.

Riots in Jerusalem

2009-10-06T10:58:00.000-07:00

Since September 27th there have been riots and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police in East Jerusalem following a mistaken Palestinian attack on a group of tourists entering the Temple Mount. The tensions have been heightened by internal Palestinian politics between Hamas and Fatah who are each trying to persuade the people of their strength and credibility as Palestinian elections appear to be back on the agenda.

So far 50 people have been arrested, an Israeli border policememan has been stabbed, 4 policeman have been injured in the Ras Al Amud neighbourhood and confrontations have taken place between 100 of the Islamic Movement and Israeli police. today a suspected inciter of the violence, Sheikh Saed Salah was arrested, all because of a mistaken sighting of a group of tourists entering the Temple Mount who were thought to be some radical Jewish worshippers. In fact the Israeli authorities had prevented the Jewish radicals from entering the Temple Mount previously.

In the meantime, Jordan, who manages the Temple Mount area under the auspices of the Waqf, have requested the PA and the Israeli authorities to cordon off the area and meet to discuss ways to calm the tensions down. Unfortunately, the PA has used the incident to accuse Israel of trying to Judaise the area and claiming this could spark off a 3rd Intifada.

what is really happening here though and what lies beneath the tensions? Lets go back in history a little... In 1967 when Israel took over control of East Jerusalem, it introduced and encouraged freedom of religion to all and gave control of the Muslim sites to the Jordanian administered Waqf. As it stands now, Jews and tourists are allowed onto the Temple Mount but only for certain amounts of time and at only at sepcific times of the day, following the tensions of the 2nd Intifada that ended in 2003. They were not allowed up there at all during the 2nd Intifada itself (2000-2003). The times they are allowed up there are chosen to not clash with Muslim prayer times. Nevertheless, a radical Muslim northern branch of a group, called the Islamic Movement, has constantly tried to stir up violence and tensisons by spreading false claims that Israeli archaeologists are undermining the Al Aqsa mosque.

These tensions are taken advantage of at this time due to the renewed possibility of elections between Hamas and Fatah who are using these tensions as an opportunity to leverage influence and control over the people to win votes. The possibility of electins however still rests fraily on talks currently taking place in Cairo. From the PA's point of view, it is finding it needs to win back support by taking a harsher line after withdrawing its support for the bias Goldstone Report and also for meeting with Israeli PM at the UN last month. For Hamas, they are using the tensions to reinforce their perceived strength and victory at having won the release of 20 female prisoners from Israeli jails last Friday in return for a video of captured IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit.

All in all, the Temple Mount has once again become a hotbed for tensions and is being exploited by the Palestinians for political gain.

Gilad Shalit Video

2009-10-03T12:10:00.000-07:00

Gilad Shalit is in a healthy and normal condition according to a tape released by his captors Hamas this week in return for 20 female Palestinian prisoners. It seems that everyone is now asking not 'if' but 'when'. But why was the video released now and what does it mean?

The negotiations over Shalit and the hundreds of terrorists demanding to be released by Hamas had, like the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations as a whole, come to a stalemate. The release of this video is being hailed as a PR victory by the Palestinians as Hamas have put pressure on the Israeli government to hurry along with the fulflling their demands.

Netanyahu, mentioned by name in the video will also be pleased by the video. Now that we have seen Shalit is in good form, less people in Israel will be supporting the release of hundreds of the most dangerous terrorists Israel holds. It is also unlikely that a military strike will take place on Gaza to release Shalit as this would jeaprdise his life. No military or political leader would dare risk his future career on such a decision either.

On the other hand, Hamas knows that pressure has now been raised on the Israeli public to have Shalit back home with his parents as soon as possible now that it is known he is well. But it is unlikely the price of 1000 deadly terrorists will nevertheless become palatable as it still poses an unnecessary and high level security risk to Israel.

How and when negotiations will continue is yet to be seen. In the meantime, for now it is the Palestinians who will be welcoming back the less threatening terrorists to their hometowns.

