactly that sort of person. There's therefore nothing earth-shattering, or even mildly surprising about this book. Most Israelis over 20 have seen it all before in some comprehensive piece or other. The rest of Israel, however, with their heads firmly in their smartphones, have not. Peres wrote this book with them in mind.

(Photo: AP)

Still, reading the book is a joy. Peres—even in his later days—was lucid, sharp and erudite. His stories are riveting, and his vision enviable. His image, even seen from the mirror he himself has placed, is inspiring. His leadership makes one envious of the historical opportunities afforded Peres, a man who didn't know when—or how—to stop. Peres was a giant by any definition of the word, even when he was diminutive for a moment due to politics or embitterment at something someone once wrote about him. In the end, his greatness surpassed his shortcomings, and his rare, elegant figure will not be lost to us. Or, as Peres himself would say, who cares about small, gossipy details such as political infighting? The bigger things are what matters, and what persists. Another historical giant, Oscar Wilde, perhaps said it best: "The truth about the life of a man is not what he does, but the legend which he creates around himself."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Peres's book a memoir for millennials : http://ift.tt/2xrStAf

The Egyptian maestro and his Palestinian marionettes

The most fascinating part of Hamas’ “strategic turnabout” is the marionette theater: The elegant ease with which the director of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, General Khaled Fawzy, is leading the Palestinian wooden puppets. With his right hand, he’s entertaining himself with Hamas’ political bureau, and with his left hand, he’s pulling the strings of the Palestinian Authority delegation.

The general is not alone. The entire department in the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate dealing with the mater is fussing over the Palestinian marionettes, isolating them from other centers of power in the Arab world, making sure they don’t disrupt Maestro Fawzy’s efforts to run the marionette theater as he sees fit.

The Middle East was very excited last week after the maestro concocted the announcement made by Hamas politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh on the dissolution of the “administrative committee,” which was established by Hamas for the civil management of the Gaza Strip. Allegedly, this is an unusual Hamas concession, as the committee was a knife in the back of Mahmoud Abbas, who is formally in charge of the strip’s civil affairs through the joint “national agreement government.”

Abbas and Haniyeh. This is exactly what the reconciliation talks between Hamas and the PA in 2011 and 2014 looked like (Photo: Reuters, AFP)

The media went wild with its headlines. Hamas was presented as caving in and calling for an intra-Palestinian reconciliation before Abbas had even lifted a single sanction imposed on the strip. At the same time, the Egyptians instructed Abbas to send a delegation to Cairo to launch negotiations to renew the reconciliation process between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. But although Hamas conceded the administrative committee, it will keep running the strip. Giving up the shadow government was just bait used by Fawzy to bring the PA delegation to Cairo. I doubt Hamas itself takes its announcement seriously. In light of Hamas’ gesture, Abbas couldn’t say no to the Egyptians and was forced to send a delegation to Cairo to look into the possibility of relaunching reconciliation talks. Now, in a bid to intensify the drama and make the move seem more serious, everyone is waiting for the senior Hamas representative from Lebanon, Saleh al-Arouri, and for Hamas’ new foreign minister, Moussa Abu Marzouk, to come to Cairo and participate in the talks. It’s a real déjà vu. This is exactly what the reconciliation talks between Hamas and the PA in 2011 and 2014 looked like. Statements were made and gloriously-worded agreements were written. Then, like today, Hamas wasn’t interested in a reconciliation under the PA’s conditions, and vice versa. Its goal is practical: To renew the economic aid from the PA. Meanwhile, the Egyptian aid to the strip is faltering too. Contrary to previous commitments, Egypt isn’t opening the Rafah Crossing because it doesn’t believe Hamas will cut its ties with the Islamic State in Sinai. ISIS in Sinai appears to have more foreigners today, including Palestinians from the strip. The Egyptians not only want Hamas to close the tunnels to Sinai completely, they are also demanding real cooperation in turning in ISIS fighters from the strip. The Egyptians open and close the fuel pipe according to their own interests. Last week, 16 Egyptian policemen were murdered in Sinai and the fuel supply was stopped for three days. In this state of affairs, the fuel from Israel—which is funded by the PA—is Gaza’s oxygen. The concessions made by Hamas following the Egyptian pressure will allow Abbas to get off his high horse, lift the sanctions and start funneling money to the strip again. Israel, on its part, should encourage the reconciliation process. If the economic situation in Gaza improves following this process, it will moderate the estimates of a possible military conflict. Meanwhile, General Fawzy will likely orchestrate reports on the deployment of PA forces in the Gaza crossings, as well as reports on the establishment of joint Hamas-PA committees. But the PA delegation has yet to meet the Hamas delegation, there is no agreement on parliamentary and presidential elections—as required by Hamas—and, most importantly, Abbas is not keen on the possibility that Mohammad Dahlan will become a key player in Gaza with Egypt's support.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

