In Syria, Iran is getting in Putin’s way too

The military intervention in Syria is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most important and successful initiative in the international arena in the current decade. Russia has upgraded its status as a leading international power in the Middle East and removed the United States from its exclusive position of influence in the region.

Now, Putin wants to make the most of his achievements by producing economic advantages from Syria's reconstruction after it was destroyed in the civil war. He also wants to pull out a considerable part of his forces to reduce his expenses.

To achieve all this, however, Russia needs two things: To impose the rule of Syrian President Bashar Assad and his regime on all Syrian territory—militarily and operationally, to reach a diplomatic arrangement that will end the civil war and facilitate the development of the economic initiatives, and to restore the regime’s army. If he succeeds, Putin will gain an international achievement and exceptional prestige, which may even exceed the American achievement in opening a dialogue with North Korea.

Putin and Netanyahu. Not out of love for Israel (Photo: EPA)

All this is important to understanding why the Russians have an interest in preventing a conflict between Israel, Iran, the Assad regime and Hezbollah on Syrian territory, and also why Russia seems to be standing by Israel now in its demand to remove “the foreign forces” from Syria.

Putin isn’t doing this out of love for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or for Israel, but because Iran is getting in the way of his efforts to stabilize the situation in Syria and trying to compete with him over the economic projects, oil, gas and phosphate initiatives, which Russia hopes to gain millions from (these are projects the Assad regime is competing for too).

But beyond the Iranians’ economic competition with the Russians, the conflict between the IDF and the Revolutionary Guards, which are trying to entrench themselves in Syria and create a front against Israel there, is threatening any possible arrangement in Syria.

Moreover, the conflict between Israel and Iran on Syrian territory may lead to the collapse of the Assad regime, which has been forced to give the Iranians shelter in its military bases and security apparatuses, as Assad quickly retakes additional parts of his country with the Russians’ help.

The Russians have a major interest in preserving the Assad regime, as it legitimizes the continuation of their deep involvement in every area of life in Syria. Thanks to Assad, the Russians are Syria's “managers” and have access to the eastern basin of the Mediterranean Sea. Assad, however, can’t say no to the Iranians, who are demanding that he turn his country into a rocket launching pad and terror base against Israel and a logistic base for Hezbollah.

The Iranians are demanding economic privileges, which Assad and the Russians are refusing to give them. It’s important to note that thanks to the Russian aerial aid and the Russian intervention in obtaining local and regional truces, Assad now controls 70 percent of Syria. He no longer needs the Pakistani, Afghan and Iraqi Shiite militias, and he hardly needs Hezbollah to carry out ground offensives.

Putin and Assad. The Russians have a major interest in preserving the Assad regime (Photo: Reuters)

The Syrian army, which has been equipped and stregthened by the Russians, is already doing well on its own. This is another reason why, if Putin has to choose between an Iranian entrenchment and a conflict with Israel, he favors the strong side—Israel. The IDF has been proving since the beginning of 2018 that it is the strongest neighborhood thug, which the Iranians are incapable of dealing with at the moment.

Moreover, the IDF hasn’t hesitated to target the bases Assad gave the Iranians, and if the Syrian aerial defense systems try to hit Israel Air Force aircraft, they sustains heavy losses. Half of Syria's antiaircraft and antimissile battery systems no longer exist, and if the conflict between Israel and Iran on Syrian territory continues, Assad may lose control over part of his country and the ability to take over the rest. The Russians, therefore, are demanding the removal of foreign forces from Syria, including the Turks who have torn an extensive part of northeastern Syria from the Syrian state to fight the Kurds.

Russia wants Assad to control Syria. Iran, the militias and Hezbollah are getting in its way. So the Russians are demanding that the Iranians pull out of Syria and let Assad reap the fruits. But the Russians also want to take advantage of the good relations established with Israel to let Assad occupy the Syrian Golan Heights and southern Syria, including the town of Daraa on the Jordanian border, without any resistance.

That’s why the Russian defense minister summoned Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman to offer him a deal: We won’t let the Iranians advance to a distance of several dozen kilometers from the border fence with Israel, and you won’t get in the Assad army’s way as it takes over the Syrian Golan Heights and southern Syria.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demands that Iran pull out of Syria (Video: Reuters)    (צילום: רויטרס)

Israel won’t accept this deal. It won’t accept an Iranian presence or the presence of any of Iran’s proxies on Syrian territory, as every place they are in will develop into an operation base and a base for the production of precision-guided weapons against Israel.

Israel’s stance is backed by the US, and the Russians aren’t interested in a conflict with the US at the moment. Among the 12 points he mentioned, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Iran must end its involvement in Syria and its proxies’ involvement, and the Americans proved recently that they stand behind Israel’s demands on this issue, both diplomatically and in other areas.

In Moscow, Minister Lieberman will have to make it clear to his Russian colleague that Israel won’t settle for the Russian offer about the Golan Heights and that Russia must implement its demand that all foreign forces leave Syria. Only then will Israel have no objection to the continuation of the Assad rule there, which is what the Kremlin wants.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

In Syria, Iran is getting in Putin’s way too : https://ift.tt/2skT5X1

All sides in Gaza escalation prepared for a very limited conflict

The joint statement issued by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Tuesday evening, in which both organizations took responsibility for the heavy barrages fired at Gaza vicinity communities during the day, changed the situation.

Throughout the day, the estimate in the Gaza Strip and in the IDF spokesperson’s statements was that Islamic Jihad was responsible for the mortar fire to avenge the killing of three of its military operatives in an IDF strike on Sunday. So why did Hamas join the circle?

Escalation on the south. Neither side is interested in a wide-scale military operation

Well, we don’t know for sure whether Hamas actually fired rockets and mortar shells on Tuesday and Wednesday morning. Giving Islamic Jihad the green light to fire the mortars and rockets was enough for Hamas to take some of the credit for the day of battle.

Sources in the Gaza Strip told Ynet that Islamic Jihad’s decision to fire a barrage at Israel was made shortly after Sunday’s incident, and that they were only waiting for the right moment. Those same sources said that Hamas had tried to soften the response, so as not to drag Gaza into a destructive round of fighting.

Islamic Jihad, however, isn’t just another rebel organization in the Gaza Strip. Islamic Jihad is the second largest organization in the Gaza Strip, with a large and advanced arsenal and a major military force. If it wants to, it responds, and no one can stop it from firing. Not even Hamas.

But after the first barrage, which was fired early in the morning, Israel attacked quite a few Hamas assets in retaliation. The flagship strike was on Hamas’ dual tunnel at the tripoint between Israel, Egypt and Gaza. A 2-kilometer tunnel passing through Egypt and extending almost 1 kilometer into Israeli territory is a strategic asset for Hamas, an asset which the organization put a lot of time and resources into.

An Islamic Jihad operative. The organization waited for the right moment

From this point, Hamas faced two challenges: One, it suffered a heavy blow which forced it to respond, if only to restore its dignity; two, Hamas never liked the idea of a rival organization taking the lead in the armed struggle against Israel. These reasons forced Hamas to jump on the bandwagon and claim its part of the fame.

The recent reports about talks for a possible “hudna” (ceasefire) in the Gaza Strip could actually increase Hamas’ motivation to create a limited day of battle in Gaza to remind all sides what could happen if the talks and the organization’s demands fail.

