The Israel Situation » Palestinians

What Extremist Muslims Really Want

Anthony Reich — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:41:12 +0000

I have been watching the recent events in Egypt with growing concern and confusion. The people are clearly far from satisfied despite the fact that the hated Mubarak regime is long gone. The sight of former President Hosni Mubarak being wheeled into a Cairo courtroom on a stretcher, and seemingly in a comatose state, has not been enough to satisfy the protest movement’s calls for revenge. Continued protests on the streets of Cairo, and the death of over 70 supporters at a soccer match in Port Said late last week has confused me even further. I am desperately tying to understand what the protest movement in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world is truly seeking. More importantly, I am trying to figure out how this connects with the actions undertaken by extremist Muslims around the world.

Over the years, extremist Muslim countries have rejected western ideas and cultures. They have done all that they can to show abhorrence to technological developments, political systems and popular cultures that the western world has embraced. In many countries in the Muslim world, alcohol is prohibited, TV and Internet content is restricted and strictly policed and the participation of women in society is very limited. Of course, these facts have never stopped citizens and even leaders of Muslim countries from touring abroad to enjoy the “vices” that are prohibited in their home countries. It has also not stopped vast numbers of Muslims from departing the shores of their Muslim countries to set up home in the western world. Despite this, the message has continued to be loud and clear, that the western world has it wrong when permitting such policies and behaviours. Even extremist groups who have moved to live in western countries continue to preach this approach, almost like a subversive message from within the Muslim society that is trying to change the nature of the hosting country. Although other groups such as ultra-Orthodox Jews and Bible Belt Christians have also rejected certain popular cultures in western countries, the type of actions undertaken by extremist Muslims have been on a much greater, and often violent scale. These actions frequently represent a threat to the government of the country, and the safety of its citizens.

Ironically, the message that I see coming out of Egypt, Syria and other Arab Spring countries is exactly the opposite of the one that rejects western cultures. I see crowds of people turning on the traditional Muslim way of doing things, and trying to embrace western-style democracy, technology and freedoms. It is a well-known fact that the revolution in Tunisia was fuelled by Facebook and Twitter messages, exactly the type of culture that the Muslim world has worked so hard to reject.

When the Egyptians succeeded in overthrowing the Mubarak regime a little more than a year ago, and managed to achieve their dream of having the right to vote for their chosen government, the first thing that the did was elect the Muslim Brotherhood. It seems strange that they would support a party that is seemingly more extremist and less democratic than Mubarak ever was. After all the protest, fighting and bloodshed to get rid of Mubarak, this is a choice for less choice. The public has been so impatient for the new extremists to take over, that they have taken to the streets again in a bid to topple the military leadership that is temporarily running the country. The act of football fans turning on each other at the end of a game in Port Said, all in the name of political protest, is even more difficult to understand.

Trying to make sense of all the mixed messages is fairly tough. The only conclusion that I can reach, is that this is not a battle about the rights of individuals, or the ability to live a regular, safe life. This is all about power. In the first instance, it is about power over the individuals who live in the local country. The less freedom of choice there is, the greater the power. The less education and exposure to events and facts in the outside world, the greater the ability of the leadership to lie convincingly and to retain absolute power. Having gained control and power in a local way, this can then be utilised to confront the seemingly larger powers of the world – the great western powers. Being prepared to stand up to the international community and to the west is something that creates further power in the local country. There is nothing more impressive than the leader of a relatively small or insignificant country being seen to hold great western powers to ransom.

The Palestinians have achieved this, especially Hamas in Gaza, where the general population has been kept in abject poverty and uneducated while their leaders live in relative luxury, and frequently keep their families living abroad. The misery of the man in the street is blamed on the Israelis and the Americans, and on evil western culture. These tactics have also been successfully deployed by Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as by individuals like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Colonel Qaddafi, Arafat and many others. Muslim leaders over the years have trained their people to live in this way, and have taught them to feel some level of comfort and security in the style of leadership which leaves little room for freedom and choice. The Arab Spring, it seems, is not a protest against this style of leadership, but rather against those who have been the leaders. Attempts to implement western-style democracy in places like Iraq and Afghanistan have left these countries riddled with violence, and in politically unstable situations.

Muslims seem to respect those who are prepared to assume control and power, and who are willing and able to talk tough. They also seem to revere those who are prepared to kill innocent civilians, especially if these civilians are Israeli, Jewish or come from western countries. Shows of weakness in the form of sensitivity and understanding earn little respect. Those with the audacity to commandeer aircraft that crash into the World Trade Centre, or strap bombs to themselves to blow up restaurants and night clubs are regarded as heroes, and their families proclaim them as martyrs of the cause. To those of us who have been educated in a different system of values, these actions seem warped and misguided. This is the form of power that Muslims respect. Launching missiles in a haphazard fashion into populated areas is power, and threatening to use military force to wipe a country off the face of the earth is power. Allowing people the right to live in peace and security, when they wish the same for you, is weakness.

On this basis, the Arab Spring is simply a show of power against those who have held it for so long. If the west believes that this is a process of implementing new political systems or an indication that values are changing, a surprise is on the way. Those who make up the new leadership in the post-Spring period are more than likely to be the same as those who went before. This will bring a new cycle of clinging onto power at all costs, and for extended periods of time, until the next power-hungry group displaces them. If one uses these assumptions to explain behaviour in the Muslim world, many things fit into place.

It would be great to find a formula that is based on the giving and receiving of respect that allows citizens in Muslim and non-Muslim countries to live their daily lives without feeling physical or religious threat. It would be good to find a formula that allows citizens in Muslim countries the right to political self-expression, and facilitates the smooth transition from our government and leader to another. These formulae have been found and implemented in many western countries, alas they are lacking in the Muslim world. With no indication that they can be achieved anytime soon, prospects for more than 2 billion of the world’s population is not optimistic, and will continue to contribute to high levels of instability around the world.

Photo by Vancouver Sun.