Richard Goldstone's UN Report

2009-09-24T10:17:00.000-07:00

Following Richard Goldstone's Report for the UN into Israel's conduct during the Gaza War of December 2008 - January 2009, there has been a flurry of criticism from many sides regarding the bias of the report and whether it even achieved what it was meant to or whether it was misdirected altogether. The report recommended that the case be brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague. For Israel to be brought before this court however for war crimes it has to be shown that it did not deal with allegations internally.

Let us remind ourselves what was the purpose of Operation Cast Lead to begin with. Following the daily bombardment of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel, the difficult decision was made by Israel to retailiate and achieve its goal of 'restoring quiet to its southern communities'. This was a very tough decision to make as it would mean retliating in areas which are known to be very densely populated and fighting an enemy which is rooted amongst civilians. In this way, Israel faced very similar conditions as US and UK forces are being confronted with in their war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The overriding concern in fighting this kind of war is how to minimise civilian casualties and fight the war according to international law while at the same time achieving these objectives. It is interesting to note that following goldstone's report, and despite Europe's usual disapproval and criticism of Israel, NATO have been consulting with Israel as to how best fight this kind of assymetrical warfare.

It is known that throughout Israel's war, there were International Law experts and lawyers behind every decision and manouvre to ensure it was compliant with the standard requirements. Furthermore in Israel, these lawyers, although part of the IDF, are not confined by rank and are free to counter a superior ranking officer's desire or viewpoint on a certain operation. Furthermore, all legal departments are overseen by Israel's internationally respected independent Supreme Court, established under British Mandate rule in (1922-1948).

It is true that civilians were killed and mistakes were made. This is the very nature of war. No war is perfect and operations do not always go according to plan. No-one in their right mind would expect this of any country though Israel seems to have different standards applied and expected of. This is unfair. According to international law, it needs to be proven that there was no intention behind the mistakes and that they were indeed just that, mistakes, with Israel following procedures to avoid such casualties according to international law.

With regards to this aspect and following the war, it is well documented that Israel has carried out thorough investigations into its conduct and that of its soldiers and have investigated over 100 allegations. To date 1 soldier has been charged and sentenced to 7 and a half months in prison for looting. More serious allegations such as using civilians to inspect houses before IDF soldiers go in, which was banned by the Supreme court in 2005 are also curently under invesitgation.

Prior and following the report there are also investigations into attacks on UN compounds, the use of white phosphorous, shootings at medical facilities and personnel which have been ordered by Israel's Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi.

The issue of the War in Gaza raises important questions about the nature of modern warfare which is more often than not involving States Vs Non-State Actors, something which International Law is still under-developed and highly ambiguous to handle with certainty. It has been shown, despite Goldstone's report which arguably focussed on the issues which were not part of its purpose,that Israel has a credible system in place for ensuring that it operates according to high professional military standards and investigates allegations of misconduct and operational errors. Like any other system, it is not perfect, and like other modern democratic states, Israel tries to take stock and learn lessons for dealing with future threats. Ultimately, Israel seeks to be held to account for its military operation in Gaza in the same way that other Western democracies are held to account when they go to war and not to have a double standard applied to it which would not be held against many other states who have carried out far worse.

Rockets from Gaza

2009-09-20T11:52:00.001-07:00

What better way to celebrate the end of Ramadan than firing over another few rockets into Israel. Such was the method of celebration today by some Islamic terrorists in Gaza as Ismail Haniyeh made a speech underlining how all talks with Israel will be doomed to failure and he continues to reject all efforts made by US envoy to the middle East, George Mitchell. These latest attacks bring the total to 200 rockets fired into the Western Negev since Operation Cast Lead in January of this year.

In the past, Israel has responded to every attack with a counter-attack and although it did not respond directly to these two rockets, it did kill two terrorist who were planting some bombs along the border earlier today. The sirens were heard yet again in Sderot and although there has been relative calm there since Operation Cast Lead ended, the threat remains and it is really very unclear as to what was really accomplished in the operation. For sure, Hamas is a battered organisation and in total disarray, as is the Palestinian movement as a whole. However, the fear felt by the residents of Sderot is still very much real and causes disruption in every day life.

