The Israel Situation » Terrorism

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

Assad Keeps Fighting, But Cannot Survive

Anthony Reich — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:29:51 +0000

The uprising in Syria has continued unabated for the past 8 months. Despite the fact that thousands of people have already been killed in the process, the uprising shows no signs of being quelled by the strong-arm tactics adopted by President Bashar al-Assad. Despite Assad fighting the civilian uprising using all military options available to him, he cannot survive this challenge to his leadership. In the interests of preventing further loss of life, Bashar should accept the inevitable as soon as possible and leave office.

The Syrian uprising has progressed in a substantially different way to the uprisings that took place in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya. The biggest difference in Syria is the fact that the regime has managed to survive for as long as 8 months, despite constant protests by the opposition and Syrian civilians over this time. We all know that the long-ruling and well-established governments of Gadaffi, Mubarak and others were unable to survive the attacks that they came under for more than a few months. So what is it about Assad and Syria that has allowed him to survive for this period of time, despite having already killed more than 3,000 civilians (according to the UN) in his attempt to put down the uprising?

Despite the fact that the uprisings in other countries in the region proved to be the catalyst for the demonstrations in Syria, Assad has benefited from the fact other countries have been suffering unrest. This has diverted the attention of the world and the international media elsewhere, while he tries to take care of his own back yard. So far, he has managed to escape the fates that Mubarak and Gadaffi suffered when the world’s leaders and media were focused on the events in these countries. While there have been a few reports and international condemnation of events in Syria, these have not been anywhere as directed as those that were directed at Mubarak and Gadaffi before the demise of these two leaders. In Assad’s case, there are indications that this is about to change over the coming weeks and months now that Syria has been brought into target by the international community.

In the case particularly of Libya, oil had much to do with the decision by NATO to take an active part in Libya’s uprising. There can be no doubt that Gadaffi would probably still have been in power, if it was not for the role played by NATO war planes. Even though oil exploration and export is an important part of the Syrian economy accounting for as much as 25% of the government’s income, Syrian oil only makes up about 0.5% of the world’s oil production. As such, the world has not looked upon Syria with the same concern for its stability as it did when chaos ensued in Libya. It also means that NATO has no interest in getting involved in Syria. It enjoys little strategic relevance to the world, either in terms of its location or in terms of its production of oil. The only possible point of strategic relevance relating to Syria is its ongoing dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights. It is clear that the world would wish for this issue to be resolved in order to reduce the threat of a war between Syria and Israel which would, undoubtedly, drag other countries in the region into conflict.

Perhaps the most important reason why the world has not come down more harshly on Syria until now, relates to its connections with Iran. Despite not sharing a common border, Syria and Iran have forged extremely close links over the past few years. Ahmadinejad’s Iran has proved to be the “catching net” for those countries seeking international links, but which have been rejected by countries in the west. As one of the world’s major sponsors of terror, Iran has cast its influence far and wide. It has also stood up to huge criticism by the international community over its nuclear program, thereby showing itself as a leader of the renegade countries which oppose the influence of the USA and other western powers. In this respect, Iran has shown itself to be quite an attractive ally for Turkey, Syria and other countries that are struggling to gain acceptance into international circles. The world has realised that any action against Syria, effectively equates to action against Iran.

On the basis of the close links between Syria and Iran, it is difficult to separate action against Iran’s nuclear program from action against Syria’s extreme crackdown against protestors. There is a view that says that the world, by escalating Iran on its nuclear program, is trying to divert Ahmadinejad’s attention away from Syria in order to allow the world to take a separate position on this. There seems to be an attempt to divide and rule. The Arab League has taken a bold and significant stand against Syria over the past week, by suspending it from the organisation, and threatening to take further diplomatic actions against Syria if Assad does not pull his military forces out of civilian areas and halt the violence. Although there is no love lost between the Arab League and Iran, the Arab League has taken its time in adopting this stand against Syria in view of the fact that it clearly represents taking a stand against Iran at the same time.

