Jonathan Kay: Stephen Hawking should go to Israel — and Gaza. And this is what he should say
Provocative truths. - R.O.
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The Truth About Israeli Settlements
Caroline Glick is one of the top Israeli commentators on current events and issues in the Middle East. Her writing is published in the Jerusalem Post and around the world.
Last week she participated in a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared, where she argued against the proposition: "Israel is Destroying Itself with Its Settlement Policy: If settlement expansion continues, Israel will have no future."
In her opening remarks in the video below, Caroline Glick utterly destroys the premise of the proposition and systemically deconstructs commonly held views about Israel's "settlements" in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). This video is a must watch for anyone who considers themselves knowledgeable about the settlement topic. Also read Glick's post about the video here. - R.O.
Last week she participated in a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared, where she argued against the proposition: "Israel is Destroying Itself with Its Settlement Policy: If settlement expansion continues, Israel will have no future."
In her opening remarks in the video below, Caroline Glick utterly destroys the premise of the proposition and systemically deconstructs commonly held views about Israel's "settlements" in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). This video is a must watch for anyone who considers themselves knowledgeable about the settlement topic. Also read Glick's post about the video here. - R.O.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
We Ignore Islamism at Our Own Peril
For any avid foreign affairs reader, the distinction between Islam and Islamism is critical to properly understanding the drama of the Middle East. Moreover a full appreciation of what it is that defines these concepts will facilitate a much broader understanding of the threat facing Western and Arab powers alike. As we watch the violence unfolding in Syria, and the protests rising in Egypt, read the following article and carefully assess the distinction. - R.O.
Headlines to watch:
- Egyptian President's Defiant, Confrontational Speech
- Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order
- Islamic Fighters in Northern Syria Not United
- Assad faces life or death choice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islamology 101: What's the difference between Islam and Islamism?
By: Clifford D. May - Dec. 6, 2012 - National Review Online
 |
| White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan |
Google “Islamist” and you’ll get more than 24 million hits. Google “jihadist” and you’ll get millions more. Yet I bet the average American could not tell you what it is that Islamists and jihadists believe. And those at the highest levels of the U.S. government refuse to do so.
Why? John Brennan, the top counterterrorism adviser in the White House, argues that it is “counterproductive” to describe America’s “enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” To describe terrorists using “religious terms,” he adds, would “play into the false perception” that the “murderers” waging unconventional war against the West are doing so in the name of a “holy cause.”
I get it. I understand why it would be useful to convince as many of the world’s more than a billion Muslims as possible that Americans are only attempting to defend themselves against “violent extremists.” By now, however, it should be obvious that this spin — one can hardly call it analysis — has spun out. The unpleasant fact is that there is an ideology called Islamism and, as Yale professor Charles Hill recently noted, it “has been on the rise for generations.”
So we need to understand it. We need to understand how Islamism has unfolded from Islam, and how it differs from traditional Islam as practiced in places as far-flung and diverse as Kuala Lumpur, Erbil, and Timbuktu. This is what Bassam Tibi attempts in his most recent book, published this year, Islamism and Islam. It has received nowhere near the attention it deserves.
A Koret Foundation Senior Fellow at Stanford University, Tibi describes himself as an “Arab-Muslim pro-democracy theorist and practitioner.” Raised in Damascus, he has “studied Islam and its civilization for four decades, working in the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa.” His research has led him to this simple and stark conclusion: “Islamism is a totalitarian ideology.” And just as there cannot be “democratic totalitarianism,” so there cannot be “democratic Islamism.”
Brennan and other American and European officials are wrong, Tibi says, to fear that “fighting Islamism is tantamount to declaring all of Islam a violent enemy.” As for the Obama administration’s insistence that “the enemy is specifically, and only, al-Qaeda,” that, Tibi writes, “is far too reductive.”
Tibi also faults Noah Feldman, the young scholar who advised the Bush administration, and who insisted, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, that sharia, Islamic law, can be viewed as “Islamic constitutionalism.” Feldman failed to grasp the significance of the “Islamist claim to supremacy (siyadat al-Islam),” the conviction that Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists are inferior and that their inferiority should be reflected under the law and by government institutions.