What Extremist Muslims Really Want is a post from: The Israel Situation

Going Through the Motions

Anthony Reich — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:07:57 +0000

The most recent round of peace talks held between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been declared a failure by the Palestinians, Even though the talks were held at a low level, involving only negotiating representatives from each side, there always somehow seems a little more hope when a dialogue is taking place. In hindsight, it seems quite clear that there was never really any prospect that this round of talks would go anywhere. For the Palestinians, it was always a case of simply going through the motions to get safely to the next trigger point.

Following the unsuccessful attempts by the Palestinians to gain recognition from the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the summer of 2011, the Palestinians had promised the Quartet that they would give another round of talks a chance until the 26th January 2012. Having promised this, the Palestinians had no way of escaping from the commitment. Despite the fact that a total of 5 meetings were held in the current round between the parties in a very short period of time, all of which took place under the sponsorship of the Jordanian government in Amman, it became clear very early in the process that there was little intent on the part of the Palestinians to make this round work. Having seemingly exhausted its alternatives by making little progress at the UN, however, the question arises as to why the Palestinians were trying to torpedo these talks? With few alternatives to allow them to make progress towards their objective, it would appear that talks seem to be the best alternative for Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority.

In order to better understand why the Palestinians sabotaged the latest talks, it is important to the sub-plots that are going on behind the scenes, and which are having more of an influence on the actions by President Abbas and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat. The first issue to address concerns the PA’s alternatives at the UN. Even though the UN Security Council and General Assembly seemingly had little interest in promoting the cause of the Palestinians at their meetings last year, the UN is quite a disparate organisation with many different tentacles that are often disconnected from each other. This was demonstrated when, soon after the failure at the General Assembly, the Palestinians did manage to win support for full membership to the UN cultural organisation UNESCO in October 2011. Although this was a poor consolation prize for main objective, it did demonstrate to the Palestinians that they could use a slower and indirect approach in order to work their way into the UN organisation. This includes the possibility of making use of the UN-sponsored International Court of Justice to charge Israelis with crimes against humanity arising from events in the recent Gaza War, Operation Cast Lead. The Palestinians have repeatedly threatened to make use of this avenue in their battle against Israel. Even if charges that they may bring through this court are ultimately dismissed, such actions could tie individual Israelis and the Israeli government up in legal proceedings for many years. By bringing the latest round of peace talks with Israel to an end, the prospect of stepping up actions through these UN organisations is placed firmly back on the table, and exactly where the Palestinians wish it to be.

The second sub-plot concerns the evolution of the relationship between Fatah and Hamas. The Palestinian Authority is controlled by Fatah, and with Mahmoud Abbas already serving his 8th year of a 4-year term, there is a great deal of pressure for elections to be held. Fatah is clearly reluctant to call elections when there is a real prospect of them being routed, even in their perceived stronghold of the West Bank. Many of these issues were taken care of, when a deal was signed between Hamas and Fatah to create a unity government for the Palestinian Authority. This deal is a typical attempt to extend the longevity of politicians on both sides of the divide, by denying the electorate the right to express its will through the ballot box. With Hamas being absolutely opposed to holding any negotiations with Israel at all, the establishment of the unity government was put on hold while the latest talks were held. Now, with the talks dead and buried, the blockage has been removed. For Fatah, entering into a closer relationship with Hamas may allow it to share in some of the popular support that Hamas continues to enjoy following recent prisoner exchange deal. It may also extend the political lives of some of the bigger names.

A further sub-plot in play concerns the ongoing events in the Arab World, and the events which have resulted from the “Arab Spring”. Mahmoud Abbas has announced that he will be taking the issue of the failed talks with the Israelis to the Arab League, to get direction as to what should happen next. With the Arab League occupied with events in Syria, Abbas may have a created a smokescreen under which to operate. Interestingly, the effects of the Arab Spring also seem to have created something of a split within Hamas, which may yet have an impact on the Palestinian Authority via the inclusion of Hamas in the unity government activities. The leadership that was formerly based in Damascus (reports suggest that Khaled Meshal and his team have fled the Syrian capital) feel that non-violent protest against Israel may be effective as a “Palestinian Spring”, after having seen the impact of the popular uprising in Syria and Egypt first-hand. The Gaza leadership is quite clear that it has no intention of adopting a new non-violent approach against Israel, and this issue may yet cause further internal conflict within the Palestinian camp.

The way in which the Palestinians went through the motions in the recent peace talks seemed a little more transparent than usual. Despite the fact that the talks were primarily addressing the issues of borders and security, an Israeli official was prevented from fully presenting Israel’s position on borders to the Amman meeting. An Israeli document setting out 21 points of principles needed to reach a peace agreement was not considered, and was then dismissed as being “just an outline”. These attempts to dismiss Israel’s honest efforts in the talks seem clearly designed to sabotage the talks. In the press, Israel’s border proposals have been labelled as “preventing a Palestinian state from being established”, and have been blamed for the breakdown of the talks.

In spite of the obvious reasons for the breakdown, the stale mate somehow seems still to have produced a slight edge for the Palestinian side. The breakdown of the talks has been presented by the international community by saying that the Palestinians have at least fulfilled their commitment to continue to try until the pre-agreed date of 26th January. Having tried and failed, all bets are off the table, but the rewards due to the Palestinians are triggered. European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton even had the audacity to call upon Israel to deliver “confidence-building concessions” to encourage the talks to continue. We have already learned that this means delivering confidence to the international community, and concessions to the Palestinians. The Palestinian side seems not to be expected to deliver confidence nor the concessions. The international community would be better off understanding that any such concessions on Israel’s part, would amount to rewards to the Palestinians for bad behaviour.

It seems clear to me that a lasting peace will only be possible via a negotiated settlement. This was also recognised by Fatah strongman Marwan Barghouti, who remains in an Israeli jail serving five life sentences for murder of Israeli citizens. He made a rare court appearance during the last week, and managed to send out a message indicating that he believes in a negotiated settlement based on the 1967 borders. The precise terms of the negotiated settlement remain a large outstanding issue, but it is interesting that the person believed to be the instigator of both the first and second intifadas is talking about a negotiated settlement at all. The problem right now, is that there appear to be few Palestinians who believe that this is the correct route to take, and who are prepared to make the painful concessions necessary to bring this to reality. Until this happens, the Palestinians will be going through the motions, and the cycle of violence will continue.

