Israel’s recent double strike on Syrian weapons storage facilities has, once again, raised the issue of the validity of preemptive strikes.  Israel has used this tactic on more than a number of previous occasions, has already struck Syria already a few times this year.  There are those who go as far as attributing Israel’s continued existence to the fact that she has been prepared to go out and defend herself even before the attack materialises.

The issue of preemptive strikes as a defense mechanism to counter a potential threat has a number of inherent problems attached to it, particularly when this encroaches on the sovereign territory of another country.  Firstly, there is always the question as to whether the perceived threat is real and credible.  We saw the consequences of a bad call on the perceived threat when it was revealed that intelligence information was incorrect prior to the Second Gulf War.  This dogged both Tony Blair and George W. Bush until the end of their respective tenures, and continues to dog them in their personal capacities to this day.  Secondly, there is the question as to whether one sovereign country has the right to attack another sovereign country in defense of itself even where the threat is sure.  It could easily be argued that there is an element of hypocrisy in this concept.  Does it make a difference if the perceived threat is not an immediate one, but rather a perceived future threat?  This is the case with Israel’s strikes in Syria last week, where the rationale for the strike was that Hezbollah may use these arms against Israel at an undetermined time in the future.  There are no firm answers to these questions, and the international community has historically judged such deeds on the basis of the parties involved, rather than the act.  On this occasion, Israel succeeded in capitalising on the negative views currently held by the international community towards Syria and Hezbollah, and escaped with little or no censure by the international community – something quite rare for Israeli attacks.  But this has not always been the case in the past.

Israel, a small island located in a sea of aggressive and hateful enemies, has been forced to employ the tactic of preemptive strikes in order to survive.  Some of Israel’s most famous and important victories – most notably that in the Six Day War – were achieved by surprising the enemy before they were able to inflict damage.  The Egyptian air force was destroyed while on the ground in 1967.  This surely paved the way for the famous Israeli victory.  Israel was roundly criticised for sending its air force aeroplanes to destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor site in Iraq in 1981.  It was only many years later in 2005 that President Clinton finally acknowledged for the first time that the strike on Osirak by Israel was a “really good thing”.  Similarly, the strike on the Syrian nuclear facility that was carried out by Israel in 2007, attracted criticism from Mohamed ElBaradei, then head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Imagine if the civil war in Syria being waged at this time involved the added concern of nuclear weapons.  With the benefit of hindsight, the Israeli strike in 2007 has potentially saved massive consequences.

These historical experiences also put a context to the ongoing standoff with Iran concerning the development of its own nuclear facilities.  A preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be much more difficult, and would have far greater consequences than the ones carried out against Iraq and Syria.  Both of the previous attacks solicited no military response at all.  This miraculous escape, after catching each of these countries off guard, is highly unlikely in the Iranian context.  It is almost assured that any attempt to carry out a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities would include a substantial response.  It is for this reason that Israel has tried using different tactics against Iran, including mounting a concerted campaign to assassinate key personnel employed in the Iranian nuclear industry and using cyber warfare to destroy software and hardware in use by the Iranian nuclear facilities.  Until now, these tactics have served to slow the processes down at best, and have not been effective in halting Iran’s march towards becoming a nuclear power.  Israel is still considering a game-changing strike that will kill off Iran’s nuclear push once and for all.  The threat posed by a retaliation to such a strike is surely much lower than the threat presented by a nuclear Iran.  Despite this fact, the threat presented by retaliation is substantial.

While not completely invincible, Israel’s military and intelligence establishments have proven themselves over and over again.  Mistakes have certainly been made, but reports of potential threats which are reported by these organisations are always taken seriously by the Israeli government.  This is based on its amazing track record of getting things right more often than getting them wrong, and managing to sniff out information in a seemingly impossible way.  The way that the Israeli organisations work seems somehow to be different and more effective than similar intelligence agencies elsewhere in the world.  A potential threat to Israel which is reported by Israeli intelligence will almost certainly be taken seriously.  Equally, the Israeli intelligence community is well aware of the importance of the advice that they offer, and the consequences of giving bad advice or making mistakes.