Islamic Jihad, on the other hand, always has an interest to create noise. The organization, which enjoys full financial backing from Iran, has to occasionally prove to its bosses in Tehran that it’s worth the money being poured on it.

The combination between the killing of three of its operatives and the general atmosphere of escalation on the southern border served as an excellent opportunity for the organization to fire at Israel. While the events on the northern front are currently unrelated to the situation in Gaza, Iran likely has an interest in signaling to Israel that it is indirectly present in the Gaza Strip too.

A Hamas gunman in Gaza. The organization suffered a heavy blow which forced it to respond (Photo: AP)

Egypt, for its part, needs Hamas on its side in its long war on the Islamic State (ISIS) terror group in northern Sinai. Cairo, therefore, has an interest in maintaining the calm in the strip, which provides it with a quiet border as well. Egypt is also playing an active part in the attempts to obtain an ease of economic restrictions on the strip and has also made a contribution by opening the Rafah Crossing throughout the month of Ramadan to prevent a humanitarian collapse in the strip. Egypt has the ability to impose its will both on Hamas and on Islamic Jihad, despite its affiliation with Iran.

Israel has no interest in a wide-scale operation in the strip either. Apart from the fact that such an operation entails huge financial damage to the Israeli economy (evacuating the Gaza vicinity communities, compensation for damages, calling up reserve forces, increasing the defense budget and an economic slowdown), government ministers—led by Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman—have reiterated that the Hamas rule in the strip will be toppled in the next wide-scale battle.

Such an ambitious objective would require considerable military resources and a very long stay in the Gaza Strip, which would lead to many casualties. Israel likely isn’t interested in entering this mess while most of its military energy should be focused on the northern front, which is more critical these days.

Connecting all these dots into one map of interests proves that each side is willing to enter a very limited and time-bound conflict but doesn’t want it to deteriorate to a wide-scale military round. But desires are one thing and reality is another thing. Sometimes, a 10-meter deviation in a mortar shell hit is enough to change the entire pictures, without taking either side’s aspirations into account.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

All sides in Gaza escalation prepared for a very limited conflict : https://ift.tt/2xoIG1O

Gaza escalation: Both sides are walking on the precipice

Three defensive objectives defined the IDF’s response to the Hamas marches: One, to prevent an infiltration of the masses and of terrorist cells into Israel; two, to minimize the number of casualties and property damage as much as possible, both on the Israeli side and on the Gazan side; three, to prevent the situation from escalating into a rocket war.

The first objective was fully accomplished; the second objective was mostly accomplished; the third objective failed.

The rocket and mortar shell barrages that were fired from Gaza into the southern communities on Tuesday are alarming. Granted, it reflects a recognition of failure among Gaza’s ruling organization, after two months of clashes on the border fence. The attempt to market Hamas’ campaign as a civilian, spontaneous, non-violent move was unsuccessful. Overall, it was met with indifference both on the Arab street and in the international public opinion. Apart from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, no one believed Hamas’ new clothes.

IDF strike in Gaza, Tuesday night. The attempt to prevent the situation from deteriorating into a rocket war failed (Photo: AP)

But the failure was ours too. Those among Israel’s decision makers who refused to bury their heads in the sand knew that Gaza was on the verge of explosion. Nevertheless, the necessary decisions were not made. Tuesday’s events only strengthened the understanding that the status quo vis-à-vis Gaza cannot go on. Egypt, Qatar and the American administration are willing to enlist and broker talks, each with its own interests, but without a bold Israeli plan, which includes security risks as well, no good will come out of these efforts.

On Tuesday, at around midnight, the feeling among Israel’s decision makers was that we are not yet done: there is a need to deal Hamas and Islamic Jihad a few more blows to guarantee deterrence. Egypt has offered itself to help achieve a ceasefire.

A senior source on the ground described to me the chain of events on the Gaza front in the past few days. The obvious conclusion is that we may have been too successful. Three days ago, the IDF killed three Islamic Jihad terrorists near the fence; two days ago, the IDF killed two Hamas operatives. Islamic Jihad has a score to settle with the IDF. It has yet to avenge the death of 12 of its members in a terror tunnel last October. The IDF believes the two first barrages, at 7am Tuesday, were fired by Islamic Jihad without any coordination with Hamas.

The barrages were fired at the Gaza border communities. The Iron Dome and warning systems performed very well. One civilian was lightly wounded on the Israeli side.

The Air Force responded by attacking Islamic Jihad and Hamas targets in the strip. Following the airstrikes, Hamas started firing rockets. The IDF believes it was dragged into it: Its leaders were criticized in Gaza for their restraint and were afraid to be left behind. The Air Force responded with a series of additional airstrikes.

A mortar shell fired from Gaza. Hamas is being selective (Photo: Roee Idan)

The day of fire in the south brings up a number of surprising facts: One, Hamas and Jihad fired mortar shells and rockets at the Gaza border communities, but avoided launching medium-range and long-range rockets. The conclusion on our side was clear: Hamas is being selective. It doesn’t want an escalation like Protective Edge or Cast Lead.

The IAF bombed dozens of targets. The mushroom clouds were impressive, but according to reports from Gaza, no one was killed or wounded. This shows that Israel, like Hamas, is choosing a limited conflict. Both sides are trying to play by the rules.

There is a big risk involved, however. If the mortar shell that hit a kindergarten in one of the Gaza border communities had been fired several minutes later, children and their parents would have been hurt and there would have been no escape from a ground offensive in Gaza. Both sides are walking on the precipice.

The conclusion is that the events shouldn’t be judged based on the rhetoric or the intention. It should be judged based on the results. And the results don’t depend on the decision makers alone, in Tel Aviv or in Gaza. Sometimes, they depend on chance or on luck.

As it continues its activity in the air, the IDF is also preparing for riots on the fence. Givati fighters have replaced the Golani fighters. According to military estimates, the momentum of the “marches of return” is over, but the marches will continue and reach a renewed peak on June 5, Naksa Day (the day marking the Palestinian disaster in 1967).

The IDF took advantage of Tuesday’s events to destroy a tunnel uncovered in the strip two weeks ago. For the second time, the IDF uncovered a tunnel crossing three countries. The previous tunnel crossed from Gaza into Israel and ended in Sinai. The new tunnel crossed from Gaza into Sinai and ended in Israel. GOC Southern Command Eyal Zamir handed all the information about the tunnel to his colleagues on the Egyptian side. The expectation is that the Egyptians will deal with it on their territory.

The tunnel was dug in the past year, and they were still working on it in recent weeks. That is what's on Hamas’ list of priorities, and that’s what we have to deal with.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Gaza escalation: Both sides are walking on the precipice : https://ift.tt/2IUbOmK

Between Russia and Iran: Assad's comfortable position

Syria's situation is improving. In fact, if we look back, its situation hasn’t been better since 2011, when the civil war broke out.

Last week, the regime managed to clear the pockets of resistance around Damascus, scored (neither with Iran nor with Russia) success in Daraa, where the revolt against the regime had begun, and most importantly, Syrian President Bashar Assad has learned how to maneuver between the Russians and the Iranians. He isn’t bothering the Russians, and their army is helping him expand his rule inside Syria.

With the Iranians, who see themselves as part of the regime, things are more complicated. If Hezbollah does pull its forces out of Syria in the coming days or weeks, as reported, it could start a new story. For Israel too. According to sources in Syria, Hezbollah is already preparing to resettle in Lebanon.