Going Through the Motions is a post from: The Israel Situation

Hamas Reaches a Fork in the Road

Anthony Reich — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:18:40 +0000

It has been interesting to watch developments within Hamas over the past few months, and especially since the prisoner exchange deal which saw the release of Gilad Shalit. For Hamas, this has been a significant political event and has driven the organisation’s popularity to new heights amongst its Palestinian constituency. It seems as though this popularity has not reached all parts of the organisation, and that this great political event may even cause something of a split within Hamas.

Since Hamas was founded in 1987, there has been some tension between the so-called Gaza leadership, and the leadership based in exile. Until recently, the base in exile has been situated in the Syrian capital, Damascus. This is where Hamas Political Chief and Hamas Leader Khaled Meshaal has been based, together with his exile leadership team. On the other hand, Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and his cabinet are the ones who are ruling over the Gaza Strip on a day-to-day basis, close to the grass roots support that keeps the organisation so popular. While Haniyeh does turn for guidance to Meshal in his capacity as the leader of the organisation, the truth of the matter is that the Gaza team is a fairly autonomous entity. Since the Gaza team succeeded in winning control of Gaza from Fatah in a coup d’état in 2007, they have steadily risen in stature within the Hamas organisation. Recent events have served to strengthen this position even further, to the point that the overall leadership of Hamas may see itself moving from the base in Damascus back to Gaza.

The rise in power of the Gaza leadership really began back in 2005, soon after the death of Yasser Arafat. This event gave the leaders in Gaza the opportunity to raise their profile on the ground, starting with the assertion of their authority against arch-rivals Fatah. The legislative elections held in 2006 were easily won by Hamas even though Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas managed to hang onto the presidency of the Palestinian Authority. A year later, Hamas supporters rose up against the Fatah rulers in Gaza, and asserted their authority on the streets. This brought their victory at the ballot box to reality. During this time, Hamas operatives kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, and held him as a bargaining chip for more than 5 years. All the while, Hamas was firing missiles from Gaza into Israel and keeping the organisation’s name on the international stage. These events have helped to popularise Hamas amongst its supporters in Gaza, and amongst extremist Muslims around the world. This popularity has come at the expense of Fatah, but has also caused a split within the Hamas organisation itself. There is no doubt that the Gaza leadership has taken all the credit for these events at the expense of the Damascus leadership.

The Arab Spring has further weakened the Damascus leadership in a few different ways. It is reported that the instability in Damascus has resulted in the exile leadership being forced to move their office elsewhere. Although there is no confirmation of the new location for their office, they may be forced to remain fairly mobile in light of the events of the Arab Spring moving around the Middle East fairly rapidly. Meshal has also been influenced by the Arab Spring and decided to try to use its impetus to suggest the use of non-violent protest against Israel. This suggestion has been forcefully rejected by the Gaza leaders, who continue to subscribe to violent protest and ongoing firing of missiles towards Israel.

This is not the only major disagreement between Damascus and Gaza. The Damascus leadership has been very active in working on the negotiations with Fatah to reach an agreement on a unity government for the Palestinian Authority. Besides the compromises that each side has been forced to make to reach an agreement with the other, there is another key elephant in the room. This is the issue of the talks with Israel which are back on the table, albeit at a very low level. The Gaza leadership remains absolutely opposed to reaching any agreement with Fatah, all the time that Fatah is willing to enter into negotiations with Israel. This view seems to have prevailed over the past few weeks. Despite having signed an agreement to enter into a unity government with Fatah amidst some fanfare in Cairo, Hamas has taken no active steps towards making this agreement a reality.

These events culminated in an announcement last week that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has decided not to see re-election as the movement’s chief in elections which are due to take place later during 2012. This seems to be an acknowledgement on Meshaal’s part that he will be defeated in the election. Rather than be defeated, he would prefer to bow out in a more elegant way. Favourite to replace him is Ismail Haniyeh, leader in Gaza.

All of this indicates something of a radicalisation of Hamas in the future. The Gaza leadership is naturally much more radical than that in Damascus, and the future path of Hamas is bound to be strongly influenced by this. In addition, the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood across the border in Egypt is ominous. Hamas was founded as an off-spring of the Muslim Brotherhood, and continues to have a close relationship with this organisation. The Mubarak regime succeeded to some degree in limiting the flow of arms into Gaza from Egypt, but the floodgates will be open now that the Muslim Brotherhood is calling the shots in Cairo.

While there were indications of compromise and understanding coming from the Damascus leadership, this appears almost certainly to have been overruled by the approach of conflict and confrontation dictated by the Gaza leadership. This almost certainly means a continued schism within Palestinian politics between Fatah and Hamas. For Israel, this probably means that another Gaza operation, similar to Operation Cast Lead, is inevitable in response to the continued missile attacks that seem almost assured. In Middle East politics, this is a huge opportunity that will be missed.

Image by corbis.com.

Hamas Reaches a Fork in the Road is a post from: The Israel Situation

Gaza: The Countdown to War

Eric — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:41:52 +0000

Anyone who reads the news in the United States or Europe might think that the Gaza border has been calm lately. That is far from the case. Terrorist rocket fire has been escalating and the IDF is preparing for a new war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

On Wednesday alone, four rockets were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip. Fortunately, no one was injured. However, this is merely one act of hundreds and one symptom of an escalating tension between Israel and its violent neighbors.

Ha’aretz reports that the Israeli army is preparing for a full scale ground war against Hamas in the coming months. Now three years after Operation Cast Lead, Israel may have to make a strong move to defend itself again.

“We are preparing and in fact are ready for another campaign, which will be varied and different, to renew our deterrence, if we are called on to restore full quiet to the communities [in the south],” said the head of the division’s Southern Brigade, Brig. Gen. Tal Hermoni.