Despite Assad’s closeness with Ahmadinejad, he will not be able to survive this uprising against his leadership. He is destined to go the same route as Gadaffi, Mubarak and other casualties of the Arab Spring. The question is whether he has learned any lessons from those that have fallen before him. By hanging on to power longer than he should have, Gadaffi issued a death sentence for himself. When his demise came, the hatred against him was such that he was never going to survive being captured by the opposition forces. If Assad is sensible, he still has the opportunity to remove himself from power, thereby saving his life and that of his young family. Continuing to direct his military forces to kill more civilians will make this outcome less likely, and will endanger his life further at that moment when he is driven from power.

Israel is watching carefully to see where events in Syria will lead. The fall of Assad’s regime will surely weaken Ahmadinejad’s influence in the region. Equally, any action taken against Iran’s nuclear program will weaken Syria. Assad has warned that any action taken by the international community against Syria will cause an earthquake in the region. He knows that this is likely to drag Iran into a broader war in the Middle East, and the international community knows this too.

Ahmadinejad, it seems, is the big winner in all of this. Leaders like Assad are running to him like little puppies in order to gain his acceptance and support. He is standing up to the international community with his continued defiance of their calls against his nuclear program, and by continuing to fund international terrorism. His name is on everyone’s lips in the international press, and at organisations like the UN and the IAEA. He is the modern-day version of Stalin that all seem to fear. Even Ahmadinejad, however, cannot save Assad’s head. Assad will need to decide whether he is prepared to jump, or whether he is waiting to be pushed. The latter option will not be without its consequences for him and his family. Either way, Assad’s eventual downfall can only be good for the region and the world by weakening Iran’s influence.

Assad Keeps Fighting, But Cannot Survive is a post from: The Israel Situation

UN Report: Iran Building Nuclear Weapons

Eric — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:55:57 +0000

Not that I have not told you a thousand times before, but now a report has been released by the UN indicating that Iran is, in fact, building nuclear weapons. The IAEA, the United Nations nuclear arm, had this to say:

“The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” the report said. “After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

Last night I had the opportunity to see Shaul Mofaz, Member of the Knesset, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs And Defence Committee, and former IDF Chief of Staff, in person and he discussed the Iran issue at great length. He was clear about the real threat Iran poses to the State of Israel and Jewish people around the world.

The last time a world leader got up on stage and said he was going to kill the Jews, he killed 6 million. This guy (Ahmadinejad) says he will destroy Israel and he is building nuclear weapons. It is time for Israel, the United States, and the European Union to act before it is too late.

Read more at CNN or read the full UN report here.

UN Report: Iran Building Nuclear Weapons 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

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

Breaking News: Gilad Shalit Deal Imminent

Eric — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:10:13 +0000

The Jerusalem Post reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called an emergency cabinet meeting to approve an Egyptian mediated deal for the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli who has spent five years impassioned by Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

From the JPost:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is convening a special cabinet meeting Tuesday evening to approve an Egyptian mediated deal for the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit, government sources confirmed.

The meeting is scheduled to begin a 8 pm.

Netanyahu was quoted on TV news as saying “the window has been opened for an historic deal” to free Shalit, captured by Hamas militants tunneling under a border fence in June 2006.

Reports from other sources say a German mediator has been in Egypt for the last week to work out the details of a deal to bring Gilad home to Israel. He was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists who built an illegal tunnel under the border fence into Israeli territory.

Breaking News: Gilad Shalit Deal Imminent is a post from: The Israel Situation

Palestinian Attempt to Hijack the UN Leads Nowhere

Anthony Reich — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:41:39 +0000

All eyes were focused last week on the opening of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly in New York. For weeks prior to this event, the Palestinians had dominated the international press with stories of taking a unilateral declaration of independence to the UN for a vote. Even though the events of last week turned many minds back to the fateful vote by the same organisation in 1947 which paved the way for the establishment of the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland, the two situations could not be more stark in their differences.