It seems highly unlikely that Israel will reverse its tactic of preemptive strikes against enemies in the near future.  This tactic which has proved very effective in the past, and critical to Israel’s survival. Despite the fact that a great deal of Israel’s focus is on defense rather than attack, as evidenced by new developments such as the Iron Dome, the tactic of attack is often the best form of defense.  Despite this fact, we all wish to believe that this will always be used sparingly and very cautiously.  Ultimately, however, it is one of the ways that Israel will be able to maintain any superiority over its enemy neighbours around the Middle East.  If attacks and threats against Israel persist, Israel will be forced to employ measures to protect herself.  These measures include preemptive tactics to prevent the possibility of attacks taking place, and to prevent loss of innocent lives.  Extreme circumstances demand extreme measures.  It would be difficult to argue that Israel is not living under extreme circumstances.

Image from CNN

The Importance of Preemptive Strikes is a post from: The Israel Situation

The group known as “Women of the Wall” have elevated themselves onto the front pages of the Israeli press in recent times.  They have clashed with police in Jerusalem over their desire to have the right to pray at the Kotel, the Western Wall, in their own way and style.  For them, their way and style means wearing a talit (prayer shawls) and tefilin (phylacteries), and undertaking other prayer-related activities which are usually the preserve of males in Orthodox Judaism.  Their mission says, “…….. our central mission is to achieve the social and legal recognition of our right, to wear prayer shawls, pray, and read from the Torah collectively and out loud at the Western Wall”.  Why does this lead them to become criminals in the eyes of the Israeli justice system?

Some of these actions on the part of the Women of the Wall have attracted attention from Jerusalem police officers, and even led to some of the women being arrested.  The legal system has relied on the law in Israel that requires respect for “local custom” at the site, which in this case refers to the Kotel.  The police have been called to arrest Women of the Wall on the basis that their actions do not respect local custom.  Clearly, the “local custom” is determined by what the Orthodox establishment demand.  Such arrests have been made on more than one occasion.

While we understand that, in most Orthodox Jewish custom, women do not wear prayer shawls and do not read from the Torah in public, the question is whether there is any actual prohibition on women doing these things?  It seems as though the customs of women not undertaking these activities stems from the fact that, in Orthodox Jewish law, women are not obliged to fulfil them in the way that men are.  In the case of the talit and tefilin, these are precepts (mitzvot) that are time-bound.  This means that there are certain times that the mitzva should be undertaken, and other times when it should not.  As a general rule, such time-bound mitzvot are not required to be undertaken by women in terms of Talmudic law.  It is not exactly clear why this is this case, but there are views that it is because women have a higher spiritual wisdom (bina) than men, and this exempts them from time-bound mitzvot.  Others contend that it is a more pragmatic issue of women having so many other household chores to take care of, that they can be exempted from time-bound mitzvot.  Our Talmudic sages are divided as to whether women are prohibited from performing mitzvot from which they are exempt.  The Rambam, one of the most famous of the Talmudic sages seems to accept that there is no prohibition on women performing mitzvot that they are not obliged to perform, and chooses instead to discuss whether women should pronounce the blessing which states that they are obliged to perform the mitzva before actually performing it.  He is supported in this discourse by Rabbi Yosef Karo and others.  This seems to give sufficient doubt to indicate that women are not entirely without justification when choosing to perform such mitzvot, and there is a strong case which supports women being free to carry them out.

Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky was drafted in by the government to try to help the situation. The actions to prevent the Women of the Wall from expressing themselves during prayer have served to alienate many US Jews from Israel.  The US community, which is notoriously heterogeneous in its interpretation of Judaism and which values pluralism in Jewish thought and practice, has reacted extremely negatively to the standoff at the Kotel.  It was hoped that Sharansky will be able to use his balanced approach to suggest a compromise solution, and that he can use his links with the US Jewish community to heal the rift which has developed.  Sharansky recommended allowing the Women of the Wall to use a separate section of the wall, known as Robinson’s Arch, to allow the Women of the Wall to express themselves and carry out their practices without others being offended.  While this was originally accepted as a possible compromise by the Women of the Wall, their position has hardened recently and they are now rejecting this solution.