“But I wouldn’t eulogize Operation Cast Lead just yet,” Hermoni added, in a briefing for military reporters. “On a daily basis, it’s pretty quiet here. The mild response [to Tuesday's targeted killings] is evidence that they don’t want to feel the IDF’s fists.”

The idea for a future Gaza campaign is different from Cast Lead. Chief of Staff Benny Gantz created a plan for a shorter incursion into Gaza that would be much more precise and powerful.

In an analysis by a JPost writer, it is revealed that Hamas has increased weapons smuggling into Gaza by 15-20%.

The IDF continues to maintain a high-level of alert along the border and to train its troops to know what to do in the event they are attacked and one of them is abducted. Shooting at the getaway car even at the risk of hitting their comrade is expected, senior officers explain.

It also requires the IDF to get ready for another offensive in the Gaza Strip, one that Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz said on Tuesday will happen either “sooner or later.” The operation will likely be different than Cast Lead but will be based on two similar principles – first to take Hamas by surprise with a devastating opening salvo and second to aim for a restoration of deterrence and several more years of quiet.

The IDF knows, though, that when it enters Gaza, it will face a different adversary than the one who repeatedly ran away from it during the January 2009 ground offensive.

For now, we may be enjoying the calm before the storm. I just hope the next storm has minimal casualties and keeps innocent Israelis safe from terror.

Image by Ian Aizman

Gaza: The Countdown to War is a post from: The Israel Situation

Egypt’s Elections Produce a Surprise Package

Anthony Reich — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:24:53 +0000

The Arab Spring uprisings began exactly 1 year ago this month. The demonstrations against the government of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia began in December 2010, and resulted in him being removed from power 1 month later. The Spring subsequently spread to many other countries in the Middle East, and has been encouraged by enthusiastic support from the western countries. Ironically, the one voice of hesitation against the uprisings came from Israel. At the time, it was difficult for many to understand why Netanyahu did not support the Spring whole-heartedly. Now, a year later, his reasons are starting to become apparent.

Netanyahu’s concern about the uprisings were most obvious when the demonstrations reached Egypt, and thousands of Egyptians gathered in Tahrir Square demanding the head of President Hosni Mubarak. It was clear that Mubarak had ruled with an iron fist in the 30 years that he had presided over Egypt. He was never elected in a free democratic election, and he never repealed the emergency laws under which his government and his security apparatus were entitled to do almost as they wished, and which they used to maximum effect. Most citizens around the world who have lived in a democratic system (as well as many who have not) felt some level of empathy with Egyptians as they demanded, and finally got, the resignation of their president. Netanyahu’s voice was a lone one during that time, and it seemed strange to many that the leader of a free and democratic country would express concern about the democratisation of another country. There were silent whispers about whether the relationship between Mubarak and Netanyahu held more than what was publicly known. There were mutterings about whether the gas deal that was struck between Egypt and Israel, and which Mubarak’s family are reputed to have personally profited from, possibly held personal profits for Israel’s leaders too. All the while, Netanyahu was heard to speak out in understated tones about his concerns for the Arab Spring.

Fast forward 11 months since the day that it was announced that Mubarak had resigned from power, and how different the situation looks. Egypt has undergone its first round of voting in its nascent democratic process, and things are looking distinctly worrying for Israel and the west. Voting for the lower house of Egypt’s parliament has revealed that Islamic extremist groups are likely to rule in the new Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, which was held responsible for the assassination of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and which remained a banned organisation throughout the 30 years of Mubarak’s rule, has emerged as the strongest party in the elections. There are those who believe that this support comes as a result of euphoria over the unbanning of the Muslim Brotherhood, not unlike the euphoria which saw the ANC sweep to power in South Africa after it was unbanned. There are those, however, who believe that this reflects a trend towards Islamic fundamentalism that can be seen in many countries around the world. This is borne out by the meteoric rise of the Salafist Al-Nour party which received the second highest number of votes in the first round. The Salafists advocate greater Islamic fundamentalism than the Muslim Brotherhood, and wish to apply Islamic Sharia law to Egypt. The make the Muslim Brotherhood look like amateur fundamentalists.

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had strong showings in the elections in Tunisia and Morocco, is not nearly as concerning as the indications of the trend in Egypt. Besides the fact that Egypt has a direct land border with Israel, Egypt also enjoys a strategic position both geographically and politically in the current fragile state of international diplomacy. Is the election result in Egypt showing that some countries are not yet ready to cope with western-style democracy, as so many people claim? Or is the truth that Hosni Mubarak’s iron fist also worked to protect the west against the scourge of Islamic fundamentalism? Netanyahu seems to have been one of the only western leaders who understood this at a stage that it was still early enough to do something. Unfortunately, his was very much a lone voice, and he had no prospect of stemming the tide towards the overthrow of Mubarak.

The Israeli establishment understood as soon as Mubarak left power that Israel’s relationship with Egypt has changed forever. There are some doubts as to whether the peace treaty signed between late Prime Minister Menachem Begin and late President Anwar Sadat will be respected by the new regime. Even if it is, a new era has dawned for Israel and Egypt. This will also manifest itself in Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians. The Muslim Brotherhood is a close ally of Hamas. Whereas President Mubarak worked hard with the Israelis to try to prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons into the Gaza Strip, the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to do the exact opposite. This promises greater and more sophisticated attacks coming from Gaza, spelling real danger for southern Israel, and for the safety and security of the State of Israel as a whole.

It will be interesting to watch what sort of political system will manifest itself in post-Gaddafi Libya. In this case, western countries were actively involved in overthrowing Gaddafi by supplying NATO air power to assist rebel forces against him. Now, they will be forced to stand back to allow a new democratic government to replace the old dictatorship. But who will be the new elected leaders of Libya, and could it be that the west may yet come to regret this too? Sometimes, you need to be careful what you wish for.

Egypt’s Elections Produce a Surprise Package is a post from: The Israel Situation

Why Should Israel Help Fatah?