After the build-up that took place to last week’s meetings, it all ended with something of an anti-climax. There was no vote on the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. There was not even a vote to admit the Palestinians as full members of the UN. Ultimately, the best that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was able to do, was to submit his application to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon for full membership of the UN by the Palestinians. This application will need to be approved by the UN Security Council, and US President Barack Obama has already said that the USA will veto this vote if necessary. As a compromise, the Palestinians may be able to upgrade their current status of membership of the UN from an “entity” to a “non-member state” in UN speak. This requires only a vote by the general assembly without the need for approval by the Security Council, and is likely to be approved with some ease. The benefits of this upgrade for the Palestinians, however, seem marginal.

Despite the fact that all of the hype resulted in very little action, there were a few important results that came out of the events of last week. The first major outcome was the way in which President Barack Obama behaved when he was truly put on the spot. Obama has distanced himself from the peace process since assuming office nearly 3 years ago. He has yet to pay a visit to Israel or to the Palestinian Authority area, and has preferred to focus his time and energies on the many other issues currently confronting the USA. Despite his statements about the importance of resolving Middle East conflict, and his attempts to set timetables within which this issue should be resolved, he has yet to devote any significant chunk of his time to make this happen. When he was backed into a corner last week and forced to decide whether the Security Council should approve full membership for the Palestinians, he knew that exercising the USA’s veto is the only answer. This was accompanied by a speech which was one of the most pro-Israeli addresses made by a US president at the UN for many years, and which surprised supporters and detractors alike. In his speech, he told the story of the terror and hatred that Israelis have been forced to live with over many years, and he recognised Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish homeland. This was perhaps the most critical statement, as it is the point which currently presents the main stumbling block to renewing peace talks.

The address to the general assembly by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was equally an important event during the week. Despite his many faults, Netanyahu has consistently shown his ability to present Israel’s position on the international stage. Once again, he did this with great confidence and conviction. In particular, he addressed those people who feel that Israel should show greater flexibility in its negotiating position. There are those who believe that Israel should be playing to the “Palestinian moderates”, by making concessions to give them greater position and power amongst their Palestinian colleagues. In theory, these moderates will lead the peace agreement with Israel, and lead the Palestinians to a more moderate position. In refuting this position, Netanyahu reminded the general assembly of the many concessions that Israel has already made in the interests of pursuing peace. The most substantial of these concessions, a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with all the implications of uprooting the lives of many thousands of people, has served to distance peace rather than bring it closer. After handing the keys of Gaza to PA President Abbas, he proceeded to lose control of it to the radicals of Hamas. Israel has been forced to endure constant rocket fire from the areas which were previously under Israeli control ever since. If this is a model for making concessions, it is not particularly successful and does create much of a precedent for future concessions.

Overall, the right conclusion was reached at the UN. This conclusion is that the UN cannot act as a replacement for the peace process. The UN cannot grant a state to people who are unwilling to come to the negotiating table, because they refuse to recognise the most fundamental rights of their neighbour. Until the Palestinians recognise the rights of Israel to exist, and to exist as a Jewish state, there can be no further discussion. Without this recognition, there will always be the suspicion (or maybe a confirmation) that the Palestinians seek a state of their own alongside Israel only in order to use this as a springboard to destroy the Jewish state completely. Hamas, along with their Hezbollah and Iranian friends, have not been shy to make this point clear in public. Perhaps this is Mahmoud Abbas’s little secret.

The difference between the UN vote of 1947 and the UN non-vote of 2011 is perhaps best reflected by the responses of the general public awaiting the outcomes. Jews were dancing in the streets of Jerusalem, across then-Palestine and around the world. In contrast, Palestinians lined up across the West Bank with stones which were thrown at Israeli security patrols, and burning posters of President Barack Obama and Israeli flags. Israeli military was on high alert in the south of the country after a concrete threat of a terror attack in the area.

While the UN has in the past been a very unhappy hunting ground for Israel and Jews around the world, these two occasions stand out as crucially arriving at the correct conclusion. Each, for its own different reason, will take its place in Jewish history as a critical moment in time.

Palestinian Attempt to Hijack the UN Leads Nowhere is a post from: The Israel Situation

Terrorism, Short Memories and Lack of Empathy

Anthony Reich — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:54:24 +0000

Every year at this time, our media is bombarded with scenes of commemoration ceremonies at Ground Zero, and across America for the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks. We are shown movies and documentaries about the events that took place on that fateful day, new revelations that have come to light since then and security arrangements that are now in place which have changed America and the world. This year, which marked the 10th anniversary of America’s largest terror attack on home ground, had greater significance and relevance as the new water feature at Ground Zero was finally opened to replace the buildings that once stood there.