The hardening of their position coincided with the ruling by an Israeli court a few weeks ago, which decided that these actions by the Women of the Wall do not actually constitute disrespect for local custom at the site.  This reinforces the lack of agreement by the Talmudic sages.  This court ruling means that their actions no longer constitute an offence for which women can be arrested.  The Women of the Wall were emboldened in their view that their actions are entirely acceptable, and decided that there is much less justification in accepting a compromise solution that means they are forced to pray hidden from general sight.

The influence of the ultra-Orthodox in Israel has been substantial over the past few years, particularly during the years that successive governments owed their continued existence to the support of the ultra-Orthodox parties in the Knesset.  The ultra-Orthodox influence has pervaded many aspects of Israeli society.  Numerous concessions have been granted to the ultra-Orthodox community to keep them supporting the government, the most famous of which is the exemption of young ultra-Orthodox boys and girls from serving in the IDF.  This has granted disproportionate power to ultra-Orthodox groups.  With the construction of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s most recent government that excludes the ultra-Orthodox parties for the first time in many years, ultra-Orthodox power has been substantially reduced.  Many in Israel are happy about this, as the influence of the ultra-Orthodox has permeated the lives of so many individual Israelis.  Perhaps the drama at the wall is an attempt for the ultra-Orthodox establishment to exert their power where they can.

Even though the ultra-Orthodox establishment has been given control over the Western Wall, and Chief Rabbi of the Wall Shmuel Rabinovitz has rabbinic jurisdiction over this site, it should be understood that the Western Wall is a public asset for Jews in Israel and around the world.  As such, decisions such as those affecting the Women of the Wall should not be taken lightly.  It is not as in an individual synagogue where congregants are free to move elsewhere in the event that they do not wish to accept the rules pertaining to the synagogue.  The Western Wall has no alternative in Judaism.  To the extent that there is even the slightest doubt about the interpretation of a particular element of Jewish law, as is the case here, the rabbi has a responsibility to consider the national and international ramifications of his decision.

I salute the Women of the Wall for standing by their convictions, and for being prepared to take on the ultra-Orthodox establishment.  This is not an easy decision, and life has been made extremely for them as a result.  Ultimately, I believe that they will prevail, and that they will be granted the right to pray as they wish.  In reality, anybody who does not like this is not obliged to be present at the Kotel when the women are there.  Until now, the Women of the Wall have conducted their prayers monthly on rosh chodesh at a time known in advance.  This allows plenty of alternative opportunities for those who wish to attend the wall, without being forced to endure anything that they do not wish to see.  This simply demands a little tolerance and understanding by all parties, something that is unfortunately in short supply in Israel, especially in the ultra-Orthodox establishment.

The time has come for the government to exercise its control over the Kotel, and ensure that all who wish to pray there are able to do so.  It is ironic that the IDF, without the support of the ultra-Orthodox youth, was responsible for liberating this holy site during the Six Day War, only for the site to then be turned over to the control of the ultra-Orthodox.  This is a national holy site, and all Jews should have the right to worship there.  Bravo Women of the Wall.

Image from Michal Patelle

War Against Women of the Wall is a post from: The Israel Situation

This is a great video that shows us the many Israeli innovations that impact our everyday lives.

Made in Israel is a post from: The Israel Situation

I chose to start writing this post simply to have a voice that openly states what it is I believe to be truth. I want to have an impact on people’s perspective and, while I acknowledge that there are many who disagree with my point of view, I am happy to discuss their thoughts because that’s the best way to learn from each other. It’s a kind of dignity or respect that I would afford a fellow blogger no matter what their opinion.

An article published in the Jerusalem Post titled “Israeli reporters covering Palestinians face threats” however, made me question my new past time and my faith in the hobby entirely. The article, that can be found here , reports that “more than 200 Palestinian journalists signed a petition calling on the PA leadership to issue an order banning Israeli reporters from entering and working freely in Palestinian cities”.