Anthony Reich — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:17:36 +0000

The prisoner swap deal which saw Gilad Shalit released, played right into the hands of Hamas. The prisoners who were released, as well as those set for release in the second stage of the deal, are names given by Hamas. At least for now, Hamas has gained public relations points in the Palestinian world. The organisation has shown itself to be able to stand up to Israel, and to extract value for the Palestinian street despite Israel’s statements that this would never happen. At the same time, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party has achieved a resounding failure. Abbas returned from his visit to the United Nations empty-handed following his application to the UN to admit Palestine as a full member. This situation has brought some Israelis to call for a “gesture” to Fatah, to try to dilute the way in which Hamas has been strengthened by these events.

For some time now, Israel has been playing a game of trying to weaken Hamas by strengthening Fatah. Throughout the time that Mahmoud Abbas has been president, and even dating back to the days when Yasser Arafat held the position, Israel has been taking steps to promote Fatah’s interests in order to help its standing amongst Palestinians whose loyalties are split between Fatah and Hamas. The reason for this is that Fatah has demonstrated itself to be more willing to enter into a dialogue with Israel, interpreted by Israel to mean it represents a possibility that it may reach a negotiated peace agreement. Hamas, on the other hand, has remained steadfast in its objectives of trying to destroy Israel, and not agreeing to negotiate. As ironic as it may seem, Fatah is simply the better of the two evils, and hence Israel’s attempts to promote its cause.

Despite the fact that it has tried to present itself as a genuine political party, Fatah has never really given up on its terror activities, even while continuing to sit at the negotiating table. This was particularly true in the days of Yasser Arafat, who lied unashamedly about giving up on violence with Israel while continuing to orchestrate terror activities in the background. Abbas has seemed more serious about foregoing the terror route, but has still not completely given up on this or eradicated it from his people and the territory under his control. The fact that Hamas has never agreed to forego violence against Israel has presented greater appeal to the Palestinians. Hamas’s strategy is to escalate violence against Israel and never agree to recognise or negotiate with the government of the Jewish state, until it achieves the destruction of the State of Israel.

Israel’s response to this situation has been to continue trying to negotiate with Fatah in order to try to extract greater security for Israelis, while responding to Hamas’s violence and terror using military solutions. It is in Israel’s interest that the Palestinian street will embrace the route of negotiations and support Fatah, while rejecting the route of violence pursued by Hamas. It is for this reason that Israel has been trying to prop up support for Fatah over the years by allowing it to show fruits for its strategy of negotiating with Israel. Negotiations are long-winded affairs (especially in the Middle East), and show few results along the way. This has proved to be tiresome for the Palestinians, who are eager to see instant results or some evidence of the fact that their chosen route has short-term advantages. The Hamas-led campaign of violence has succeeded in bringing this to the people in a much more blatant way. Palestinians have rejoiced to see rockets destroying Israeli homes and threatening Israeli lives. The perceived success of standing up to the might of the IDF has been a rallying force for Palestinians. The fact that Fatah succeeded in opening a road or removing an Israeli checkpoint after a lengthy negotiation, seems somehow less exciting and not the same level of achievement. To counter this perception, Israel has acted to release Fatah prisoners remain incarcerated in Israeli jails to so that it can be associated with benefits of negotiations.

With Hamas’s standing on the up and up after its success in securing the release of hundreds of its prisoners as part of the exchange for Gilad Shalit, there are those who feel that these events could serve to alienate Fatah and reduce its standing amongst Palestinians. Some Israeli politicians have called for a release of Fatah prisoners as a gesture to Mahmoud Abbas to try to redress the situation. Abbas himself, desperate for any success he can lay his hands on, has mentioned the fact that former prime minister Ehud Olmert offered a release of Fatah prisoners in the event that Gilad Shalit was released. Olmert has confirmed this verbal undertaking, although I suspect that the promise was made on the basis of the expectation that Abbas would actually do something to help to secure Gilad’s release.

In truth, I do not understand why Israel would choose to release Fatah prisoners at this stage. At the time that the final details for Gilad’s release were being negotiated, Abbas was at the UN in New York seeking full membership for the Palestinians. This action by Abbas served to undermine the entire notion of a negotiated settlement. Abbas’s tactic is to get a seat in the UN, and then approach the UN to grant him and his people an independent homeland. If he succeeds, he will achieve this without having to make any concessions that are inherent in a negotiated deal with Israel. This is surely a massive snub to Israel’s efforts to help Fatah over the years.

Now that Gilad has been released and, along with him, hundreds of Hamas prisoners, Abbas is feeling left out and alienated. The problem is that he is responsible, at least in part, for his own situation. His continuing refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and to make the required concessions at the negotiating table, and his acts to try to unilaterally declare an independent state have not helped his cause. They have damaged his standing on the Palestinian street, and with his Israeli counterparts. There should be no reason in the world for Israel to reward him with a release of prisoners.

Israelis should never be duped into believing that Fatah is a true ally of Israel or a friend the Jewish people. It just so happens that we have a common enemy, Hamas, which causes us to come together in opposition to the threat that Hamas presents. As was evidenced by his recent actions at the UN, Abbas will use any opportunity to go behind Israel’s back and pursue his own agenda at Israel’s expense. The continued refusal by Fatah to remove the clause in their constitution calling for the destruction of the State of Israel is evidence of the fact that Fatah’s true intentions may be concealed to the world, and that it may be playing a double-faced game with Israel. While continuing to pursue a path that will ultimately bring peace and security to her citizens, Israel is forced to respond with caution and suspicion to everything that Abbas does.

The time has come for Israel to treat Fatah with a great deal more suspicion and contempt. While it is acknowledged that having a Fatah government in the West Bank is preferable to one controlled by Hamas, this is still not a bed of roses for Israel. Gestures by Israel to Fatah should be matched by gestures on Fatah’s part to Israel. This is the only way to ensure that Fatah will value Israeli gestures. The time for freebies should be over.