Just like the Palestinian/Israel peace talks as a whole, the situation along the Israel/Gaza border has also reached somewhat of a stalemate, similar to what was seen before Operation Cast Lead. With the report into the War in Gaza being released last week and criticised heavily by Israel, one wonders whether Israel should have taken a leaf out of the Sri Lankan government's book and made the war really something worth investigating and destroying Hamas once and for all as was done to the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The main difference lies in Israel being a controlled responsible democratic government and the bearer of the burden that all the brings.

US Talks With Iran

2009-09-15T13:27:00.000-07:00

On October 1st Barak Obama and his administration will be hoping to begin talks afresh with Iran over their nuclear energy programme for the first time in over a year with the hope of persuading the rogue state of abandoning its ambitions for nuclear power. Will they succeed? Most of the international community thinks not.

For the past few years Iran has cleverly played a game of cat and mouse through delaying tactics and changing the subject whenever discussions have been held on this hot topic. There is no reason to think that this latest effort by the US, Germany and other members of the UN permanent security council will be any different. Should the talks fail, which is likely, the US will have no other option than to adopt sanctions outside of the UN as there is no reason for Iran's main allies, Russia and China, to not veto the vote on passing a fourth round of sanctions against Iran.

Even with the sanctions however it is unlikely Iran will give up on its goal and instead will continue towards the holy grail it is seeking - a nuclear bomb. Should the talks and sanctions fail, the situation would indeed become more grim and action would most likely need to be taken elsewhere.

Fatah Leadership and Marwan Barghouti

2009-08-11T13:11:00.000-07:00

With the talks between Hamas and Fatah still in turmoil and Obama wanting to push ahead with the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, there are calls and increased support to release the one man who is known to be able to unite the two sides and unify the Palestinian position. His name is Marwan Barghouti.

Despite being currently held in an Israeli prison for being behind a chain of terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of Israelis, the calls and support are being more loudly heard amongst the Israeli camp and the Knesset. Why? Because "Barghouti can probably deliver the goods and strengthen the moderate current, that supports a diplomatic solution and an accord with Israel" said Minority Affairs Minister, Avishay Braverman.

n 2004 Barghouti was tried for his involvement in terror attacks during the second intifada. He was sentenced to five life sentences for the murders of four Israelis and a Greek monk, and given an addition 40 years for an attempted murder.

However, Barghouti is seen as a relatively moderate force in the Palestinian leadership. In 2006 Barghouti was involved in shaping what became known as 'the Palestinian Prisoners' Document,' which called for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. It was signed by prisoners representing of all major Palestinian factions including Hamas. He is a charismatic figure who holds the respect of both major parties as well as the majority of Palestinians on the street. Whether he will be the main chip to be exchanged in return for Gilad Shalit however remains to be seen.

Iranian Protests Continue

2009-06-20T12:20:00.000-07:00

Despite calls from Supreme Leader Ayatolla Khamenei to back down and accept the election results of last week, the Iranian public have once again taken to the streets today in protest against the allegedly rigged re-election of President Ahmadinejad. Many have been beaten and arrested by the government's forces, and 15 to date have been killed, in what is the most popular uprising and defiance of the Iranian regime since the 1979 Revolution. Due to massive media clampdowns, see here for all the latest updates coming from Iran

Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech at Bar Ilan

2009-06-15T12:09:00.000-07:00

Benjamin Netanyahu's speech last night was bound to upset a lot of people, and not surprisingly it has ruffled the feathers of both his own supporters as well as those who were never going to be happy with whatever he said anyway. This is the price a right wing leader pays when he edges further towards the centre and tries to please everyone: he inevitably ends up pleasing no-one.

For the first time however we saw a man who has never before mentioned the possibility of a Palestinian state now outlining the conditions under which he will make it possible. He also addressed and praised the economic successes of the cooperation between Israel and the Gulf states. So as to align himself as much as possible with the US, Netanyahu was careful to echo the sentiments and tone of hope expressed by President Obama last week in Cairo too.