I have a deep-rooted respect for journalism and the trajectory of truth that is imperative to a writer’s word and words. With that said, I can think of three possible reasons why the whole group of your previously inclusive colleagues now don’t want you anywhere near their strip, pun intended.

One, you hate reporters. This doesn’t seem too likely because you too are a reporter. Two, you hate Israeli reporters. This one is a little more likely but I’m not sold on it either. You’re telling me that if Khaled Abu Toameh strolled up to you with a hookah and lawn chair in hand you wouldn’t want to net some pearls of wisdom? Three, you’re actively hiding something. This is the reason that I happen to believe is true, and I’ll tell you why.

There is a connotation that is tethered to the words “Gaza” or “Palestinian”, and I am of the opinion that the Palestinian media would like to keep it that way. War, death, resistance, suffering, occupied, freedom, truth – all these orchestrated concepts are boasted upon in international media and Israel is constantly slammed for being the biased one that’s causing all the problems. I’d like to take a moment to recognize that Israel does have her biases, and the Palestinian people do have a claim to the respect and dignity any human being should be afforded, but 200 Palestinian journalists representing the point of view that they are targeting “Israeli media [because it] is contributing to misleading and relaying a false and harmful image of Palestinian reality” is simply one more well plotted knock-knock joke that the world replies to by saying ‘come in’ instead of ‘whose there’. And the question comes: were any other reporters systematically pushed out of Gaza? Nope. Please refer to option two in the paragraph above.

So why would several factions of Palestinian media want to ensure their perspective is kept strong? Hamas, the right-wing fundamentalist Islamic terrorist group governing over Gaza and its media sources, gains much of its international left-wing liberal momentum by downplaying the societal importance of the Islamic University of Gaza educational system, or the extravagant new mall that opened in 2010 . It seems as though hiding both how difficult and/or lucrative living in Gaza can be isn’t in the interest of Gaza newspapers, but painting an image of the struggling underdog, no matter what the context, is.

I’ll leave you with a rhetorical question that is anything but original. Where is the international outcry for biasing the media? If Israel, or any country for that matter, was to do the same with any nationality, the outcome would be disastrous and international law would (attempt to) never allow it. To me, frequency of politically motivated action should not justify the action itself, but it seems to work if the slander is in plain sight. This may be a classic case of the ‘distribution of responsibility’ principle on an international scale, and I think it’s time someone raised their hand in logical defiance and asked some questions.

I think if you stand back a little, the moral of this story is becomes clear: its better to ask forgiveness, than to ask permission. But, who am I kidding? Since when did the Hamas puppeteered media ever ask for either?

Image by Thomas Leuthard / flickr

Those That Control the Media Control the Mind is a post from: The Israel Situation

In memory of those who lost their lives in the Holocaust.

Image by kyle simourd / flickr

Yom HaShoah – 2013 is a post from: The Israel Situation

US Secretary of Sate John Kerry is back in the Middle East this weekend to try to progress peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  This is clearly an attempt to capitalise on the recent visit of President Barack Obama, and to try to maintain the momentum which the president tried to ignite when meeting with the parties a few weeks ago.

While any effort that may progress the peace process is welcome, there is also a question about the timing of the current round of shuttle diplomacy.  Is this simply an attempt to force the American foreign policy agenda onto the Middle Eastern parties to prove that the US administration had tried its best, or is there a genuine feeling that the talks could work out this time where they have failed in the past?  A simple assessment shows that, while there have been some changes on both sides of the political divide in the Middle East, the fundamental issues that led to failure in the past still remain unchanged.  This begs the question as to why the Americans are bothering to spend time and effort on this challenge, when the prospects for success seem no better than before?