At the time that the attacks took place on American soil ten years ago, there were more than a few Israelis who thought that the American people may view Israel in a different light in view of the terror attacks that they had experienced on their own soil. For the first time in many years, the Americans were made to feel the threat and personal injury that Israelis have been forced to suffer since independence in 1948, and even before that. There was a feeling among Israelis that Americans would be able to empathize with the Israeli people, and perhaps even view the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians in a slightly different way. Perhaps there would not be such great pressure from the Americans and the rest of the international community to be forced to negotiate with the same group that is using terror to try to destroy the country. Further terror attacks in London, Madrid, Bali and other locations raised this expectation even further. Maybe these nations would also show greater understanding for Israel’s fight for existence against these terror activities.

For a time, it felt as though the balance did swing a little towards greater sympathy for Israel’s position. Politicians and ordinary citizens of countries around the world showed some level of understanding for the extreme and unnatural circumstances under which Israeli citizens are forced to live while terrorists continuously attempt to blow up buses, restaurants and other public areas, or launch missiles towards residential neighbourhoods where children sit in school classrooms. This sympathy and understanding seemed to evaporate almost as quickly as it arose, and things went back to the same old situation that was in place prior to 9/11. Instead, a level of self-pity replaced these feelings, with people feeling sorry for themselves that they were suddenly forced to suffer with increased levels of security at airports, train stations and other public areas. And when the opportunity has arisen to associate with Israel and to hold the Palestinians to account for their terror acts against Israelis, suddenly the feeling of identification is forgotten. The identification with another nation that has also been subjected to unforgiveable acts of terror, initiated by the same groups as those attacking the rest of the free world, is somehow completely missing. The previous status quo has been replaced by a new one, and people have returned right back to where they were before.

Later this week on Friday, the Palestinians plan to bring a vote to the UN General Assembly requesting greater recognition for the Palestinian people. It is not quite clear what the nature of the Palestinians’ request will be, and whether they will be requesting full membership of the UN General Assembly, or whether they will be going as far as requesting the UN to authorise the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Whatever it is, more than 100 countries have lined themselves up to support the Palestinian initiative at the UN. This is how the world is responding to an organisation that has constantly acted as a terror organisation over the years. Although much of the world’s ire is directed towards Israel for the current hiatus in the peace process, it remains on the record that the Palestinians have still not removed the clause in the PLO charter that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. The current breakdown in talks is down to the Palestinians not agreeing to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Surely this should prevent them from coming to the UN with their application.

An article in an Israeli newspaper today referred to the current Palestinian initiative at the UN, and Hamas’ position on this process. Hamas has not supported the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority’s intention to make an application at the UN, bringing to the surface many internal disagreements between the various Palestinian factions on this issue. It was written today that Hamas would change their position and support the UN initiative, as long as it was agreed that there would be no acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist. It astonishes me that the international community would even think about debating an issue like this under these circumstances. Before the UN admits a new entity to its hallowed halls, it has a responsibility to protect and defend the rights of the existing members. This responsibility is not being fulfilled in the current circumstances.

The events of 9/11 and other attacks of terror remain close to the families of the victims, and to the various countries who suffered from them. There is much sympathy from Israelis for the victims of these events and their families. Who knows more what suffering these people are enduring than those who have suffered it themselves. The price paid in human casualties and the attack on their freedom will not be forgotten in a hurry. This unfortunately does not translate into a feeling of identification and understanding from these countries for other countries who suffer from this assault on their freedom in a more extreme way i.e. by an attack on their very right to exist. Despite the intention by some countries to oppose the UN initiative this week, it somehow seems that this is a battle that Israel is destined to fight largely on her own. Any agreement at the UN later this week to upgrade the diplomatic status of the Palestinians will be clear evidence of this.

Terrorism, Short Memories and Lack of Empathy is a post from: The Israel Situation