He was right to emphasise that, contrary to Obama's implication that Israel's right to exist was premised on the Holocaust, the Jewish right to a stake in the land of Israel based on the 3,500-year-old Jewish connection to that land. ‘The places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived,' he said, ‘are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.'

At the same time, he acknowledged that the Palestinian people also have rights, and that it is not Israel's desire to rule over them. In this context he declared, ‘If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarisation and Israel's security needs, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarised Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.'

Although Netanyahu has made a giant leap forward toward the a political solution to the Israel-Palestinian Peace Process (though of course many in the PA would disagree due to him stopping short of allowing them control over their airspace and denying them the right to have a military - though these are not new conditions as they were on the table during the Clinton proposals in 2000 and also part of the unofficial Geneva Accords) he will still face deep ideologial objections from his coalition parties and the National Religious Camp who belive that the West Bank is still the core of the Jewish historical homeland and steeped in Jewish culture and history.

So far at least it looks like the speech has gone down well in Washington though. With the positions now out in the open, there is a lot of talking to be done about how the details of both the American and Israeli plans can be hammered out and put into action as soon as the deep internal divisions amongst the Palestinians has been resolved. For this to happen, it will not just be the United States that needs to play a major role but also the wider Arab World will be crucial to giving the support required if the process is to move forward at all.

Iranian Election Results 2009

2009-06-14T13:44:00.000-07:00

20 years ago the Iranian national elections, or any election in the Middle East for that matter, it would not have been worth staying up late for. This year however was different. With a close race expected and plenty of fun and games along the way, the results were highly anticipated and eagerly awaited. It turns out however that we may just as well have been living in the past as the results ended as a throwback to the 80s and it seems nothing has really changed after all.

With a modern and politically savvy youth population, Iranian President Ahmedinajad knew what he was doing when blocking websites such as Facebook and YouTube, and other viral style media, that would allow his opponent, Hossain Mousavi, a chance to spread his message running up to the elections. Is it a coincidence too that during the 30minute TV broadcast by Mousavi's Green Party (for change), the electricity grids in 5 provinces came down and disrupted the message?

As threatened by the supporters of Mousavi, there has been an uproar in the calling of foul play in the results of this election, with areas that are typically Mousavi strongholds even showing a landslide turn in the tide towards Amhedinajad. An uproar may well be an understatement as thousands have taken to the streets in protest and riots - the worst in Iran for 10 years according to some commentators. Chaos has broken out further with leaders of opposition parties taken into custody via raids on their headquarters by the police and other government security forces.

So it looks like no change in Iran and its more of the same. Or perhaps this election has brought to the surface the true feelings of Iranians to the outside world and created internal strife even further that may complicate matters and make life a little more uncomfortable for the ongoing President. If so, then this feeling needs to be exploited and, in order to keep the hopes of the Mr Mousavi, his party and their supporters alive, a move by the US that would make life even more difficult for Ahmedinajad would be most welcome. And what could this move be? A simple persistence in outstretching the arm of diplomacy and talks that would no odubt be refused once again and leave Ahmedinajad having to face his own people once more. If the results of the election are as true as he claims them to be then he should feel right at home...

March 14 Wins Lebanese Elections

2009-06-08T13:28:00.000-07:00

The citizens of Lebanon turned out in large numbers yesterday to vote in the country's parliament elections. News outlets this morning report that the pro-western alliance declared victory against the opposition led by the pro-Iranian Hezbollah and its allies. "I present this victory to Lebanon. It is an exceptional day for democracy in Lebanon," Prime Minister Fouad Siniora after polls predicted his pro-western coalition was winning.

A close race was predicted in these elections between the two sides. In the previous parliament, the western-backed 14 March alliance, held a small majority of 70 seats in the parliament over the more extreme opposition involving pro-Syria and pro-Iranian forces, which held 58 seats. Tens of thousands of troops were deployed across polling stations as security was a high concern in the relatively unstable country. 3.2 million citizens out of a population of four million were eligible to vote, with the final results expected to be officially released this afternoon.