Assad and Putin. As far as the Russians are concerned, there is no better president than him (Photo: Reuters)

Pay attention to Assad: Since the revolt against him broke out, his situation hasn’t been this comfortable, although there is still a long way to go before he can declare sovereignty all over Syria. There are areas Russia has settled in, mainly the seaports, with no intention or plans to leave. And there are Syrian areas where the Iranian Gendarmerie has settled, directed primarily against Israel.

It’s clear to Assad, just like it’s clear to the Russians, that Israel’s eyes are everywhere. As soon as it detects a movement of Iranian military forces, Israel does not hesitate to attack.

On the one hand, the Russians aren’t intervening and aren’t disrupting Israel’s aerial activity in Syria; on the other hand, they aren’t preventing the Iranians from operating inside Syria against Israel. But as long as Iran is in Syria, so is Israel.

In his talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the main topic discussed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the Iranian involvement in Syria. It’s unclear, however, if the Russians have any interest in informing the Iranians about Israel’s plans.

It’s possible that Putin is keeping quiet, and it’s possible that he’s relaying the comments as is, more or less, to the Iranian side—and “you decide on your own what to do.”

Assad and Rouhani. As long as Iran is in Syria, so is Israel (Photos: AP, EPA)

According to reports from Syria, the plan is to get the Iranian army to pull out. The idea is that Russia will remain in Syria alone. The question isn’t just when, but also what form the Iranian presence in Syria will take in the future, and will this presence bother Israel.

Iran, for its part, has declared that it has no plans to leave Syria: “We’ll remain as long as the regime asks us to.” At the moment, they have 70,000 soldiers in uniform in Syria and others in plain clothes.

Assad doesn’t need the foreign forces to pull out just yet. He understands the Russians are there to stay, and he has no interest in confronting the Iranians at this time. As far as he’s concerned, the Iranians can continue their war against Israel from Syria. After all, he knows Russia is willing to do almost anything to keep him in power. As far as they’re concerned, there is no better president.

We should pay attention to the fact that for the first time since the civil war broke out, Assad has almost completely gotten rid of the Islamic State. The Turks are sitting on his tail here and there in the north, but not dramatically.

There are areas, mainly in the medium-sized cities, which still have forces from the Syrian opposition, but they are quiet these days. The Kurds are building a certain area for themselves in the north, but they might not survive, as the Syrian army could reach them too.

The United States, meanwhile, calling on the Iranians and Hezbollah to pull their forces out of Syria, and Assad isn’t responding. “It’s not even on our agenda,” Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad stated.

Israel, until the next agenda, will remain a threat in Syria and continue its airstrikes. In the end, the assumption that Russia will broker the negotiations between Iran and Israel in the Syrian context may be fulfilled. After all, it has good relations with both sides.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Between Russia and Iran: Assad's comfortable position : https://ift.tt/2LwNncR

Looking back, Gaza pullout was a mistake

The recent developments on the Gaza border lead to a grim political conclusion: The experiment called the disengagement failed.

Gaza isn’t controlled by the Palestinian Authority, as the supporters of the disengagement—myself included—expected. Gaza was basically handed over to Hamas, which failed to establish a civilian government there. Instead, it established a wild military regime seeking conflicts and lacking any civilian goals. Israel, for its part, tried to rid itself of Gaza, suffocate it and hand it over to Egyptian responsibility.

At the end of the day, neither option was implemented: Gaza is stuck in our throats, today more than ever. The conflict isn’t over. It has worsened, and it likely won’t end on its own.

The experiment called the disengagement failed (Photo: Roni Shitzer)

The disengagement wasn’t an initiative of the “peace camp”; it was the personal initiative of late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. On paper, it seemed like the right solution—the beginning of a process to end the occupation. That’s how it was presented by Sharon too.

But immediately after Israel pulled out of there, it turned out the strip wouldn’t be like Singapore—but rather like Benghazi. The Hamas militias had no interest in an organized transfer of the production and real estate assets Israel had left behind. They preferred to build training camps in greenhouses than grow tomatoes there. And the PA vanished from the area. That sealed the enclave’s fate.

The economic, social and security situation in Gaza has deteriorated in the years that have passed since the disengagement: Thousands of Gazans have been killed in three wars against Israel, tens of thousands have been wounded, and an unknown number have died due to lack of water, electricity and basic medical services. On the Israeli side, many soldiers and civilians have been killed, communities have been damaged and billions have been invested in fortification and in protecting the border.

Our siege worsened the crisis in the strip but didn’t create it. It was created by the fact that the Gazans’ fate was placed—or rather deserted—in the hands of a cruel, violent, illegal and incompetent Islamic terror organization, which was unprepared to rule as a responsible government. Nevertheless, many Israelis, including senior IDF officers, saw it as the lesser of two evils. So did many European and Arab politicians, who didn’t lift a finger to loosen its grip.

Now, tens of thousands of Gazans are protesting under slogans that not a single Israeli can accept or identify with. They’re not protesting against the occupation, against the siege or against the US Embassy’s move to Jerusalem, as the Western media are wrongly reporting; they are protesting against the actual existence of a Jewish state. And we are responding with cruel live fire. We are firing without crying. They are dying without crying. They have nothing to lose apart from a miserable and hopeless existence. It’s a terrible reality. And the hatred is breaking new records.

Last week's riots on the Gaza border. A protest against the existence of a Jewish state (Photo: EPA)

Looking back, the disengagement was a mistake. I admit I was wrong to support it, although I had my reservations. Had Israel remained in Gaza, the economic gap between the Palestinians in the strip and the Palestinians in the West Bank would have been narrowed, and a solution would have been found for the transfer of goods and people between Gaza and Hebron. The PA would have maintained its rule—and would have even grown stronger. Tens of thousands of Gazans would be working in Israel, as they did in the past, and the level of violence would have dropped.

What now? Israel won’t reoccupy Gaza, but Israel can serve as a critical element in jumpstarting an international move to free the strip of Hamas and restore the PA's rule. We must, therefore, turn to the Arab League and the European Union countries immediately and call for a comprehensive initiative that would include ending the siege, disarming Hamas, opening the crossings between Gaza and Egypt and bringing the PA back to the strip as the only legitimate government.

Because as long as Israel continues the siege, as long as Hamas continues the terror regime, as long as Egypt remains indifferent and the PA keeps enjoying the bloodshed, no one will be willing to invest the billions of dollars needed to reconstruct Gaza—critical investments which will open a window of hope for the strip’s residents, slightly ease their despair and cool the boiling atmosphere. The vicious circle of bloodshed won’t stop turning on its own. On the contrary, its rounds will only hasten and become more frequent—and more disastrous.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Looking back, Gaza pullout was a mistake : https://ift.tt/2LB5hef

A plan neglecting Gaza is no plan at all

The situation along the Gazan-Israeli border may have simmered down for now, but Gaza remains an economic failure, and the hopelessness and frustration of Gazans remains a powder keg that can explode into armed conflict at any time. Let me be clear. Israel is not at fault for this situation, but our image on the international stage is being compromised by the situation and the periodic eruption of violence. In just the past decade, Israel has fought three armed conflicts in Gaza, and cities in southern and central Israel have come under Gazan rocket fire repeatedly. That is not a normal situation.