Why Should Israel Help Fatah? is a post from: The Israel Situation

Gilad is Finally Home, But the Controversy Rages On

Anthony Reich — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:52:01 +0000

Israel experienced its highest-ever TV ratings over a one day period last week on Tuesday, when captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit finally returned home. The nation was glued to its TV sets as we watched events unfold over the day, finally culminating in a weak-looking Gilad returning to Israel and to the waiting arms of his family. He had spent 5 years and 4 months held in captivity by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Representatives from Hamas have made public statements about how well Gilad was treated. It is claimed that he was well fed during the years of his captivity, and allowed access to media including Israeli TV and radio broadcasts. Although they have also claimed that he was not subject to torture at their hands, Gilad’s father Noam has expressed doubt about this. He does, however, concur with the Hamas statements that Gilad was treated better in the latter years of his captivity. Noam’s comments allow us to believe that the first years were not easy, and may well have included torture. The facts on the day of the prisoner transfer, however, speak for themselves. It was difficult not to notice the stark difference in the conditions of the 477 Palestinian prisoners released by Israel, when compared to that of Gilad. The Palestinian prisoners looked well-fed and physically in good health as they sat on buses and smoked while waiting for the exchange deal to proceed. They had been granted access to members of their family and international organisations as required by the Geneva Convention. The same could not be said for Gilad, who walked with difficulty after being kept away from daylight for most of his years in captivity. Neither his family nor members of the International Committee of the Red Cross were allowed access to him for more than 5 years, despite repeated requests.

As Gilad tries to get to know his family and friends again at his home in Mitzpe Hila, the debate rages through the pages of the Israeli press and around the world about whether the prisoner exchange deal that secured his release was justified. With 477 Palestinian prisoners already released, and a further 550 slated for release in 2 months’ time as part of the deal, there are those in Israel who feel that the price paid for the return of just one prisoner was too high. This view is even further enhanced when considering the crimes committed by those who have been set free. The list of released prisoners includes murderers and terrorists who collectively succeeded in killing hundreds of innocent Israelis. The incidents in which these attacks took place range from the detonation of a bomb in pizza restaurant in downtown Jerusalem to an explosion at a hotel where thousands celebrated the Passover holiday, and more. It is perfectly understandable that the family members of the victims of these attacks are suffering anguish as a result of these killers being set free. There are those who believe that the release of these terrorists, many of whom have vowed to return to their old murderous ways, increases the security risk to Israeli civilians. There are many naysayers who are literally waiting for the next wave of terror attacks to hit Israel in order to justify their resistance to prisoner exchange deal. Yet others are opposed to the deal because they believe that it represents capitulation to terrorists, and encourages them to kidnap Israeli soldiers or civilians in the future in order to secure similar deals. This prisoner exchange agreement, they say, shows a weakness on the part of the Israeli government and her citizens.

Most of the points for and against the exchange deal are fairly well-known, and have enjoyed broad discussion in the Israeli and international press. There are, however, additional considerations that have come to my mind, and which are perhaps less widely discussed. The first point is that the concept of a prisoner exchange deal of this nature is not new. The truth is that Israel has been doing such deals for many years. The only thing that has differed from one deal to another, are the names and the numbers. Over the past 30 years, Israel has released some 7,000 Palestinian prisoners and released the remains of many more. In exchange Israel has received 19 Israelis and the remains of 8 others. Looking back over the years, I don’t believe that this has weakened Israel in any way, or shown that it is capitulating to terrorism. On the contrary, Israel has increased its defences against terrorists in a variety of different ways to strengthen its opposition to the vile actions taken against innocent civilians. At times, Israel has employed fairly extreme anti-terror defences, including a policy of targeted killings against those orchestrating terror activities or carrying them out. This surely demonstrates that Israel is not getting soft on terrorists. While agreeing to enter into prisoner swaps on the one hand, Israel has shown itself to be extremely tough on terror in many other ways.

Instead of interpreting exchange deals as showing weakness to terrorists, it is my belief that Israel is showing strength by adhering to basic principles and values which are fundamental in the Jewish religion. These same principles are the same ones that most reasonable people around the world would identify with. These are the principles of attaching value to the life of each and every citizen of Israel, particularly those who have fallen into captivity during the course of serving in the country’s army. This makes an important and powerful statement, not only to those serving in the army and their families, but also to our enemies. Often, a strong set of values and principles is more important than military strength. Armies around the world will tell you that it is tougher to fight against an enemy which has strong fundamental beliefs in its cause and in its values, than an enemy that does not. This has not gone unnoticed in the Arab press. A reporter writing in Abu Dhabi’s English language Gulf News wrote, “It is not a secret at all that the value of an Arab person in the stock-exchange of Arab regimes is sort of nil …. Have you ever seen an Arab regime trying to get its captives out of Israeli prisons? Forget about it. Most Arab regimes have no problem at all letting their nationals die in Israeli jails.” I believe that such actions do not serve to strengthen a society. It is my view that this attitude shows greater weakness than being prepared to stay to true to a country’s citizens, even if this means having to release terrorists.

Israel has a few weak spots in its history of valuing and securing the release of its citizens held by enemies. Three soldiers, Zachary Baumel, Tzvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz were captured by Syrian authorities in their tank in the Golan Heights in 1982. They have not been heard from since then, and are presumed dead. No evidence has been produced to support this view, however, and the three are listed as missing in action. A similar story is the one of missing Israeli airman Ron Arad, which captured the attention, imagination and sympathy of the world. Navigator Arad bailed out of his plane over Lebanon, and was captured by the enemy in 1986. He was known to have been alive as late as 1988, after having been “sold” by Hezbollah to the Iranians. Israeli attempts to free Arad came to nothing, and there is a strong suspicion that he died during the course of his captivity. For 25 years, his wife and family have been unable to move on with their lives as there is no official pronouncement of life or death. Officially, he is missing in action. These are stains on Israel’s record, and all Israelis know this.

Every nation at war is called upon to make tough decisions. Sometimes, these decisions involve the possibility of “sacrificing” soldiers or other individuals in the interests of a greater good, or the safety of a large number of others. In the case of Gilad Shalit, I think that any decision to sacrifice him in exchange for keeping 1,027 terrorists in prison would have been one of the toughest for anybody to make. In due course, we think we will know the price of not sacrificing him, but it is still difficult to say that any terror activities that may occur over the coming months and years would not have occurred if the 1,027 had remained in prison. It is my belief that there are enough “terrorists in waiting” out there to make the impact that the 1,027 may make, look insignificant.