The declared victory by the pro-western alliance is a positive sign for Israel and especially the United States, where recently President Barack Obama has been laying out his vision for relations between his country and the Muslim world. A victory by Hezbollah, who is backed by Syria and Iran, would have resulted in international isolation of Beirut and the possibility of increased tensions with Israel. However, Hezbollah's defeat will not signal an end to its overwhelming power over the Lebanese political system. Despite being in opposition in recent years, Hezbollah succeeded in imposing its will and coercing the Lebanese government to agree to a series of concessions that solidified Hezbollah's dominance in some regions of the country, thanks to the support of its sponsor, Iran.

Click Here For Lebanon's Daily Star

Obama's Speech in Cairo

2009-06-04T13:24:00.000-07:00

Obama's speech in Cairo today was a momentous one and one to set the tone of US-Muslim relations for years to come. Following the Bush administration Obama has a lot of fires to put out and although there is a long way to go yet, today marked the first step of many in a direction that could make right the perceived wrongs of the past.

Recognising the differences the separate the Islamic and West's civilisation and the conflicts that have occurred in the past, Obama appealed to the his Muslim audience's respect and love of scripture by echoing back at them phrases from the Koran,

"Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."

, though his idea of truth may not necessarily be in line with his audience's version of the truth.

The speech, although touching on Iraq, Iran, Holocaust Denial and Settlements, was very thin on detail. There was nothing intrinsicly new in the speech, nothing we haven't heard before. Though the context in which he was speaking was and whether he was able to convince his Arab audience will be seen in actions to come, the Lebanese elections next week being the first test. Speeches can be impressive, but the real power of them can only be realised by action.

Click Here For the Full Speech

Lebanese Elections 2009

2009-06-02T11:02:00.000-07:00

With a general election on June 7th, Lebanese passions are running high. With blue for the party of the Future, orange for the party of Change and yellow for Hizbullah, the party of God, Lebanon's unusual democracy, based on quotas for each of the 16 recognised sects in its 128-strong parliament, has a tendency to explode, as it did during Lebanon’s gruelling civil war in 1975-90. The country is also a cockpit for wider struggles. With outsiders such as Iran, America, Syria and Saudi Arabia throwing their weight behind competing factions, the electoral outcome will inevitably be seen as a test of their relative strengths.

America and its allies want the current parliamentary majority, a shaky coalition of Sunni Muslims, Druze and assorted Christians, to retain the hold it gained in the previous election, in 2005, when it swept to power on a wave of popular anger following the murder of Rafik Hariri, a five-times prime minister and Sunni strongman.

Iran and Syria, whose peacekeeping army dominated Lebanon until its hasty withdrawal after Hariri’s murder, seek victory for the challengers, an alliance of disgruntled Christian factions led by Michel Aoun, a nationalist former general, and two Shia parties, Amal and Hizbullah, which field militias that harried Israel during its occupation of south Lebanon in 1978-2000 and which again fought against the Israelis in the Second Lebanon War of 2006.

The outsiders are not subtle in their use of influence. America recently dispatched its vice-president, Joe Biden, on a quick visit. While expressing hope for a clean election, he held a private meeting with leaders of the current majority, known in Lebanese shorthand as the March 14th group, and hinted that a win for their foes could jeopardise the aid America has lately lavished on the Lebanese army to reinforce it in the face of Hizbullah’s militias, which remain superior in training, equipment and morale. For his part, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, which has showered equally large sums on its Lebanese protégés, predicts that their victory will bolster the “resistance”—to Israel and the West—and change the balance of power in the region.

But although some opinion polls suggest a slight lead for the opposition, the result may well be close. Oussama Safa, a political consultant, reckons that, given loyalties within the sectarian patchwork of voting districts, the two main alliances are each guaranteed around a third of the seats, leaving only a third of them in play.