Riots on Gaza border (Photo: EPA)

Some commentators hold that Israel can live with and manage such a dynamic in the long run. But accepting this unstable status quo is not the only option. We must consider new solutions. Not doing so would beget a reality in which Israelis constantly have to wonder when the next round in Gaza will take place. That is not to say that Israel must needlessly expose itself to a bad plan, but that wisdom and morality require us always to weigh the alternatives to war. In mainstream Israeli discourse, two options are discussed: 1) Managing the situation, or 2) toppling Hamas and reconquering Gaza. As a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division, I understand why Israel is reluctant to move back into Gaza. Unlike the current generation of IDF commanders operating along the Gazan border, I commanded soldiers deep inside Gaza.

(Photo: EPA)

We patrolled refugee camps such as Jabaliya and Khan Younis, and had to deal with violence ranging from rock throwing youths, to masked gunmen, to terrorists planting explosives against troops and civilians. But my interaction with Gazans went beyond the military dimension, and included a frank dialogue with civilians, giving me a glimpse into their lives. And what I learned is that living in Gaza is a disaster. Raising a family in such a place, where sewage flows between homes, where the blood of slaughtered animals runs down streets, where there is no economic development, is a study in hopelessness. Gaza is in essence a hermit state, with unemployment today at 44%, soaring to 61% among youth. According to the World Bank, 34% of Gazans live in poverty, surviving on less than two dollars a day. There are 5,555 Palestinians living on every square kilometer of Gaza. 95% percent of underground water reserves are polluted, and 97% of Gazan families buy their water from private vendors, at high prices. The time has come to put forth a new initiative: the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza and an adjoining section of the northern Sinai Peninsula. Such a state would enable economic growth along an expanded coastline and offer Gazans new hope, acting as a modern-day Marshall Plan. With the assistance of regional states and the international community, the Gazan powder keg can be made less explosive.

(Photo: AP)

A Gaza-Sinai state could only develop, however, with Egyptian support. Egypt would gain much—including regional stature and significant momentum to stamp out the threat it faces from ISIS, through the jobs and hope which development of the area would deliver, as well as through much needed international economic and military aid. Hamas could be tempted to go along with this initiative as well, since it would address a major pressure point on its rule, the failure to deliver economic solutions for the Gazan population. I have brought this plan before political leaders in the US and witnessed their receptiveness, providing an indication of its potential. The right policy makers are open to the idea.

(Photo: IDF's Spokesperson's Unit )

A Gaza-Sinai state stands a better chance of success than the current model of seeking to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank; a proposal that has drifted out of reach for many reasons, not the least of which is the Middle East’s chronic instability. With the risk of a West Bank state falling under the control of armed Islamists who would use it to fire on Israel’s population centers, it is not something I can endorse. Should it come to armed conflict in the south however, a state in Gaza-Sinai can be more easily defended against.

It is possible to find a realistic solution to the desperation of the people of Gaza. This desperation is not of Israel’s making, but it is our problem nonetheless. We must try to find a long-term arrangement that yields a better future for the people of Gaza, the region, and the people of Israel.

Brigadier-General Shmuel Tzuker (Res.) is a former commander of the Gaza Division, the Lebanon Division and the Judea & Samaria Division. He was designated Deputy Director General of Production and Procurement for the Israeli Ministry of Defense. He is a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

A plan neglecting Gaza is no plan at all : https://ift.tt/2ksNJEX

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

: https://ift.tt/2esBqp1

US pressure on Hezbollah may hamper Lebanese government

Growing US pressure on Lebanon's Iranian-backed Hezbollah group, including a new wave of sanctions targeting its top leadership, may hamper the formation of a new government that caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri was overwhelmingly chosen to form on Thursday.

Hariri's aim is to quickly recreate a national unity government that incorporates Hezbollah members to implement reforms and deal with a crippling and growing national debt, but might come under increasing pressure from the US and its Arab allies to shun the militant group which says it wants to play a bigger role in the future Cabinet.

After a day of consultations between President Michel Aoun and the country's 128 legislators, 111 named Hariri as their choice to form a new Cabinet while the rest, including Hezbollah's bloc and some of its allies, did not give a name. Hariri's nomination comes after this month's parliament elections in which Hezbollah, along with its political allies, significantly increased their presence in the legislature.

Hariri. 'I am open to all elements and never closed the door in front of anyone' (Photo: AFP)

"The least we should expect is huge complications over the formation of the Cabinet," said Nabil Bou Monsef, deputy editor-in-chief of the leading daily An-Nahar. He said Lebanon is again in the heart of the US-Iran conflict and this will lead to "complications over the government that will be caused by conditions and counter conditions."

Despite soaring regional tensions, Hariri appeared optimistic after he was named to form the Cabinet.

"I extend my hand to all political elements. We should work together to achieve what the Lebanese people are looking for," Hariri told reporters.

Asked if there will be a veto on Hezbollah's participation, Hariri said "I only heard that from the Lebanese media. This is the first time I hear it." Hariri added: "I am open to all elements and never closed the door in front of anyone."

Hezbollah, which has 13 seats in the 128-member legislature, did not name its own candidate for the premiership as it has done in the past—signaling it will likely go along with Hariri's re-appointment despite tense relations between the Iran-allied Shiite group and the Western-backed Hariri.

A UN-backed tribunal has indicted five Hezbollah members in the 2005 assassination of Hariri's father and former premier Rafik Hariri. Hezbollah denies the charges.

"We have confirmed our readiness to take part in the next government and to deal positively with whomever is named by the majority," Mohammed Raad, who heads Hezbollah's bloc in parliament, said after meeting Aoun.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Senior organization official says Saudis 'can't prevent Hezbollah from holding important portfolios in the government'

Naming Hariri came amid concerns in Lebanon that a new wave of sanctions by the US and its Arab allies against Hezbollah would delay Hariri's formation of the Cabinet.

The increasing pressures by the US and its Arab allies on Hezbollah come amid rising tensions in the region following President Donald Trump's decision earlier this month to withdraw Washington from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and the militant group's gains in the May 6, parliamentary elections.

On Monday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tehran should end its support of Hezbollah, Iran's most powerful arm in the region.

"We will track down Iranian operatives and their Hezbollah proxies operating around the world and crush them," Pompeo said.

The US has been imposing sanctions on the militant group for decade. However, a new wave last week appears to be more serious about targeting the group's top leadership as well as businessmen and companies that Washington says are funding the group that is heavily involved in Syria's seven-year war, providing strong military backing for President Bashar Assad's forces.

The sanctions reflect the battle between the US and its allies against Iran, which has expanded its influence in the Arab world in recent years. Tehran enjoys wide influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and last year opened a land corridor from its border through Iraq and Syria all the way to the Mediterranean.

On May 16, the US and the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council that includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman imposed sanctions on 10 top Hezbollah officials including its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, his deputy Naim Kassem and top officials Hashem Safieddine, Ibrahim Aim al-Sayyed, Hussein Khalil and Mohammed Yazbek.

A day later, Washington imposed sanctions on businessman Mohammed Ibrahim Bazzi and Hezbollah's representative in Iran, Abdullah Safieddine, as well as several companies in Europe, Africa and Lebanon saying they launder money for the group.

The six GCC countries and the US consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization while the European Union only labels its military wing as a terrorist group.

"This action highlights the duplicity and disgraceful conduct of Hezbollah and its Iranian backers. Despite Nasrallah's claims, Hezbollah uses financiers like Bazzi who are tied to drug dealers, and who launder money to fund terrorism," said Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin in a statement.