President Barack Obama managed to turn a negative public image in Israel into a much more positive one during his recent visit.  He had been roundly criticised for not having visited Israel during his initial term in office, despite the fact that the conflict with the Palestinians was a relatively high priority on the US foreign policy agenda.  The US president was viewed by many in Israel as being more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and the Muslim cause in general.  This was evidenced by his decision to visit Egypt so early into his presidency, where he made an important foreign policy speech.  His visit to Israel was his first foreign trip in his second presidential term, and has succeeded in convincing at least some of the sceptics that he does have a sympathetic ear for the Israeli side of the story.  He may even have managed to convince some of the Israeli leadership that he understands Israel’s position in the conflict.  Perhaps he thinks that he may be able to cajole some of those Israelis who were opposed to his position, into cooperating with him now that they are more convinced of his genuine concern?

The Middle East conflict is far too deep-seated and fundamental to have its path changed on a whim.  There are substantial issues which underly the conflict, that cannot be altered on the strength of people suddenly believing that Obama has their best interests at heart.  The matter that halted the discussions at the previous attempt still very much remains an obstacle today.  This is the important requirement on Israel’s part for the Palestinians to be prepared to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.  If Obama’s USA is able to give this recognition along with many other countries around the world, there is a real question as to why the Palestinians feel that they cannot.   This reluctance simply gives greater strength to the argument that the Palestinians have a master plan to take over the entire State of Israel, and that this is what is preventing them from recognising it as a Jewish country today.

Over the years that the peace process has been stuck, the Palestinians have succeeded in inching their way up their list of demands without making any real compromises in return.  Their unilateral action at the UN last year is one example of this, but there are many others.  Progressively, they have been able to get the world to recognise them as a state amongst the nations, their main stated requirement from peace talks, without entering into negotiations, making compromises or quid-pro-quo.  It is perhaps for this reason that the Israeli government has been hanging on so tightly to the other bargaining chips it has in its hands, such as the status of Jerusalem and the settlements.  There is an argument to suggest that turning the screws on these critical points is the only way to return the Palestinians to conduct meaningful peace talks.  Why should the Palestinians choose to negotiate and compromise with Israel when the world is granting them their wishes on a platter, even while they continue to behave in a way which is contrary to any peace arrangement?

Perhaps Obama spotted an opportunity to extract a slightly softer negotiating position out of Israel with the formation of the new government, and the inclusion of Tzipi Livni with primary responsibility for peace talks.  This may be his driver for sending Kerry to the region now.  The situation within the Palestinian Authority is also different from before, with Mahmoud Abbas finding himself in a much a weaker position now than was previously the case.  He is ageing and less enthusiastic about his role, and has an uphill battle to counter the tide of popularity that arch-rivals Hamas are riding at the moment.  It is my belief, however, that even these changes are not enough to create the environment that is needed to move peace talks forward.  It is my prediction that this round of talks is doomed to failure, in the same way as previous rounds have failed. There are those who argue that it is better to try and fail, than not try at all.  I do not agree with this.  The current situation on the ground is fairly neutral in terms of relations between Israel and the Palestinians – nothing good and nothing particularly bad.  Instigating a new round of talks that end up on the trash heap will probably create negative feelings, thus causing a deterioration in the overall situation.

President Obama’s visit to Israel was vitally important in terms of redressing the imbalance that was created by his special attention to the Muslim side during his first term.  This does not automatically create an opportunity for peace to suddenly break out.  In politics, and especially in Middle Eastern politics, timing is everything.  All indications are that now is simply not the time.

Image from AsianMedia

Is the Time Right? is a post from: The Israel Situation

One of my favorite morning rituals is waking up, sipping at a cup of tea and reading what’s going on in the world. This is experience is only made better by one potential piece of news: no news, regarding Israel, is good news.

Of course this depends on the news source you choose. Stumbling across the Canadian National Post or Globe and Mail, the NYtimes, or maybe even skimming the Jerusalem Post or Al Jazeera, I find myself relieved by the lack of information available on Israel’s contribution to civilian and military unrest. The escalating violence and ever-growing death tolls in the Middle East, the nuclear issues in North Korea or the melting of the glaciers and icecaps is finally no longer recognized as Israel’s fault, for the most part. Yes, for those of you who may be wondering, I have read articles claiming the above blood libels are true.

This morning I came across a different kind of article discussing the new educational and gender segregation reforms that Hamas, the Islamic terrorist group that rules over the Gaza strip, has recently passed.