Tibi makes this important distinction: All jihadists are Islamists, but not all Islamists are jihadists. In other words, not all Islamists are committed to violence, including terrorism, as the preferred means to achieve their goals. He asks: “Can we trust Islamists who forgo violence to participate in good faith within a pluralistic, democratic system?” He answers: “I believe we cannot.”
Chief among Islamist goals, Tibi writes, is al-hall al Islami, “the Islamic solution, a kind of magic answer for all of the problems — global and local, socio-economic or value-related — in the crisis-ridden world of Islam.” Islamists ignore the fact that such governance has been implemented, for example, in Iran for over more than 30 years, in Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Gaza under Hamas, and in Sudan. It has never delivered development, freedom, human rights, or democracy. As for Turkey, Tibi sees it as “not yet an Islamist state” but heading in that direction.
Tibi makes some arguments with which I’d quarrel. For example, he views Saudi religious/political doctrines as a “variety of Salafism (orthodox, traditional Islam) not Islamism.” I would counter that Salafism is a variant of Islamism, albeit one based not on the writings of Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, but on nostalgia for the glory days of the seventh century.
Nevertheless, the debate Tibi is attempting to initiate is necessary — and long overdue. During the Cold War there was a field of study known as Sovietology. It was taught in our most elite universities with strong U.S. government support.
Why isn’t Islamology — not Islamic theology, or “Muslim-Christian understanding,” or “Islamic thought” — a discipline today? For one, Tibi observes, because to “protect themselves against criticism, Islamists have invented the formula of ‘Islamophobia’ to defame their critics.” (How did Stalin not come up with Sovietophobia or Russophobia?) And of course if such slander fails to intimidate, there are other ways to shut people up: Tibi has “survived attempts on my life by jihadists.”
A second reason for the absence of Islamology: The U.S. government cannot back the study of an ideology it stubbornly insists does not exist. Finally, those who do fund anything to do with Islam on campus — for example, the Gulf petro-princes who have given tens of millions of dollars to Georgetown and Harvard — have a different agenda, one that does not include free and serious inquiry. We ignore what they are doing — and what Tibi is telling us — at great peril.
— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security.
Why? John Brennan, the top counterterrorism adviser in the White House, argues that it is “counterproductive” to describe America’s “enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” To describe terrorists using “religious terms,” he adds, would “play into the false perception” that the “murderers” waging unconventional war against the West are doing so in the name of a “holy cause.”
I get it. I understand why it would be useful to convince as many of the world’s more than a billion Muslims as possible that Americans are only attempting to defend themselves against “violent extremists.” By now, however, it should be obvious that this spin — one can hardly call it analysis — has spun out. The unpleasant fact is that there is an ideology called Islamism and, as Yale professor Charles Hill recently noted, it “has been on the rise for generations.”
So we need to understand it. We need to understand how Islamism has unfolded from Islam, and how it differs from traditional Islam as practiced in places as far-flung and diverse as Kuala Lumpur, Erbil, and Timbuktu. This is what Bassam Tibi attempts in his most recent book, published this year, Islamism and Islam. It has received nowhere near the attention it deserves.
A Koret Foundation Senior Fellow at Stanford University, Tibi describes himself as an “Arab-Muslim pro-democracy theorist and practitioner.” Raised in Damascus, he has “studied Islam and its civilization for four decades, working in the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa.” His research has led him to this simple and stark conclusion: “Islamism is a totalitarian ideology.” And just as there cannot be “democratic totalitarianism,” so there cannot be “democratic Islamism.”
Brennan and other American and European officials are wrong, Tibi says, to fear that “fighting Islamism is tantamount to declaring all of Islam a violent enemy.” As for the Obama administration’s insistence that “the enemy is specifically, and only, al-Qaeda,” that, Tibi writes, “is far too reductive.”
Tibi also faults Noah Feldman, the young scholar who advised the Bush administration, and who insisted, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, that sharia, Islamic law, can be viewed as “Islamic constitutionalism.” Feldman failed to grasp the significance of the “Islamist claim to supremacy (siyadat al-Islam),” the conviction that Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists are inferior and that their inferiority should be reflected under the law and by government institutions.