"The savage and depraved acts of one of Hezbollah's most prominent financiers cannot be tolerated. This Administration will expose and disrupt Hezbollah and Iranian terror networks at every turn, including those with ties to the Central Bank of Iran," he said.

Hezbollah supporers celebrate election results (Photo: Reuters)

Hariri said earlier this week that the sanctions will not hinder the formation of a new Cabinet but on the contrary might accelerate it.

On Sunday, outgoing cabinet minister Marwan Hamadeh, a Hariri ally, said that sanctions on Hezbollah would "hamper the formation of the government."

Senior Hezbollah official Nabil Kaouk said Saudi Arabia does not want his group to be represented in the government, adding that the coming days will prove that the kingdom "is weak and cannot prevent Hezbollah from holding important portfolios in the government."

A Saudi envoy said during a visit to Lebanon over the weekend that the kingdom does not interfere in the country's internal politics and supports the stability of Lebanon.

Hezbollah's allies are strongly standing behind the organization's representation in the new Cabinet.

"The party should be represented in the new government. This is not negotiable," said Foreign Minister Gibran Bassil, who heads the Free Patriotic Movement that has the largest bloc in parliament, about Hezbollah.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

US pressure on Hezbollah may hamper Lebanese government : https://ift.tt/2kqP27c

Livingstone's resignation does not exonerate Jeremy Corbyn

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Op-ed: The former mayor's resignation from the Labour Party saved its leader from having to directly confront the concerns of anti-Semitism, and Corbyn's statements after the decision only reflect his reluctance to tackle the problem. Livingstone's resignation does not exonerate Jeremy Corbyn : https://ift.tt/2GKYNpO

Why Israelis should welcome foreign funding of their NGOs

This June, nongovernmental organizations in Israel receiving 50 percent or more of their funding from foreign governments will have to advertise the fact in publications, in correspondence with government officials, and prior to giving testimony at the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. To be sure, this is an improvement over the original bill, which would have required NGO representatives to wear an identification badge at the Knesset. But the law still seeks to stigmatize these organizations—and the many others that fall below the 50-percent threshold. Its underlying logic is that human rights-promoting NGOs are un-Israeli, foreign-imposed, and nefarious. This measure should not be viewed in isolation, in Israel or beyond. Within Israel, leading politicians regularly attack rights-promoting organizations as disloyal. Young people performing “national service,” in lieu of the military draft, can no longer volunteer for B’Tselem. Numerous bills are slowly making their way through the Knesset that seek to hamstring such organizations and curtail their funding streams, such as by subjecting their foreign donations to crippling taxes.

Israelis protest NGO law outside Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked's home (Photo: Motti Kimchi)

Nor is Israel alone in targeting civil society organizations funded from abroad. From Russia to Ethiopia to India to Hungary, dozens of governments, authoritarian and democratic alike, have been cracking down on foreign support of local liberal NGOs. From 1993 to 2012, according to one study, 39 of the world’s 153 low and middle-income countries passed new restrictions on foreign funding to locally operating NGOs. More have imposed restrictions since then. Funding from private foundations, like the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations, as well as sundry national aid agencies, was once welcomed warmly. No longer. It would clearly be better—for these organizations and for the societies they serve—if they could attract sufficient funding at home. But, outside the West, progressive civil society still relies heavily on foreign funding. In Nigeria, one study estimated that over 90 percent of local human rights NGOs’ funding came from foreign sources. In Ethiopia, the number of domestic human rights NGOs plummeted after a 2010 law limited how much money they could take from abroad. It’s not that ordinary people beyond the West do not favor human rights: opinion surveys show that they do. It’s that they have little experience financially supporting civil society organizations outside of faith-based social service providers.

Critics’ arguments against the foreign funding of local civil society are intuitive, but flawed. First, many argue that foreign funding is undemocratic because it contradicts the principle of government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” From this perspective, civil society, progressive or otherwise, is legitimate only when it can raise funds at home. NGOs relying on foreign funding, however, pervert the will of the people.

But what we know about the practice of democracy, as opposed to its idealized theory, casts doubt on the notion that either the national debate or policy outcomes in democracy truly reflect the will of the masses. After all, most people in most countries in most elections choose not to exercise their most basic political right: The vote. Most people do not have the time, resources, or inclination to learn what they need to know about the issues or their leaders’ performance. What people want, moreover, is often subject to how elites and the media “frame” issues and policy options. As a result, the policies democracies pursue, on issues ranging from taxation to foreign policy, typically accord not with the preferences of the average citizen, but with those of the wealthy and powerful and concentrated special interests. In these all-too-common circumstances, foreign-funded NGOs can give a voice to the voiceless, to the unrepresented and powerless. In other words, foreign-funded NGOs can make democracy more meaningfully democratic.

Justice Minister Shaked at the Knesset during vote on NGO law (Photo: Yoav Dudkevitch)

The second argument sees accepting foreign funding as tantamount to treason. By funding local NGOs, giving their ideas unwarranted prominence, and underwriting their activities, foreign government donors seek to shift the target government’s policies and serve their own interests. No matter how sincere local activists, their heavy reliance on external aid means that they are “foreign agents” advancing the interests of other countries. These critics generally see foreign government funding of local NGOs as more pernicious than funding by foreign private individuals or foundations. Foreign government interference in national politics is often troubling. With good reason, Westerners have railed against surreptitious Russian meddling in their elections. Many Israelis, Russians, and Indians see Western countries’ support of liberal NGOs as equally an unwarranted intrusion. But there is a crucial difference. Local human rights activists, even when funded primarily by foreign governments, are authentic products of their society and are pursuing their own principled ideals. Unlike classic “foreign agents,” they are not working as lobbyists for a foreign government, nor are they taking orders from foreign officials. In most cases, foreign funding simply amplifies real local voices—Israeli voices—calling for political change. Foreign aid cannot create a progressive NGO sector from scratch. And these pro-human rights Israelis are often politically under-represented. Foreign money supporting organizations like the Association of Civil Rights in Israel does not undermine Israeli democracy. It makes up for Israel’s democratic deficits.

Local NGOs in Israel and elsewhere must work much harder to cultivate domestic support, both financial and political. The stronger their local financial base, the better local NGOs can weather global economic storms and combat domestic scapegoating. And the relative ease of acquiring foreign funding can prompt local NGOs to invest scarce resources nurturing a network abroad, rather than at home.

Still, if domestic support is lacking, foreign funding should be welcomed by all defenders of democracy in Israel. Israeli democracy should not be reduced to free and fair elections. At the heart of democracy lies the idea that competition among meaningful alternatives generates better policy outcomes, or at least helps governments avoid the really bad ones. Choices are not meaningful if the political system, time after time, produces the same governing coalition and policies. Alternatives are not meaningful if the scope of legitimate politics is so narrow that a new party in power would produce no substantial policy change. Formal rights to free speech are merely a means to the end of free-wheeling policy competition. If real alternatives can’t get a hearing due to a lack of local funding, then the Israeli marketplace of ideas is impoverished. Israelis should not fear foreign funding of local NGOs—even, perhaps especially, when it bolsters those organizations advocating unpopular causes. It can be good not only for these organizations, but also for the health of democratic politics. Sometimes, democracy can get by only with a little help from its foreign friends.