Aside from the outright Islamic slant of these new laws, and regardless of the religion you happen to practice while living in Gaza, segregation of the sexes is supposed to help build the national character. I’m not sure what loving where you’re from has anything to do with gender segregation, but hey, if you think it might, why not give it a try? Oh right, because after you’ve lifted the quota of women who have the right to vote about six years ago, it would be awkward to sit next to one of “them” in a class room full of 9 year old children. Is segregation of Mosque and State still really at question?

Just as discouraging to personal freedoms, however, is the new decree that any educational institution receiving aid meant to encourage normalization of ties with Israel will face a fine of a approximately $28,200, or if you happen to be an individual perpetrator, a 10-year prison term.

I was under the impression that governments were supposed to try and promote tolerance between its people and their neighbours, not to mention representing the needs of its citizens. I must be thinking of a flawed democracy as apposed to an authoritarian regime, my mistake. Please take note of the point here, sarcasm aside: this new law is completely perpendicular to any peace process that may arise as part of Obama’s latest attempts to foster discussions between Israel and her many potential but unlikely Arab partners, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, included. So what is to be done? I say we all sit back and watch this one play out like we’ve done in the past…or the passion of a few can become the pull of the many. It’s up to you I guess.

Image by by danchitnis / flickr

An introduction to international affairs is a post from: The Israel Situation

After four years of anticipation, natural gas from the Tamar reservoir began to flow from an offshore rig in the Mediterranean Sea into Israel on Saturday afternoon, the Energy and Water Ministry announced that evening.

Within about 24 hours from its departure from the rig, the gas will begin to arrive at the receiving station in Ashdod. Containing approximately 250 billion cubic meters of natural gas, the discovery and development of Tamar – and the subsequent find of its even bigger neighbor Leviathan – have symbolized to energy experts an opportunity for Israel to hone its energy security and freedom.

(The JPost)

This is an amazing step toward energy independence for the Jewish state. I am very excited to see this vital new sector of the economy come online.

Over the last two years, Israel’s source of natural gas in Egypt has been spotty at best, as the pipeline into Israel has been bombed and turned down on multiple occasions.

Natural Gas Production Begins in Tamar Field is a post from: The Israel Situation

The Marvi Marmara incident from 2010 has dominated the relations between Israel and Turkey over the past three years.  Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers were attacked by the activists after the soldiers boarded the ship in an attempt to redirect its passage away from its intended destination of Gaza, and towards Israel’s Ashdod port.  In defending their own lives, the IDF soldiers killed nine Turkish activists.  Despite clear evidence that the activists on the ship came looking for blood if there was intervention from IDF soldiers, the Turkish government has insisted that the blame for the deaths of the activists rests with the IDF and the Israeli government.  As a result of this, relations between Israel and Turkey have been at a crisis point.

This all changed very dramatically a few hours after President Obama boarded Air Force One on his way to Jordan following his visit to Israel.  Prime Minister Netanyahu called Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan to offer Israel’s apologies for the deaths of the Turkish activists, and offered to pay compensation to the families of those who died.  This represents a 180 degree U-turn from the position that the Israeli government had taken until that moment.  There was never any intention that an apology would be offered, even if this came at the price of diplomatic relations between the countries.  There was certainly no talk of compensation being paid.  Israelis went into the weekend feeling quite dazed at the sudden turn in events, and wondered how this happened without any prior indication or warning.

No secret has been made of the fact that this apology was all the idea of President Barack Obama.  Even though the phone call was made only after he left Israeli soil, there has been no attempt to conceal the fact that Obama “brokered” this call.  Many are interpreting “brokered” to mean that PM Netanyahu was coerced into doing so, against his will and better judgement.  The official reason for the about-turn which has been given by the Israeli government, relates to creating a united front against the threats posed by the Syrian civil war.  While it is true that it would be better for Israel and Turkey to be standing united against threats from Syria (and by extension, threats from Iran), there has not been a sufficient threat coming from Syria until now to fully justify the grovelling apology to Turkey.  Perhaps the apology was offered in the interests of keeping on good terms with Obama and his team?  A united Turkey – Israel front would certainly be in America’s interest.  The United States would never wish to be forced to make a choice between Israel and Turkey in the event that this spat continued.  Forcing Netanyahu to back down on this issue has made life a great deal easier for the USA, and its national security interests.  Netanyahu has proven himself to be a tough customer on issues of principle in the past, so why has he seemingly collapsed in the wake of pressure from Obama?