Yet the result may not produce radical change. Since the 2006 war with Israel, the two main coalitions have become more polarised. The one led by Hizbullah says it won a “divine victory” against the Jewish state in the five-week war, whereas March 14th supporters still say the Shia militia must be disarmed and blames it for provoking an Israeli onslaught that caused widespread destruction.

Last year Hizbullah and its allies, frustrated by March 14th’s refusal to bow to their demand for a blocking share of seats in the cabinet, humiliated their opponents by staging a swift takeover of Sunni strongholds in Beirut. This move prompted March 14th to climb down at a reconciliation conference in Qatar. But the fighting infuriated Sunnis, frightened some of Hizbullah’s Christian partners and has left the squabbling parties suspended in a precarious equilibrium.

This, no matter what the election result, looks likely to be maintained, at any rate in the short run. Even if the March 14th group keeps a slim majority, it cannot counter Hizbullah’s street power under the charismatic leadership of Hassan Nasrallah. Nor can it stop Hizbullah’s quietly effective infiltration of key institutions, such as the army. In fact, some March 14th leaders already sound willing to accommodate their foes. The Druze chief, Walid Jumblatt, a weathervane of Lebanese politics and until recently a loud critic of Iran and Syria, has taken to exchanging compliments with Mr Nasrallah. A leaked recording of Mr Jumblatt in a private meeting revealed him disparaging his own coalition allies.

Yet the opposition alliance has weaknesses too. The Christian supporters of General Aoun feel slighted by the March 14th coalition and say that it is corrupt, but regard their own alliance with Hizbullah as tactical rather than strategic. Despite verbal support for the Shia movement, few Christians, whose own militias from the civil-war era were largely disarmed, are comfortable about Hizbullah’s growing military strength. And Hizbullah itself is uneasy with parliamentary politics. Fearing that it might be blamed for any future government’s failings, including a possible collapse of international support for the debt-ridden economy, it is fielding just 11 candidates, down from 14 in 2005, and may even give up its two cabinet posts.

Lebanon is used to fractious politics. Despite the years of turbulence, its economy is humming along nicely. It may tolerate another period of muddle and perhaps even emerge with a stronger centre, joining moderate parts of both the current coalitions. But the volatility is bound to persist. When a report in Der Spiegel, a German weekly, implicated Hizbullah agents in Hariri’s murder and in those of nine other people associated with March 14th, even the leaders of March 14th scuttled to defuse the bombshell, fearing the fallout across the country. Stability in Lebanon should never be taken for granted.

Iranian Missile Threat

2009-05-20T12:29:00.000-07:00

With Bibi Netanyahu in Washington this week trying to convince President Obama that Iran is to be taken seriously and is an international threat that needs to be taken care of and fast, President Ahmedinejad seems to be playing right into his hands. What more evidence does one need of the suspicious intentions of the Iranian President than the testing of a new Sejil missile that can reach distances of up to 2,000km.

As far as Israel is concerned, the new missile is not particularly a threat as it could be easily targeted even with the older models that have a range of up to 1,500km. Instead, it is the European community that should be worried, according to Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, who said:

"The Iranian clock is ticking fast and has to be stopped."

But the Obama administration sees it differently. Instead, Iran only displays "troubling behaviour" and is to be dealt with by diplomacy, sanctions and isolation should they not heed to the warnings and offers of discussion by America. In the meantime, the expectations and pressure on Israel to stop the expansion of settlements is also high and Netanyahu will find himself squeezed from both the Iranians and the Americans with regards to how he handles both situations.

But Netanyahu, as the political maneuveurer extraordinare that he is, has a way out. For if there is to be a renewed negotiation with the Palestinians, there will need to be someone on that side of the table with whom to talk. But at present there isn't. Step in the Egyptians. As Bibi talks with Obama, President Mubarak is talking with Mahmoud Abbas, Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh to come to an agreement on unity. This will be the fifth round of talks and so far shows no greater sign of reconciliation than the previous four.

And while the talking continues, the clock keeps ticking....