Tibi makes this important distinction: All jihadists are Islamists, but not all Islamists are jihadists. In other words, not all Islamists are committed to violence, including terrorism, as the preferred means to achieve their goals. He asks: “Can we trust Islamists who forgo violence to participate in good faith within a pluralistic, democratic system?” He answers: “I believe we cannot.”
Chief among Islamist goals, Tibi writes, is al-hall al Islami, “the Islamic solution, a kind of magic answer for all of the problems — global and local, socio-economic or value-related — in the crisis-ridden world of Islam.” Islamists ignore the fact that such governance has been implemented, for example, in Iran for over more than 30 years, in Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Gaza under Hamas, and in Sudan. It has never delivered development, freedom, human rights, or democracy. As for Turkey, Tibi sees it as “not yet an Islamist state” but heading in that direction.
Tibi makes some arguments with which I’d quarrel. For example, he views Saudi religious/political doctrines as a “variety of Salafism (orthodox, traditional Islam) not Islamism.” I would counter that Salafism is a variant of Islamism, albeit one based not on the writings of Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, but on nostalgia for the glory days of the seventh century.
Nevertheless, the debate Tibi is attempting to initiate is necessary — and long overdue. During the Cold War there was a field of study known as Sovietology. It was taught in our most elite universities with strong U.S. government support.
Why isn’t Islamology — not Islamic theology, or “Muslim-Christian understanding,” or “Islamic thought” — a discipline today? For one, Tibi observes, because to “protect themselves against criticism, Islamists have invented the formula of ‘Islamophobia’ to defame their critics.” (How did Stalin not come up with Sovietophobia or Russophobia?) And of course if such slander fails to intimidate, there are other ways to shut people up: Tibi has “survived attempts on my life by jihadists.”
A second reason for the absence of Islamology: The U.S. government cannot back the study of an ideology it stubbornly insists does not exist. Finally, those who do fund anything to do with Islam on campus — for example, the Gulf petro-princes who have given tens of millions of dollars to Georgetown and Harvard — have a different agenda, one that does not include free and serious inquiry. We ignore what they are doing — and what Tibi is telling us — at great peril.
— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Israel's irrationality is our fault
The article below is absolutely one of the best I've read all year about Israel's situation in the world today. A highly worthy read. - R.O.
Headlines to watch:
- NATO approves Turkey missile-defence system
Headlines to watch:
- NATO approves Turkey missile-defence system
- NATO warns Syria not to use chemical weapons
- Jerusalem rejects UN call to open nuke program to probe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel's irrationality is our fault - The Commentator
Israel's actions in expanding settlements is a direct result of being maligned and bullied by the international community, writes Executive Editor Raheem Kassam
Britain has a major problem and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is clearly tied up in knots about it.
On the one hand, you have a strong and legitimate will to solve the issue of Palestinian statehood. The problem isn't going away and last week's UN General Assembly vote cemented the fact that the international community wants, sooner rather than later, the Palestinian state to come into its own.
But in doing this in such a manner, decades of negotiations have effectively been defenestrated.
Many have argued that this is a good thing. After all, where have decades of negotiations led? Frankly, nowhere.
But it's naive and dishonest to argue that there are not rejectionists and appeasers in this scenario. That there has been equal will from both sides is a misnomer that is being propagated by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Calling Mahmoud Abbas, a man who presides over incitement, glorification of terrorism and deals with terrorists, a "courageous man of peace" is to move the goalposts distinctly away from Israel's favour.
The reality is that Israel's favour must come foremost in the equation. Before we hear the arguments why not, as we are sure there will be plenty in the comments section, let's consider why.
Israel remains the most legitimate, functioning, transparent and safe democracy in the region. There is little chance, as the considerations are made of its newly democratic neighbours, of Israel turning its back on this form of government that lends to enshrined freedoms not just for Jews, but for the many Christians, Muslims, Druze and Baha'i that live within Israel's borders.
This is also true for women. It is true for homosexuals. It is true for young and old, for rich and poor - Israel is a model for the region. If anyone can doubt this, they are free to name another, but a list of Israel's neighbours does nothing to detract from this statement. Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia Yemen, Syria, UAE, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain.