Ronald R. Krebs is Beverly and Richard Fink Professor in the Liberal Arts and Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota. He is the author most recently of Narrative and the Making of US National Security.

James Ron is Harold E. Stassen Chair of Public Affairs and Political Science at the University of Minnesota. He is the coauthor most recently of Taking Root: Human Rights and Public Opinion in the Global South.

An earlier version of this op-ed was published in the Lawfare blog.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Why Israelis should welcome foreign funding of their NGOs : https://ift.tt/2x6AGC7

Palestinian plea to ICC could speed up war crime probe

The Palestinians on Tuesday asked the International Criminal Court to open an immediate investigation into Israeli practices in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip—setting off a process that they hope will culminate with war crimes accusations against Israeli leaders.

The step drew Israeli condemnation and worsened already poor relations between the sides.

The step, known as a state party referral, seeks an investigation into Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, as well as Israeli military activity in the Gaza Strip, including the recent killing of dozens of Palestinians during mass protests along the border. The Palestinians seek all three areas, captured by Israel in 1967, for a future independent state.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, Palestinian President Abbas and International Criminal Court in The Hague (Photos: EPA, Getty Images, Emil Salman))

Here is a closer look at the Palestinian move and its implications. Peace talks have been frozen since 2014, and the Palestinians have little faith in the Trump administration, which they view as unfairly biased toward Israel. The immediate spark was anger that President Donald Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem last week. The Palestinians believe the step undercuts their own claims to east Jerusalem. The Gaza bloodshed raised additional pressure on the Palestinian leadership to take action. US officials have promised to unveil a long-awaited peace proposal in the coming weeks. But the Palestinians have already said they will not accept the US as a mediator. Although the Palestinians do not have independence, the state of Palestine was recognized as a nonmember state by the UN General Assembly in a landmark 2012 vote. This upgraded status has allowed the Palestinians to join dozens of international institutions, including the ICC. Under the terms of their membership, the Palestinians asked the court to investigate Israeli practices going back to June 2014, when they first accepted ICC jurisdiction. The ICC has been conducting a preliminary probe since 2015 into alleged crimes in the Palestinian territories, including Israel’s settlement policy and crimes allegedly committed by Israel and the Hamas militant group in the 2014 Gaza conflict. Tuesday’s referral could speed up a decision on whether to open a full-blown investigation, which could ultimately lead to the indictment of high-ranking Israelis. Foreign Minister Riad Malki asked the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, to look into two primary issues: Israeli settlement construction and Israeli military activity in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

Foreign Minister Riad Malki (Photo: EPA)

The Palestinians have long objected to the settlements—accusing Israel of gobbling up their land to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Over 600,000 Israelis now live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, a number that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to uproot. International law prohibits the transfer of civilian populations to occupied territories, and the international community overwhelmingly views the settlements as illegal. The Palestinians also want action taken against Israel for the deaths of several thousand Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, during three wars between Israel and Hamas. Over the past month and a half, over 100 Palestinians were killed and hundreds more wounded by Israeli fire during mass protests along the Gaza border. Some 60 people were killed last Monday alone—in protests meant to coincide with the opening of the new US Embassy. Israel annexed east Jerusalem after capturing it in 1967 and considers it an inseparable part of its capital. But that position is not internationally recognized. It claims the West Bank is not occupied because it was captured from Jordan, and not the Palestinians. Since Jordan has relinquished its claim to the territory, Israel says the area is disputed, and its fate should be decided through negotiations. Concerning the recent bloodshed in Gaza, Israel has accused the territory’s Hamas rulers of using a series of recent mass protests as a cover for attacks and endangering civilians by using them as human shields.

Recent Gaza border protest (Photo: AFP)

Some of the protesters have burned tires, thrown firebombs or tried to break through the fence. But human rights groups say Israel’s open-fire orders are unlawful because they allow the use of potentially lethal force against unarmed protesters at times when soldiers, firing from protected positions on the other side of the border fence, face no imminent threat to their lives. The ICC is a court of last resort. It is authorized to take on cases that national authorities cannot or will not prosecute. Israel is not a member of the ICC, and claims it has an independent judiciary capable of investigating any potential wrongdoing by its troops. But rights groups have repeatedly accused the military of whitewashing investigations. The Palestinians feel their case against the settlements is especially strong, thanks to a previous advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice and statements by other international bodies that settlements are illegal. Although Israel doesn’t accept the court’s jurisdiction, its leaders could still be charged by the court. That would make them subject to international arrest warrants, making it difficult for them to travel abroad.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Palestinian plea to ICC could speed up war crime probe : https://ift.tt/2LkOhJf

We, the secular Jerusalemites

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Op-ed: In Jerusalem, you get to experience real pluralism, for all its degrees and downfalls. The capital’s unique situation offers its secular residents the opportunity to fully live out their secularity, more so than their counterparts in other cities in Israel. We, the secular Jerusalemites : https://ift.tt/2k8FI7X

Bitter disappointment and diplomatic achievements at UNHRC

Even though Israel didn't officially announce it will not cooperate with the investigation of the UN Human Rights Council into the deaths of protesters in Gaza, it is highly unlikey Jerusalem would agree to take part. While 29 countries voted on Friday in favor of a commission of inquiry, 14 abstained and only two opposed—Israel considers the mandate the UNHRC gave itself to be entirely draconian, and claims it has already set its goal: to investigate the wrongs perpetrated against Palestinian civilians who held protests in the Gaza Strip, which resulted in the violation of international law, to the point of committing war crimes. The UNHRC's decision instructs the commission to investigate "individual criminals" who were responsible for the crimes, including commanders. In other words, the commission will seek to investigate IDF soldiers and commanders who carried out intentional fire against the protesters. The council members don't just want to launch an investigation, but stress under article 5 of the resolution that the goal is to probe IDF commanders—something Israel cannot allow.

The UN Human Rights Council (Photo: AFP)

 The Human Rights Council passed the resolution despite Hamas's admission that 50 of the 61 killed in the clashes on Monday were members of the terror group. This isn't the first time the council decides to establish an inquiry commission or a fact-finding team. Israel boycotted previous commissions as well: The Schabas Commission to investigate Operation Protective Edge and the Goldstone Commission that investigated Operation Cast Lead—both were denied entry to Israel. William Schabas, who probed Protective Edge, had to work from Jordan.

Israel's envoy to the UN Human Rights Council, Aviva Raz-Shechter (Photo: AFP)

The report by the commission of inquiry will have no practical ramifications on the ground. The damage will be mostly diplomatic and to Israel's reputation. But this time Israel's starting point is better than in the previous two commissions. Generally, the world accepts the Israeli narrative that Hamas is behind the protests and sends its own demonstrators to bring down the border fence—something no nation in the world would've allowed. Israel's main problem is mostly in PR. How can it explain the high death toll to the world? Over 100 dead and thousands wounded on the Palestinian side, compared to zero casualties on the Israeli side. So even though the report will have no practical ramifications, it could serve as a legal basis for lawsuits against IDF officers and Israeli officials at the International Criminal Court at The Hague. But similar suits were filed in the past and have yet to be examined. Israel is not a member of the UN Human Rights Council, but its ally the United States is, and it too has been considering for a while now to quit the international body. But Israel actually expects the Americans to stay in the UNHRC in the foreseeable future, at least until the next High Commissioner is elected to replace Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein, so Washington could influence the selection of his successor.