The price for this climb-down has been heavy, and this is only one week after the apology has been issued.  The Turkish government was quick to rush out billboard advertisements depicting a strong, victorious Erdogan against the backdrop of a weak Netanyahu.  This is reminiscent of the victories that were declared by the Arab armies after the Yom Kippur War (which they lost), and by Hamas following Operation Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense.  Despite the fact that this is not a real victory for Turkey, the apology sends completely the wrong message to the Turkish government and to the Turkish people.  Having been involved in the funding of the organisation behind the Gaza flotilla and having allowed the flotilla to set sail from a Turkish port despite knowing full well that the Israeli government planned to stop it, the Turkish government has questions to answer about its own role in the deaths of these nine activists.  Instead, they have issued statements that they will continue to support their “Palestinian brethren”, and will be taking further steps to break the “Gaza blockade”.  In addition, they have opened a Turkish bazaar in the media about the value of compensation that will be paid for each victim.  They have opened their bidding at $1m per victim, when the Israeli government has given the public to understand that $100,000 is nearer the mark.  The actions of the Turkish government do not reflect a willingness to create a united front in the face of the threats from across the border in Syria.  The Israeli public remain confused as to what lies behind Netanyahu’s actions.

In my attempts to understand Netanyahu’s motivations a little more deeply, I have conjured up a scenario which I hope is close to reality.  We all know that the main topic for discussion between Netanyahu and Obama during the recent visit was the threat from Iran, and its burgeoning nuclear program.  We also know that Netanyahu has tried his best over a number of years to convince the international community, especially the USA, to be prepared to take earlier preemptive action against Iran to prevent it from constructing a nuclear missile.  Perhaps, maybe Netanyahu succeeded in convincing Obama to come closer to the Israeli position in terms of being prepared act earlier against Iran, and in being prepared to commit US forces to share in the front-line tasks.  In return, Netanyahu agreed to eat humble pie in its diplomatic crisis with Turkey.  This reconciliation also represents a more united front against Iran, with the Iranian forces and weaponry being used by the Syrian government in the Syrian civil war.  I wonder whether the Israeli public may be more understanding of the Turkish reconciliation if they knew that this has come in exchange for US agreement on Iran?

The Turkish tourism industry whispered a quiet cheer when news of the diplomatic reconciliation was announced.  The Israeli package holiday-maker felt equally as good.  Since the diplomatic crisis, thousands of Israeli families have been forced to pay more for their package holidays, or even give up on their holidays, due to the fact that Turkish resorts were removed from their map.  Activities between Turkish and Israeli businesses will also be given an opportunity to recover to their previous levels, and perhaps beyond.  Much of this will depend on sensible behaviour on the part of the Turkish government.  The government would be much better advised to gloat less, and not to cause the Israeli government and Israeli citizens to regret their reconciliation approach.  In so doing, it will make all parties feel better about the restoration of diplomatic relations.

I really want to believe that the real benefit to Israel of making these substantial concessions is being concealed from the glare of the public at the moment.  I hope that whatever quarter was given by the US will ultimately justify the substantial concessions that Israel has been forced to make.  As always in the Middle East, only time will tell.

Image from Associated Press

An Apology too Far? is a post from: The Israel Situation

US President Barack Obama has concluded his trip to Israel after an intensive few days in the Holy Land.  Prior to this visit, Obama was perceived by a majority of the Israeli public as being unsympathetic and unhelpful to Israel’s cause in the international community.  Some believe that a US president with the Muslim heritage that Obama has, can never be good for Israel.  Expectations that Obama’s visit to Israel would dramatically change his attitude towards Israel were extremely low.