None of these countries ranks as highly for core tests on matters of liberty as Israel does.
But granted, this is not the be all and end all of why Western allies should treat Israel differently, though it does form an important and undeniable foundation.
Israel, though not perfect, has gone to great lengths to protect both its own citizens and the Palestinian people at the very same time. The knives come out very quickly against Israel, usually in the form of phrases like 'apartheid wall' and 'prison camp' - but remind yourselves that only five percent of Israel's security fence is a 'wall', and that terror attacks from the West Bank have decreased by more than 90 percent. Unless you're on the side that actively wishes for Israeli civilians to be killed (and sadly there are many) - doesn't this statistic prove that it was a legitimate endeavour at a time when the Palestinian leadership showed no interest in furthering peace negotiations?
In Gaza, does Israel act as an 'oppressor' in limiting and searching goods that it actually helps filter through, or does it protect both the Gazan people from a terrorist outfit who created a de facto dictatorship in the area, and itself from further attacks across the border? All the while, Israel has increased the amount of traffic in goods to Gaza and reciprocally, many Gazans make the daily commute into Israel to do business. Despite what the anti-Israel lobby would have you think, I myself spoke to Palestinian businessmen in June this year who indicated their will to work with and inside Israel, if only Hamas would disappear.
Consider again what great lengths Israel goes to in an attempt to limit civilian causalities in its ongoing conflict with Hamas. Does Israel place Hamas rocket sites metres away from schools? No, Hamas does. Does Israel target civilians? No, Hamas does.
And when the international community called upon Israel to withdraw from its occupation of Gaza, to allow 'democracy to flourish' - pray tell what happened? The unilateral disengagement in 2005 led to a terrorist organisation not simply taking the reins of government, but brutally smashing the opposition (the Palestinian Authority) and proceeding to fire well over 8,000 rockets into Israel as a result. Hamas has turned Gaza into a weapons storage and launch facility for Iran - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet Israel is now also expected to lend diplomatic legitimacy in that direction - as we saw with Egypt's negotiation of a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel just weeks ago.
The facts you'd think would speak for themselves - but while Israel is not guilt-free, she has been consistently rational and more often than not, responsible towards not only her own people, but towards Palestinians also.
Now the international community, Britain at the fore, is pushing Israel beyond the scope of what is reasonable.
The failure to get the Palestinians around the negotiating table prior to a UN statehood bid is a blow to Israel's continued efforts to renew talks. A settlement moratorium was ignored by the Palestinians, as has been every offer to sit down with no preconditions, an offer made as recently as October 2012 by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
So Israel has finally responded in a manner that befits David, rather than the Goliath it is made out to be. As the only Jewish state, the only legitimate and transparent and free democracy in the region, Israel has been pushed to taking an offensive stance rather than a defensive stance.
This relates to the announcement of 3,000 new settler units and plans to develop the E1 area east of Jerusalem - a position that may well cut the Palestinian areas off from the West Bank.
Is this the fault of some super right-wing expansionist plot? Not likely. It will cost Israel time, money, political and diplomatic capital and is the equivalent not just to kicking the can down the road, but to booting it over the fence and into a pond.
When actions have been taken repeatedly to undermine the position of an ally whose actions are broadly reflective of a strong will for peace - then certain rational and responsible actions go out the window with it.
Expanding and building settlements in areas that could and would be Palestinian areas is of course irrational and irresponsible, but the international community, Britain especially, has placed Israel in a position whereby it sees, from the world's feelings and dealings on Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, that aggression seems to be consistently rewarded.
In now talking about 'tough sanctions' against Israel for its actions, Britain espouses yet another inconsistent response to bringing parties in the region to the table - and has landed itself a position of increasing irrelevance and opposition to its allies in Israel and the United States.
For Britain, Israel's actions are unpalatable. For Israel, Britain's reaction is unconscionable.
Raheem Kassam is the Executive Editor for The Commentator
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel's irrationality is our fault - The Commentator
Israel's actions in expanding settlements is a direct result of being maligned and bullied by the international community, writes Executive Editor Raheem Kassam
Britain has a major problem and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is clearly tied up in knots about it.