UNHRC High Commissioner Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein (Photo: AFP)

Furthermore, after the commission submits its report to the Human Rights Council, the member states still need to approve and adopt it—and the United States' presence is particularly important to Israel to balance the resolutions expected down the road. US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, slammed the council over the decision to set up a commission of inquiry. "At a time when Venezuela lurches toward dictatorship, Iran imprisons thousands of political opponents, and ethnic cleansing has taken place in Burma, the UN's so-called Human Rights Council has decided to launch an investigation into a democratic country's legitimate defense of its own border against terrorist attacks," Haley said. "This is another shameful day for human rights." Israel will have to decide in the coming weeks how to response to the vote of several countries—including members of the European Union—that voted in favor of the commission of inquiry. Israel has made quite a bit of effort to convince the seven European members of the council to vote against the resolution and thus undermine its legitimacy. Spain, Belgium and Slovenia have all decided to vote in favor of the resolution despite having tried and failed to add a clause recognizing Israel's right of self-defense.

It is safe to assume the disappointing vote will not go unanswered. Jerusalem is considering a harsh response, such as summoning the ambassadors of the countries that voted in favor the resolution for a reprimand.

Vote results

  

Germany and Britain disappointed Israel just as much by opting to abstain rather than oppose the resolution, which Israel considers to be disgraceful. It is likely the Germans are seeking to avoid any additional division in the EU in the midst of the Brexit crisis. The British ambassador did propose to form an Israeli commission of inquiry with international representatives, but his proposal was rejected. Three additional European countries abstained—Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia.

The Foreign Ministry will also have to find answers for the stinging insult from Mexico, which voted in favor of the resolution, even though it has recently changed its anti-Israeli voting patterns—voting with Israel or abstaining from several important votes. Israel is also bitterly disappointed with the Philippines, which voted in favor of the resolution even though the country is considered very friendly towards Israel under President Rodrigo Duterte.

There was, however, some comfort in the choice made by four African countries to abstain from the vote—Ethiopia, Rwanda, Togo and Kenya—which is considered an achievement of Israeli diplomacy, as do the abstentions of Japan, South Korea, Georgia and Panama—whose president is currently visiting Israel.

Ukraine, which in December 2016 voted in favor of the UN Security Council's Resolution 2334 against Israeli settlements, sparking a diplomatic crisis with Israel, chose this time to rectify the damage by missing the vote along with Mongolia. Australia, a country very friendly towards Israel, also deserves praise for choosing to vote against the resolution along with the United States.

But this isn't the only trouble for Israel on the international stage these days. Kuwait has submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council calling for an international force to be deployed to the Gaza Strip to protect the Palestinians, and the council is expected to discuss the matter on Monday. Even if the Kuwaiti are able to get the nine required votes to pass a resolution in the council—which is not a sure thing—the United States will veto it.

In such a case, Kuwait could choose to take the resolution to the UN General Assembly, where it has an automatic majority to pass any resolution it wants. Luckily for Israel, the General Assembly has no way of enforcing the anti-Israeli decision it approves.

The bottom line is that while the UNHRC resolution was not pleasant for Israel, it's not the end of the world. Israel shouldn't panic in light of the impressive backing from the US and the relatively small diplomatic damage from the events on the Gaza border. The crisis with Turkey was to be expected, mostly due to the upcoming elections in which Turkish President Erdoğan wants to reposition himself as the leader of a regional power.

South Africa was the only country apart from Turkey to recall its ambassador for consultations. But South Africa has no real influence, and it is not considered an "important country." If after 60 dead on the Gaza border only two Israeli ambassadors were summoned for a reprimand (the ambassador to Ireland and the ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg), Israel can breathe easy.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Bitter disappointment and diplomatic achievements at UNHRC : https://ift.tt/2IutJAp

If you do it, it is not a dream

In an announcement of the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in an interview on May 11, and in a speech at the inauguration of the US Embassy in Jerusalem, President Donald Trump, Ambassador David Friedman and White House adviser Jared Kushner respectively said that the shift in US policy toward Jerusalem will advance peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

If the absurdity of this claim isn’t obvious, one need look no further than the footage from Gaza that served as the backdrop to the Kushner speech to grasp that if a new day is dawning, it is a very black day indeed.

The grotesque juxtaposition of the festivities in Jerusalem with the carnage in Gaza made it abundantly clear that for dozens of Palestinians, the “journey to peace” portrayed by Kushner had already ended in the morgue.

President Trump and the Gaza clashes. Many Palestinians 'journey to peace' has already ended—in a morgue (Photo: AP, AFP)

Heaping praise on his father-in-law for being a man of his word, Kushner said that the embassy move recognizes what is good, what is right, and what is true.

Well, it isn’t good because it makes the attainment of a peace accord even more difficult, it isn’t right because it ignores the internationally accepted position that the city must be the capital of two states—with west Jerusalem the capital of Israel and east Jerusalem the capital of Palestine, but it certainly is true. And therein lies the rub.

Jared Kushner at the US Embassy inauguration. A ‘journey to peace’? (Photo: Amit Shabi)

With its recognition of the “realities” created by the Netanyahu government, the United States has effectively endorsed Israel’s policy of creating facts on the ground to obstruct the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

The realities include 50 years of occupation, hundreds of thousands of settlers on Palestinian lands and legislative initiatives to retroactively legalize their land grabs, and expulsions and creeping annexation in the West Bank’s Area C.

President Trump may have said that his recognition of Jerusalem does not prejudice the question of the boundaries of Israeli sovereignty, but reports indicate that Israel is already working on a new reality that will extend its hold on the city by tying funding of Palestinian schools to their adoption of the Israeli curriculum.

And why not? In times when reality trumps international law, human rights, and justice, the Israeli juggernaut has been given the green light to roll ahead, twisting Herzl’s vision into a new concept of bullying according to which “If you do it, it is not a dream.”

 

Ambassador David Friedman. An absurd claim (Photo: Amit Shabi)

Ambassador Friedman claimed that crushing the Palestinians’ “fantasies” will bring stability to the region, but it is not their dreams alone that are fading, as the realities of the occupation win the Trump administration’s seal of approval.

The dream of a democratic State of Israel that “will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens” is dying, too. As its hold on the occupied territories expands and deepens, Israel will face a choice between losing its Jewish majority or becoming an apartheid state.

It is already well on the road to the latter, and Israel’s “ally” in the White House just gave it a big push forward.

Susie Becher is a member of the Meretz National Executive and managing editor of the Palestine-Israel Journal.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

If you do it, it is not a dream : https://ift.tt/2wNr3Iu

Why Israel shouldn’t slam the door on its ties with Turkey

If anyone is looking for a proper metaphor to describe the deep rift in Israel’s relations with Turkey in recent days, I would like to suggest the comment I heard Tuesday evening from a senior official who took part in maintaining the strategic ties between the two countries: “We have reached the precipice,” he said, “and neither side should jump.”

On the one hand, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accuses Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of having the blood of Palestinians on his hands. On the other hand, Netanyahu replies that Erdogan is the last person who can preach to Israel, being responsible for the massacre of Kurdish citizens in Turkey and Syria.

On the one hand, Turkey expels our ambassador from Ankara, and on the other hand, Israel responds by sending the Turkish consul in east Jerusalem home.