The Egyptian maestro and his Palestinian marionettes : http://ift.tt/2fIfFCO

Trump’s Mideast policy: No motivation, no courage

In the eight months since the beginning of its term, the Trump administration has been having trouble translating promises for far-reaching changes in American Middle-East policy into a broad strategy with clear foundations for advancing a series of moves that would make it possible to reach the declared objectives.

 

The sigh of relief heard in Middle Eastern countries following President Donald Trump’s decision to begin his first foreign trip with a visit to Saudi Arabia and Israel, after the US lost its position as a leading power in the region during the Obama era, has been replaced with sighs of disappointment and fear that the administration is incapable of creating a fundamental change in American involvement in the region, and is perhaps unwilling to do so.

As time goes by, the “charm” of the unpredictable and threatening president appears to have expired. If at first it seemed that alongside “impressive” declarations we would also witness new initiatives that would allay the US allies’ fears, it soon turned out that apart from expanding military moves to defeat the Islamic State, the administration lacks the motivation and courage to deal with the challenges created by a complex regional reality.

 

Trump and Netanyahu. The establishment of a narrative that the US administration is weak and hesitant could harm crucial Israeli interests in the long run

The reasons for this situation may lie, of course, in the administration’s need to deal with internal American crises and with a series of significant challenges in other areas in the world, such as North Korea.

The impression, however, is that the administration gave up too soon in light of Iran’s ongoing presence in the main areas of conflict, primarily in Syria, where the US is also accepting Russian preeminence in determining the country’s security and political agenda. The promises to create a broad Arab front are also collapsing in light of the conflict between America’s allies in the Gulf, which American officials are having trouble solving.

The US administration’s current efforts to form a policy on the nuclear agreement are another reflection of the confusion of professionals who are now forced to come up with ideas for an action plan before mid-October (when the administration must report to Congress whether Iran is complying with the agreement). This brainstorming is required to try to find a way to “square the circle.” On the one hand, it should cater to Trump’s interest in cancelling the agreement, one of the main legacies left by his predecessor in the White House, which he has so far failed to change. On the other hand, it should minimize the potential damages to the US: Being blamed for the agreement’s failure, being isolated and experiencing a further decline in its relations with its European allies. The US ambassador’s failed efforts to convince UN inspectors to demand a visit to Iran’s military sites, and to use Iran’s expected refusal to declare the agreement’s cancellation, demonstrate the administration is well aware of the fact it has no technological “smoking gun” available. Even if the administration decides to inform Congress that Iran is not complying with the agreement, and launch a 60-day period (as required by law) for an internal American discourse until Congress reaches a decision, the frosty relationship between Trump’s administration and the Europeans and Russians will likely make it impossible to reach agreements on the P5+1 axis (the five permanent Security Council members and Germany), which will help create a united front against Iran.

Such a development likely won’t receive the support of the rest of the countries involved in the nuclear agreement, which made their objection to the move clear in light of economic deals that have already been signed with Iran. It could create a crisis between the US and its European partners, as well as a crisis with Russia and China. The results of this crisis could have far-reaching implications on the international arena.

As far as Israel is concerned, even if the two countries share the same goals and interests in some of the issues, the establishment of a narrative that the American administration is weak and hesitant could harm crucial Israeli interests in the long run and maybe even an important component in the Israeli deterrence, which relies—among other things—on the way its ally’s policy is interpreted by its rivals in the region.

Colonel (res.) Eldad Shavit, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), served as head of the research division at the Prime Minister’s Office and as an assistant for assessment to the head of the research division in the IDF Intelligence Corps.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Trump’s Mideast policy: No motivation, no courage : http://ift.tt/2xqaOO8

Trump and Kim's game of chicken

It seems like the United States and North Korea are on the brink of military confrontation. It is possible to go so far as to say that Trump's speech at the UN was a deliberate and planned provocation by Washington aimed at bringing Pyongyang into a certain collision course with the US.

Why? Because those who are familiar with the strategies and policies of the regime in North Korea know how Kim Jong Un responds in order not to lose his prestige and near divine status in his country. As far as he is concerned, he must escalate his reactions, even to the point of moves that would mean war.