On the one hand, you have a strong and legitimate will to solve the issue of Palestinian statehood. The problem isn't going away and last week's UN General Assembly vote cemented the fact that the international community wants, sooner rather than later, the Palestinian state to come into its own.
But in doing this in such a manner, decades of negotiations have effectively been defenestrated.
Many have argued that this is a good thing. After all, where have decades of negotiations led? Frankly, nowhere.
But it's naive and dishonest to argue that there are not rejectionists and appeasers in this scenario. That there has been equal will from both sides is a misnomer that is being propagated by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Calling Mahmoud Abbas, a man who presides over incitement, glorification of terrorism and deals with terrorists, a "courageous man of peace" is to move the goalposts distinctly away from Israel's favour.
The reality is that Israel's favour must come foremost in the equation. Before we hear the arguments why not, as we are sure there will be plenty in the comments section, let's consider why.
Israel remains the most legitimate, functioning, transparent and safe democracy in the region. There is little chance, as the considerations are made of its newly democratic neighbours, of Israel turning its back on this form of government that lends to enshrined freedoms not just for Jews, but for the many Christians, Muslims, Druze and Baha'i that live within Israel's borders.
This is also true for women. It is true for homosexuals. It is true for young and old, for rich and poor - Israel is a model for the region. If anyone can doubt this, they are free to name another, but a list of Israel's neighbours does nothing to detract from this statement. Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia Yemen, Syria, UAE, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain.
None of these countries ranks as highly for core tests on matters of liberty as Israel does.
But granted, this is not the be all and end all of why Western allies should treat Israel differently, though it does form an important and undeniable foundation.
Israel, though not perfect, has gone to great lengths to protect both its own citizens and the Palestinian people at the very same time. The knives come out very quickly against Israel, usually in the form of phrases like 'apartheid wall' and 'prison camp' - but remind yourselves that only five percent of Israel's security fence is a 'wall', and that terror attacks from the West Bank have decreased by more than 90 percent. Unless you're on the side that actively wishes for Israeli civilians to be killed (and sadly there are many) - doesn't this statistic prove that it was a legitimate endeavour at a time when the Palestinian leadership showed no interest in furthering peace negotiations?
In Gaza, does Israel act as an 'oppressor' in limiting and searching goods that it actually helps filter through, or does it protect both the Gazan people from a terrorist outfit who created a de facto dictatorship in the area, and itself from further attacks across the border? All the while, Israel has increased the amount of traffic in goods to Gaza and reciprocally, many Gazans make the daily commute into Israel to do business. Despite what the anti-Israel lobby would have you think, I myself spoke to Palestinian businessmen in June this year who indicated their will to work with and inside Israel, if only Hamas would disappear.
Consider again what great lengths Israel goes to in an attempt to limit civilian causalities in its ongoing conflict with Hamas. Does Israel place Hamas rocket sites metres away from schools? No, Hamas does. Does Israel target civilians? No, Hamas does.
And when the international community called upon Israel to withdraw from its occupation of Gaza, to allow 'democracy to flourish' - pray tell what happened? The unilateral disengagement in 2005 led to a terrorist organisation not simply taking the reins of government, but brutally smashing the opposition (the Palestinian Authority) and proceeding to fire well over 8,000 rockets into Israel as a result. Hamas has turned Gaza into a weapons storage and launch facility for Iran - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet Israel is now also expected to lend diplomatic legitimacy in that direction - as we saw with Egypt's negotiation of a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel just weeks ago.
The facts you'd think would speak for themselves - but while Israel is not guilt-free, she has been consistently rational and more often than not, responsible towards not only her own people, but towards Palestinians also.
Now the international community, Britain at the fore, is pushing Israel beyond the scope of what is reasonable.
The failure to get the Palestinians around the negotiating table prior to a UN statehood bid is a blow to Israel's continued efforts to renew talks. A settlement moratorium was ignored by the Palestinians, as has been every offer to sit down with no preconditions, an offer made as recently as October 2012 by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
So Israel has finally responded in a manner that befits David, rather than the Goliath it is made out to be. As the only Jewish state, the only legitimate and transparent and free democracy in the region, Israel has been pushed to taking an offensive stance rather than a defensive stance.