On balance, given the alternatives between another Ron Arad situation or the current Gilad Shalit situation, the choice for me is an easy one. We are obliged to value the life that we know that we can rescue. In this respect, the government has made exactly the right decision. We are also obliged to ensure that those who are released, are not allowed to cause any further damage or bloodshed. I am sure that the IDF is on a close look-out for this. And even though many will interpret the release of the terrorists is to be an insult to the memories of those who were killed at their hands, it is really a clear statement of the value of life. Even if it is only one.

It is my wish that Gilad will enjoy a quick and full recovery to everyday life, and that he and his family will enjoy many years of health and happiness together. It is equally my wish that the memories of those who were brutally murdered by terrorists, will be for a blessing. Perhaps, above all, the fact that our society can hold this type of debate in an open and honest way, is a great demonstration of our democracy at work to build a just, caring and sensitive society. Am Yisrael Chai – The People of Israel live!

Gilad is Finally Home, But the Controversy Rages On is a post from: The Israel Situation

Welcome Home Gilad

Eric — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:08:48 +0000

After five years in captivity with no visits from friends, family, or the Red Cross, Gilad Shalit is back home in Israel. He came home in good spirits and relatively good health.

Doctors said that Shalit was showing signs of malnutrition and a lack of sun exposure. He was taken from Gaza to Egypt where he was released to the custody of Israeli officials. Those officials took Shalit to a military base in central Israel where he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and was reunited with his family. He is now at home in Mitzpe Hila with his family.

While Israelis were celebrating and rejoicing at the return of their lost soldier, roughly half of the 1,027 Palestinian terrorists were transferred from Israeli prisons to Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. Palestinians celebrated by holding what quickly turned into a violent riot complete with stone throwing and fires.

Like many others, I am upset to see so many violent murderers released. However, I am thrilled to see Gilad and his family’s turmoil come to an end.

Thank God he was brought home safe and alive.

Photo from IDF Spokesman.

Welcome Home Gilad is a post from: The Israel Situation

Gilad To Be Released – The Agony With The Ecstasy

Anthony Reich — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 16:28:03 +0000

The mood across Israel was changed in a dramatic fashion on Tuesday last week when the news was made public during the early evening that an agreement had been reached with Hamas for the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. After 5 long years during which Hamas had allowed no access to him at all, not even by human rights organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross, it seems as though Gilad Shalit will finally be on his way home.

Of course, the agreement that was finally struck by David Meidan and the Israeli negotiating team comes at a high cost to Israel. The objective behind the kidnapping in the first instance, was to extract a high price from Israel by insisting that prisoners in Israeli jails be released in exchange for any agreement to release Shalit. This is exactly what they have achieved, even though it has taken more than 5 long years to finally reach the agreement. Israel will release 1,027 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails in order to secure the freedom of one IDF soldier. Many of these prisoners are serving life sentences, and have “blood on their hands” for murdering innocent Israeli civilians. Among those due for release are those who planned the Sbarro and Moment restaurant bombings in Jerusalem, those who planned the Seder night bombing at the Park Hotel in Netanya and those who planned the kidnap of Gilad Shalit. There are also many others who were involved in numerous bus bombings, and others who have committed similar heinous crimes. Along with the euphoria of knowing that Gilad will finally be returned to his parents and to the people of Israel, have come searching questions about the terms of his release.

As we sat in our Sukkah on Wednesday evening celebrating the festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles), the conversation inevitably turned to the deal that was struck for Gilad’s release. There were some sitting around the table who felt that the price was too high, and that the deal should never have been done on these terms. All the old concerns and issues were raised to justify why this deal endangers Israel’s security going forward. One friend said that he thought that the prisoner exchange shows a weakness in Israeli society that we are prepared to contemplate a deal that will return only one of our soldiers for more than a thousand of theirs. It is his view that our one soldier should effectively be sacrificed in order to protect the security of Israel going forward. The welfare of one soldier should not be allowed to destabilise the security of the entire State of Israel by placing convicted murderers and terrorists back on the streets. This friend has a daughter currently serving her two years in the IDF. When I asked how he would respond if the soldier in question was Heaven forbid his own daughter, he brought me the story of Joseph Stalin who refused to accept a deal with the Germans for a prisoner exchange to return his own son, Yacov, from captivity whilst a soldier in the Red army. Yacov ultimately died while being held by the Germans. My friend’s point is that the state is larger than any of its individuals, and that the government should behave accordingly.

As expected, the prisoner exchange has come under a great deal of resistance from the families of the victims who were maimed and murdered at the hands of the prisoners due for release. Many have already made it clear how insulted they feel by the release of the murderers of their loved ones. We can all understand their pain, and the fact that they feel that this insults the memories of their dearly departed. The government went out of its way to arrest and imprison the perpetrators of these horrible attacks. Now, it seems that all is being thrown away by the prisoner exchange deal. This view would be entirely valid if our circumstances were normal. Unfortunately, like so many other things in Israel and the Middle East, things are never straightforward.

My view is that we should do all that we can to respect the memories of those who have fallen in the line of duty protecting their homeland, and those whose lives have been taken by those seeking to destroy our country and our people. While doing so, however, we are also forced to confront the new realities and circumstances that arise each day. I think that the strength of our society lies in the fact that we do value each individual as if he is the only one. While I agree that the price seems unbalanced when we exchange 1 for more than 1,000, the message that it sends to our serving soldiers and their families can only help to strengthen the resolve and the strength of our military, and of our society as a whole. Our security forces can operate in the knowledge that they are more than simply a number, and that the government will do all that is required to protect them, even under the most extreme situation. The argument that, through this prisoner exchange, the government is releasing murderers and terrorists to kill and maim again is valid. The security services have said that they can take care of this situation, and I believe that there are so many potential terrorists and murderers in the West Bank and Gaza, that the release of this motley crew does not significantly increase the risk. And while the exchange deal does reinforce what the terrorists already knew when they kidnapped Gilad, which is that Israel values each of its individual soldiers and will be prepared to strike an unbalanced prisoner exchange deal to release him, I don’t believe that this dramatically increases the risk of other soldiers being kidnapped in the future. This is because the risk has been at the highest level for many years, and the fact that 5 years have passed without another soldier being kidnapped is not because they have not tried. Regular attempts have been made to kidnap soldiers, and we should expect that such attempts will continue.