The Americans know that, and instead of trying to calm the North Korean ruler, Trump keeps upping the stakes by intentionally using insulting phrases such as "rocket man" when referring to the North Korean ruler to tempt him to escalate his reactions.

Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump (Photo: Reuters, AFP)

The goal in Trump's deliberate provocations is not to criticize Kim Jong Un, but to force China to act. The only person other than Kim Jong Un who can restrain North Korea is China's leader, Xi Jinping. Without China, there is no North Korean economy and there is no North Korean army, so only China can act to end the crisis without war.

Trump walks fine line to force the Chinese to get off the fence and intervene, and it seems to be working. China announced this morning it is imposing restrictions on oil exports to North Korea, but that is not enough—just recently, North Korea threatened to detonate a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean. The United States knows North Korea lacks the capability to carry out such a move, but fears another move that could lead to war.

However, Trump is determined to continue his game of chicken with Kim Jong Un. It is very possible the Chinese would join the effort to calm things down, but it is also possible it would lead to military escalation.

The situation on the Korean peninsula is very sensitive and volatile, and one can only hope the Americans know what they are doing before things get out of hand. At the moment it seems the Americans are succeeding. Tomorrow, though, things could be drastically different.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Trump and Kim's game of chicken : http://ift.tt/2wdfS7k

Iran shows its defiance of the US, carefully

Trump's speech at the UN General Assembly gave rise to a series of provocative reactions from North Korea and Iran, the two Axis of Evil countries that Trump mentioned and even threatened in his address.

But there is a difference between what is currently happening on the American front against North Korea and what is happening on its front against Iran. Iran is easily the simpler case here. Trump handed it a yellow card with a reddish frame, meaning not really a threat of war or their utter destruction or even an actual threat to scrap the nuclear agreement with it.

Trump made do with a warning and a threat to re-examine the nuclear agreement signed with Iran in 2015. It is clear that the carefully worded speech from Washington does not even signal an intention to completely bin the nuclear deal.

Military parade in Iran in commemoration of the Ian-Iraq war, Sep. 22, 2017 (Photo: Reuters)

The Iranians responded accordingly.

In his speech at the UN General Assembly, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani repeated the usual statements—Iran has the right to develop advanced long-range ballistic missiles—but reiterated these were not intended for offensive purposes against Iran's neighbors and against Europe, but only for deterrence.

Simply put, the Iranians claim their missiles are designed to prevent an attack on their soil by hostile countries such as the United States, Israel and the Arab Gulf states, who may be plotting it.

The Islamic Republic claims it has the right to develop the missiles, even if the UN does not like it and even if it violates UN Security Council resolutions. This is the argument and the rationale the Iranians truly believe in. The Iranians claim and insist there is no connection between the ballistic missile program they are continuing to develop and the nuclear agreement they are meeting to the letter. This is despite the fact it's pretty obvious to everyone the development of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads has a clear connection to the Iranian nuclear program: When the restrictions on nuclear development in Iran are removed, it will already have long-range missiles ready to carry the nuclear warheads it will produce.

This disagreement between Iran and the international community is one of the roots of the dispute between Tehran and the world, but Iran under the influence of the Revolutionary Guards and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei not only shows no sign of willingness to compromise with the United States and the United Nations, but also took a defiant step when on Friday it presented a ballistic missile the Iranians say can carry multiple warheads and has a range of 2,000 kilometers, which easily covers all the Arab states and Israel.

On Saturday, the Iranians continued their defiance and presented a test launch of this missile. They did not reveal when this experiment took place, and it is impossible to learn much from the photographs except that the missile was launched and the second stage of the test was successful.

But it is still far from Iran's claims this is a missile that can reach a range of 2,000 kilometers and can carry multiple warheads, each of which can strike a separate target. In the past, many Iranian statements proved to be baseless, so we need to wait for more accurate data collected by Middle East and American intelligence agencies.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in his speech at the UN General Assembly (Photo: Reuters)

Besides, Israel is already in the final stages of development of an interception missile designed to deal precisely with missiles such as the Iranian one. Arrow 3 is supposed to intercept such missiles on their flight path, before they deploy their warheads. But the bottom line is Iran is not taking any more serious measures that threaten its neighbors or US assets, but merely showing "moderate" defiance. Therefore, Trump's response to Iran is measured. The US president recently signed a series of sanctions against Iran's missile program, but these sanctions are in fact a rehashed version of old and not particularly harsh sanctions.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Iran shows its defiance of the US, carefully : http://ift.tt/2xqfu6J