This relates to the announcement of 3,000 new settler units and plans to develop the E1 area east of Jerusalem - a position that may well cut the Palestinian areas off from the West Bank.
Is this the fault of some super right-wing expansionist plot? Not likely. It will cost Israel time, money, political and diplomatic capital and is the equivalent not just to kicking the can down the road, but to booting it over the fence and into a pond.
When actions have been taken repeatedly to undermine the position of an ally whose actions are broadly reflective of a strong will for peace - then certain rational and responsible actions go out the window with it.
Expanding and building settlements in areas that could and would be Palestinian areas is of course irrational and irresponsible, but the international community, Britain especially, has placed Israel in a position whereby it sees, from the world's feelings and dealings on Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, that aggression seems to be consistently rewarded.
In now talking about 'tough sanctions' against Israel for its actions, Britain espouses yet another inconsistent response to bringing parties in the region to the table - and has landed itself a position of increasing irrelevance and opposition to its allies in Israel and the United States.
For Britain, Israel's actions are unpalatable. For Israel, Britain's reaction is unconscionable.
Raheem Kassam is the Executive Editor for The Commentator
Monday, November 19, 2012
Is this How the Israel-Iran War Begins?
Probably. Expect the second front in the north to open up sooner than later. Marching as to... - R.O.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Despicable Silence from UN Human Rights Chief on Gaza Rocket Attacks
More proof of the hypocritical irrelevance of the UN Human Rights Council and its blatant, persistent disregard of Israeli human rights. How is it that what should be a critical international institution has been corrupted into festering anti-Semitic bile? Shame on Navi Pillay and the UNHRC. What a disgusting display of moral duplicity. - R.O.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry on Thursday slammed the head of the United Nations Human Rights Council over her silence on the constant rocket fire from Gaza.
In a press release headlined “Has the High Commissioner for Human Rights gone mute?” spokesman Yigal Palmor complained that this year alone, more than 800 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza, lamenting that the high commissioner, Navi Pillay, has not issued any condemnations of these attacks.
“The lives of 1 million Israelis are threatened, and daily life in southern Israel has been severely disrupted. Children do not attend school; civilians sleep in shelters. Only this morning, three Israeli civilians were killed in their home in Kiryat Malachi town, when a Hamas rocket hit their building. Some others, including a 4-year-old boy, where injured,” Palmor wrote.
The press release, which did not name Pillay, accused the high commissioner of not caring about Israelis human rights.
“The High Commissioner has gone mute,” Plamor wrote. “Not a word of sympathy, not a word of concern for the violation of the human rights of Israeli citizens. Just a ringing silence.”
In March, Jerusalem cut off all relations with the United Nations Human Rights Council, after it announced the establishment of a fact-finding mission into Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a decision that was condemned by the government.
“From now on, we will no longer work together in any way, shape or form with any officials from the council, including the high commissioner,” Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said at the time. “If anyone from the council calls us, we just won’t answer the phone.”
In a press release headlined “Has the High Commissioner for Human Rights gone mute?” spokesman Yigal Palmor complained that this year alone, more than 800 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza, lamenting that the high commissioner, Navi Pillay, has not issued any condemnations of these attacks.
“The lives of 1 million Israelis are threatened, and daily life in southern Israel has been severely disrupted. Children do not attend school; civilians sleep in shelters. Only this morning, three Israeli civilians were killed in their home in Kiryat Malachi town, when a Hamas rocket hit their building. Some others, including a 4-year-old boy, where injured,” Palmor wrote.
The press release, which did not name Pillay, accused the high commissioner of not caring about Israelis human rights.
“The High Commissioner has gone mute,” Plamor wrote. “Not a word of sympathy, not a word of concern for the violation of the human rights of Israeli citizens. Just a ringing silence.”
In March, Jerusalem cut off all relations with the United Nations Human Rights Council, after it announced the establishment of a fact-finding mission into Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a decision that was condemned by the government.
“From now on, we will no longer work together in any way, shape or form with any officials from the council, including the high commissioner,” Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said at the time. “If anyone from the council calls us, we just won’t answer the phone.”