Israel is forced to exist under extreme and severe circumstances. The risk of a terror or missile attack against her civilians is ever-present. The act of rounding up those who have brought death and destruction on Israelis in the past is more about justice than it is about reducing the risk levels. It is clear that removing such individuals from a situation where they can repeat their crimes does give some increased level of security. I am not convinced, however, that arresting these individuals, even when related to 1,000 people, serves to dramatically improve Israel’s security. Apparently the Shin Bet security agency agrees with this assessment, and has given its approval to the prisoner exchange. The Shin Bet chief Yoram Cohen described the prisoner exchange deal as “a bad deal, but the only one available to us”. This sums it up for many in Israel. We would prefer not to have to release criminals back onto the street, but the alternative of not doing so is worse.

The Israeli government last night released the names of the first group of prisoners set for release. This is to allow the 48 hour period that the law requires for any legal challenges to the prisoner exchange before it goes ahead. Objections to the exchange have already been filed with the High Court of Justice, and the court will hear these petitions during the course of today. Assuming that the court gives its approval to the exchange, it is expected that Gilad Shalit will return to Israel during the course of Tuesday. For one family and for many Israelis, this will be a moment of great joy and the ultimate fulfilment of the government’s responsibility to each of its citizens. For many families, it will reopen painful wounds and memories. Our joy is tempered by their pain, and the sacrifice that these fmailies have made will never be ignored or forgotten. Unfortunately, nothing can return their loved ones, and it is my hope that they will find a way to feel the joy of the Shalit family and other Israelis. We wait expectantly for the moment when Gilad will emerge, alive and well, into the arms of his family and the Israeli nation.

Gilad To Be Released – The Agony With The Ecstasy is a post from: The Israel Situation

4 Common But False Myths About Israel

Eric — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:07:58 +0000

This is a guest post from Brett Borders. He is a copywriter living in Denver, CO. He cares about the safety and future of minority religions and ethnic groups in the Middle East.

The Jewish state of Israel is geographically one of the smallest countries in the world. Although Israel is 8 times smaller than Florida, it gets a disproportionately high percent of media coverage. Since the Jewish state was recognized by the UN in 1948, it has been attacked repeatedly by Arab Muslim neighbors – from suicide bombing campaigns, to full-scale surprise invasions by multiple armies. This perpetual conflict has kept Israel in the news spotlight… but many of the notions that are being repeated in syndicated news wires, opinion columns and online comments are not factual or accurate.

Here are 4 common, but false, myths about Israel to watch out for:

1. Most Israelis Are “European Colonists”

False. Over 20% of Israel’s population are Arabs. Of the 73% that is Jewish, over 50% the Jews are Mizhrai Jews who are members or descendants of ancient, indigenous Jewish communities in the Middle East who fled or were expelled from their homes in Arab lands. A minority of the Israeli population are Ashkenazi Jews, whose ancestors came to Israel from Europe and the USSR – many as refugees from genocide or persecution (who did not arrive by choice). 70% of the people now living in Israel were born in Israel (“sabras”). The facts are simple: Hebrew, Jews and Judaism are indigenous native to Israel. Arabic, Arabs and Islam are indigenous native to the Arabian peninsula.

2. Israel “Stole” and Now “Occupies” Palestinian Land

False. Israel is a tiny spec on the map compared to the empire of 22 Arabs countries it sits in the mist of. Israel had no presence in the disputed West Bank (Judea and Samaria) before it was attacked by Jordan in 1967. Jordan lost the war and relinquished control of the area – and Israel has maintained a defensive military presence there till this day. Interestingly, there was no mention of a self-aware “Palestinian people” or nation before the mid-1960′s – when they simply called themselves Arabs. In the absence of a stable government or peace agreements with the Arab population in the former Jordanian territory, Jewish villages (“settlements’) were built on vacant or legally-purchased-from-the-owners land in the disputed areas of the Jewish ancestral & historical heartland. Israel has offered to sign a peace treaty and cede some of the disputed land to Arabs in West Bank since 1967… but to date, all sincere peace offers by Israel have been rejected by Palestinian Arabs.

3. Israel is a Racist or “Apartheid” State

False. Israel is the only country in the region where freedom of religion, women’s rights, minority and gay rights are fully guaranteed under law. Aparthied was a South African system where colonists (not refugees) went to a land that they had zero historical connection to and then systematically denied rights to the natives based on race. The situation in the West Bank is very different. The government and Arab residents of the area are at war with Israel. Israel has erected security walls and checkpoints to stop suicide bombers and snipers from infiltrating Israel. The checkpoints and settlements are a result of the continued Arab conflict (or “jihad”) against Israel, not the cause of it. There are more than a few actual racist and apartheid states in the Middle East – were minorities have limited rights under law and women forcibly segregated from men by “Modesty Police.”

4. Israel “Won’t Make Peace with Its Neighbors”

False. Israel has made great efforts to make peace with its neighbors and it has already signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Israel withdrew its troops from fighting the PLO in Southern Lebanon in 2000. This did not bring peace… it allowed Iran to smuggle over 40,000 rockets into the vacated region and point them at Israel to further escalate tension. Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Arab-majority area of Gaza in 2005 as a sincere peace gesture to Palestinian Arabs. It did not bring peace. The number of terror and rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip increased exponentially, and crimes against humanity like hostage abductions and attacks on school buses have taken place.

This video, “The Truth About The Peace Process,” explains Israel’s numerous attempts to make peace with its Arab neighbors… and equally numerous times that its efforts to make peace have flatly been ignored, rebuffed and rejected:

4 Common But False Myths About Israel is a post from: The Israel Situation