Now that he has been and gone, and we have had the chance to view the course of the visit’s events in hindsight (albeit a very close hindsight), I believe that Obama has almost managed to pull off the impossible.  It was a very different Obama who was in Israel from the one who has spent the past four years taking neutral positions on matters which affect Israel.  From the moment that he stepped onto the tarmac at Ben Gurion airport and said in Hebrew that he was happy to be back in Israel, Obama seemed not to put a foot wrong.  He managed to say all the right things to help reverse the negative sentiments towards him.  He paid tribute to Israeli technology and military strength when inspecting the Iron Dome battery at the airport.  He reiterated his intention to continue to fund this program, despite the budget cuts in the US.  He paid tribute to Israeli fallen heroes during his visit to the Mount Herzl cemetery, and paid his tribute to the six million at Yad Vashem.  He met with Israeli students to relate his view of the future to them, and to listen to the things that they had to say.

On the pressing issue of Iran, the US president was eager to reiterate the points of common understanding rather than the differences.  He said that there was little daylight between the Israeli and US positions.  In truth, I think that he refers more to the assessment of what is happening in Iran, rather than the view as to how to deal with it.  Even though nobody expected that there would be a great deal of public discourse on the Iran issue, it was easy to read between the lines that Obama and Netanyahu are not precisely on the same page where this is concerned.  The Israeli public would like to know if Obama will be prepared to sanction military action in sufficient time to prevent the final steps being taken for the construction of an Iranian nuclear bomb.  It is also important to know whether the US commander-in-chief is prepared to commit his forces to be in the front line, or if they will be watching from a distance while Israeli forces are required to do the hard work.  Answers to these questions were not forthcoming in public, and we have the impression that the US answers to these questions are probably not the ones that Israel would prefer to hear.

It was important to hear Obama say that Israel’s continued strength will ensure that a Holocaust does not happen in the future.  As much as it is a stark admission to make that it is not the free world and the powers of the UN that will prevent such a genocide in future, it was equally important for him to publicly recognise the central role that Israel plays in the future of Jewish survival.  It was also important to hear him say that being on friendly terms with Israel is in the US national security interest.  Relationships between countries are built on necessity and mutual-dependence, and not on sentiments.  As much as there are some in the US who do feel some sentimental attachment towards Israel, the only thing that will ensure that the US will continue to support Israel in the future, is a national security interest that drives this friendship.

President Obama’s trip to Israel was a public relations triumph that saw him win over many Israeli sceptics.  He managed to convince some that America is indeed there to support Israeli, despite the many instances over the past four years when Israel felt isolated by the contrary view adopted by the Obama administration.  Could it be that the next four years will be different, and that there will be more help forthcoming from Obama and his friends in support of Israel?  Only time will tell.  Many feel that the president’s appointment of Chuck Hagel to the position of US Secretary of Defense is more reminiscent of the old Obama, rather than a new one.  Hagel is perceived to unsupportive and unsympathetic to Israel’s cause.  I do believe that most Israelis are prepared to give Obama the opportunity to prove his credentials again.  His actions over the coming months, particularly with regard to Iran, will be highly influential in convincing people of his true allegiance.

As a parting gift, Obama brokered an apology to be delivered by Prime Minister Netanyahu to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan over the deaths of Turkish activists in the Gaza Flotilla incident three years ago.  While it is clear to see why a united Israel and Turkey serves US national security interests as a buffer against Syria, it is still unclear whether this is good for Israel’s interests or not.  This apology by Israel represents a major climb-down on a point of principle, while the benefits sufficient to outweigh this concession are not immediately obvious.

A good relationship with the USA is certainly in Israel’s best interests.  But this is not at any price.  Israel wishes to see the US being prepared to speak out and take actions on matters which would benefit Israel in the international community.  With the constant threats that Israel is facing, this is of importance to Israel’s future survival and that of the Jewish people.  Over the course of the next year, this will manifest itself in the support that Israel receives to counter the Iranian threat.  The clock is ticking…….

Image by Secretary of Defense / flickr

Obama’s Israeli Triumph is a post from: The Israel Situation