Monday, November 12, 2012
Gaza Missiles a Bigger Threat Than Syria
Gaza Missiles a Bigger Threat Than Syria
By: Jonathan S. Tobin
Over the weekend, provocations on two of Israel’s borders presented the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with new challenges. In the Golan Heights, what was described in reports as “erratic mortar fire” from Syrian army positions brought a sharp, though limited, response from the Israel Defense Forces. In the south, Hamas launched a rocket offensive aimed at Israeli civilian targets. But while the Syrian incident made headlines in the international press since it threatened to drag Israel into the Syrian civil war, it was the situation in Gaza that was the more troubling.
As troubling as the possibility that Israel could be dragged into the ongoing chaos of Syria is, the country’s Gaza dilemma is far more worrisome. Rockets continued to fall on Israel Monday as the Hamas rulers of Gaza continued their own attempt to provoke Israel into an offensive. While both Israel and neighboring Egypt have little to gain from either a repeat of the 2008 Operation Cast Lead, in which Israel knocked out terrorist positions inside Gaza, or a more far-reaching offensive, in which the Islamist terrorist group would actually be deposed, the possibility that at some point Netanyahu will have to do something to stop the rain of fire on his country is very real.
Israelis don’t know for sure whether, as some observers seem to think, the fire from Syria was an attempt by the faltering Assad regime to portray its struggle as one against Israel rather than its own people. Given that such a ploy is a tried and true standby for Arab dictators, it seems logical to think that a desperate Bashar Assad thinks involving Israel in the fighting will bolster support for his embattled government. Yet it is just as likely that the fire into the Golan was unintentional spillover from that war. Certainly it was nothing comparable to the deliberate attacks from the regime on the Turkish border, which is actually a transit and supply route for the rebels who have the support of Ankara.
While Israel has no love for Assad and would be happy to see Iran’s ally fall, it must also ponder whether his replacement by a weak rebel regime would lead to more conflict in the future. Israel is likely to do just about anything to stay out of that mess, and it will take more than a few stray mortar shells to drag it into that war.
But Netanyahu’s choices with regards to Gaza are not so easy. Though Israel’s main strategic focus in the last year has understandably been on the Iranian nuclear threat, Hamas’ ability to make the lives of Israelis living in the south a living hell is a reminder that the enemies on the Jewish state’s border can’t be ignored. Since Saturday, more than 160 rockets have fallen on the region bordering Gaza. Their motives for this offensive are complex.
The impetus for the escalation may stem in part from a desire to remind the world that the Palestinian Authority is merely one of two groups competing for control of a future Palestinian state. The surge in violence doesn’t help PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s efforts to get the United Nations to unilaterally recognize Palestinian independence without first making peace with Israel, and that suits Hamas’s purposes.
The Hamas fire may also have a tactical purpose. Last Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces discovered a tunnel along the border with Gaza, the intent of which was obviously to facilitate a cross-border terror raid along the lines of the one that resulted in Gilad Shalit’s kidnapping as well as the murder of two other soldiers. Israel has sought to establish a 300-meter no-go zone on the Gaza side of the border in order to prevent such attacks, but Hamas uses rocket fire to defend its freedom of action.
Whether thinking tactically or strategically, Hamas continues to hold approximately one million Israelis living in the south hostage. Anti-missile defense systems like Iron Dome help limit the damage, but they can’t stop all or even most of the rockets, as the last two days showed. Hamas seems to be assuming that an Israeli counter-offensive into Gaza to silence the fire would be too bloody and too unpopular abroad to be worth it for Netanyahu. Another option would be to return to targeted killings of Hamas leaders, but that is likely to lead to more rockets fired at Israeli civilians rather than to stop the attacks.
The bottom line is that Israel has no good choices open to it with regard to Gaza. But with elections looming in January, Netanyahu can’t afford to let the people of the south sit in shelters indefinitely. If their Muslim Brotherhood friends in Egypt — who also worry about the spillover from a new war — can’t persuade Hamas to stand down soon, the prime minister may have to consider raising the ante with the Islamist terrorist movement. While the world is more interested in the violence in Syria, Gaza remains the more difficult dilemma facing the Israelis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)