Erdogan and Netanyahu. The crisis with Turkey is part of an overall front launched against Israel in recent days in Europe, Asia and South Africa (Photos: EPA, AFP)

Here are a few facts we should be aware of before we stop playing by the rules with Ankara, which will explain why we should sometimes grind our teeth and carry on instead of slamming the door shut.

First of all, two years ago Netanyahu agreed—despite the objection of many of his ministers—to pay $21 million to the families of the Turkish citizens killed in the 2010 IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara ship. The agreement led to a reconciliation between the two countries and included a Turkish promise to drop the court cases against the IDF leaders and the soldiers who were involved in the raid.

Second, a major portion of the oil supply to Israel from former Soviet countries arrives in Israel through pipes passing through Turkey.

Third, Turkey complies with the Israeli intelligence community’s requests to prevent Hamas leaders and others from executing terror attacks against Israeli targets around the world.

Fourth, Israel has highly important economic interests in which the Turkish government encourages cooperation.

On the other hand, Erdogan is trying to violate the status quo concerning Islam’s holy sites in Jerusalem. He sees himself as an Islamic leader trying to “steal the show” at the Temple Mount from the Palestinians and the Jordanians.

And there’s one more thing which has to be taken into account when dealing with Erdogan: Several years ago, Israel was on the brink of a military conflict with Turkey, and IAF planes were on a course of collision with Turkish military aircraft.

The bottom line is that the crisis with Turkey is part of an overall front launched against Israel in recent days in Europe, Asia and South Africa. In other words, almost the entire world is against us. Netanyahu, in his position as foreign minister, has failed miserably in alleviating the international rage against Israel.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Why Israel shouldn’t slam the door on its ties with Turkey : https://ift.tt/2L8H27j

Israel’s PR failure on Gaza border fence

The international response to the deadly clashes along the Gaza border fence exposes a serious failure in Israeli public diplomacy.

Monday’s international news broadcasts and Tuesday morning’s newspaper headlines in Europe and in most countries of the free world point to a perceptual victory for Hamas and the Palestinian terror organizations operating in Gaza.

They managed, unchallenged, to sway the public opinion in Europe, North America, many countries in Asia and in Eastern Europe as well, into believing that the Palestinians who got hurt on the fence were “innocent protestors trying to break the siege on the Gaza Strip through non-violent protests” —a simple and catchy narrative backed by hours of video footage and thousands of still images from the Gazan side, raising it to the level of a heroic struggle by the Palestinian people against their oppressors.

A bloody day in Gaza, Monday (Photos: AFP, IDF Spokesperson's Unit)

This huge flow of visual information and interviews with Palestinian “protestors” on the fence and with Hamas speakers was countered, on the Israeli side, by a thin drizzle of several dozen still images which mean nothing to an inexperienced eye, as well as short clips—10 to 20 seconds—from security cameras and quadcopters and a few photographers from the “combat documentation” of the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit.

In a world where visual material and fake news are the main shapers of public opinion, volume is significant. And what happened on Monday was that the visual volume, which came entirely from the Palestinian side, struck a chord even those who are usually willing to listen to the Israeli arguments.

Alongside the preparations for the royal wedding, a “bloodbath” in Gaza on the Daily Mail’s front page

I watched Monday’s broadcasts on television, on news websites and on social media. Ninety percent of the feed came from the Palestinian side. Moreover, the foreign reporters were able to report without any disruptions, and the Palestinian “protestors” were eager to give interviews, pose for photographs and share what they had heard on Hamas’ media outlets that day.

The Independent links the US embassy opening to the events in Gaza

Sometimes, the interviews were held under the watchful eye of a Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad member who was listening from the side with his hands folded behind his back.

The embassy and Gaza in The Guardian too

More importantly, the photographers for the foreign reporters and the international and regional news agencies were Gazans, some of whom are declared Hamas members.

From the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, we received an unclear documentation from thermal imaging cameras, without any interviews with soldiers. The Israeli and foreign reporters who wanted to cover the events from the ground were assembled by the IDF spokesperson like a herd in observation spots located at least 2 kilometers from the fence, where they were unable to see a thing or receive close-up images (which poured in from Gaza in abundance). The information was also limited to what the IDF spokesperson was willing to release.

IDF Spokesperson Ronen Manelis (Photo: Motti Kimchi)

The IDF spokesperson could have also sent his combat documentation photographers to join the fighters on the front line, to closely document the Gazans storming the fences. Not just those who tried to carry out terror attacks, but those who placed the soldiers in a life-threatening situation or at risk of being kidnapped. But the combat documentation crew are apparently engaged in other things related to the IDF’s image.

While the IDF Spokesperson did have control over the information distributed, the State of Israel lost the public opinion battle. This defeat in the area of public diplomacy isn’t the first of its kind and likely won’t be the last either. Because IDF spokespeople throughout the generations—excluding Nachman Shai and Miri Regev—always favored the ability to control and manipulate the information coming out from Israel over the chance to actually influence the public opinion in Israel and around the world.

Family mourning eight-month-old Leila al-Ghandour, who allegedly suffocated by teargas (Photo: AFP)

So there were no Israeli reporters and photographers with the IDF forces who had to deal with the Gazans storming the fence Monday. They were at a safe distance from the fence, where they were in no danger of being hit by a rock or by a marble fired from a sling or, God forbid, inhaling teargas. The Israeli reporters and photographers wanted to get closer, they weren’t afraid, but the IDF spokesperson's unit decided where they should stand, making it impossible for them to see and document the crowds of Gazans sent by Hamas to commit suicide on the fence.

As a result, neither we nor the international media received images and firsthand testimonies illustrating the danger and the threat to the snipers and other IDF forces deployed along the fence.

Documentation of the events from the Palestinian side (Photo: AFP)

On the other hand, we got plenty of images and hours of video footage from the inauguration of the US ambassador’s office in Jerusalem, without any official or semi-official mention of what was going on at the same time on the Gaza fence, apart from a number of tweets from Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman which got lost in the general commotion.

It’s no wonder that all of Britain’s newspapers accepted the Palestinian narrative which said that the “non-violent protestors” on the Gaza strip fence, who were protesting against the opening of the American embassy in Jerusalem, were massacred by IDF soldiers. We brought this calamity upon ourselves. It’s our failure.

(Photo: AFP)

I’m not talking about the response from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who recalled his ambassador to Israel and expelled the Israeli ambassador and consul, or about the crowds that demonstrated in Turkey, or about Kuwait demanding a UN Security Council meeting, or about Egypt and South Africa and several other countries which automatically support everything Hamas does. We, the State of Israel, have failed in explaining a simple fact: The Gaza residents’ distress is first and foremost a result of Hamas’ insistence on maintaining its military wing and its ability to grow stronger undisturbed.

(Photo: AFP)

That’s the real reason the Palestinians who rioted on the fence died, and they did so in vain. If Hamas would at least agree to stop its military wing and the Islamic Jihad from building their strength, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would release the funds he restricted to Gaza, Israel would allow and execute major reconstruction projects in the strip and the Egyptians would agree to open the Rafah Crossing without limits.

But Hamas remained intransigent, and instead of investing funds in the Gazans’ welfare, it prefers to dig attack tunnels and produce missiles, while claiming to send people to their death on the fence to “break the siege.”

Israel’s failure in calling the bluff—first and foremost visually, but also content-wise—is creating public opinion damage which can’t be fixed by an American ambassador’s office moving to Jerusalem.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Israel’s PR failure on Gaza border fence : https://ift.tt/2Kxasuv