Netanyahu's Visit to Egypt

2009-05-11T13:31:00.000-07:00

As the pope visits Israel this week, Bibi Netanyahu has more important business to attend to. His trip to Egypt for talks with President Hosni Mubarak today reflects the realigning of the Arab world and their shared concerns over Iran. The phrase 'Our enemy's enemy is our friend', never rang more true.

Next week, Bibi is scheduled for his first visit to Washington since he became Prime Minsiter. He will be looking to show Barack Obama that there is more common ground between the Israelis and the Arabs than one might expect - the main part being their concerns over Iran. If he can show Mr.Obama that he has already got arguably the most powerful state in the Arab world, Egypt, on his side then he will be half way there.

But he is not just stopping at Egypt. Before Washington's trip comes Bibi is also in line to meet with King Abdulla of Jordan, who has also been busy rallying support amongst the Arab world, most notably Syria, to joining Jordan, Egypt and other pro-western arabic states in their alliance against Iran. Although the rewards for Syria to leave the grasp of Iranian influence, the pressures to maintain the status quo are also immense.

Israel relationship with Egypt is the cornerstone of the Middle East Peace process. Since their agreement in 1979, the connection has been strained and cold but despite several attempts to destabalise it, it has remained strong and symbolic of the hope that is possible in the region. The relationship has found itself strengthed in recent years thanks to two factors that have created common ground with Israel's worries: 1) The meddling activities of Iran in Arab politics as it scrambles to become the major power in the Middle East by striving for nuclear capability and 2) Iranian backed-Hamas's extremism in Gaza which lead to Operation Cast Lead in January of this year.

During the war the schisms revealed in the Arab world have never been bigger. Mubarak recalled Egypt's diplomatic envoy from Iran and publicly announced that Iran was trying to swallow up the Arab states, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah called on the Egyptian military and populace to bring down the Mubarak regime. Rhetoric of this kind is highly unusual in the Arab world, and led to a furious response in the Egyptian media, in which Nasrallah was lambasted for his statements and mocked for the fact that he has lived in hiding since the 2006 war with Israel.

Since the end of the Gaza War, Egypt has been struggling to control the weapons smuggling that Iran and Hezbollah have been carrying out in order to undermine Mubarak's government. From the IAF raid on an arms network running from Iran, via the Persian Gulf and Yemen to Sudan, Egypt, and finally, Hamas-ruled Gaza to the uncovering of a terroist Hezbollah cell in Egypt that was planning a series of attack on Egyptian soil, indicating that Iran had selected this arab state as a target for future attacks. All this means that Egypt is open for talks with Israel on how they can show a united front when meeting with the US President later this month.

But this is as far as it goes for now. Egypt will still be conscious of its 'obligations' to the Palestinians and its role as mediator in the peace process. As he will be going with PA President, Mahmoud Abbas, he will not want the atmosphere to be too awkward by having become closer with Abbas's enemy, Israel, for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is still a major issue that keeps the Israeli-Egyptian relationship cold and is needing another push to be resolved. But with King Abdullah wanting to push forward a new plan and a renewal of talks between Israel and Syria, Israel and the Plaestinians and Israel and the 57 Arab States, there is a lot going on and only time will tell if the various plans will be successful in achieving their aims.

Conflict in Sri Lanka

2009-05-02T12:57:00.001-07:00

Has anyone noticed that the conflict in Sri Lanka contains striking similarities to the conflict between Israel and Hamas that occurred during Operation Cast Lead in January of this year? Apparently not. Maybe that's because there has come to light yet another example that highlights how much more bloody and horrific the conflict in Sri Lanka is, that of the bombing by the Sri-Lankan government of a hospital killing 91 civilians. Do we hear an international uproar over this though? Of course not.

The conflict in Sri Lanka is one of an independent terrorist organisation, the Tamil Tigers, fighting since 1983, against the Sri Lankan government for independence of the Tamil Eelam region in northern Sri Lanka. The conflict has caused over 70,000 deaths with thousands more injured and displaced (150,000 according to the ICRC). The Sri Lankan government, by any standards, has been waging a war many times more ruthless than that Israel Operation Cast Lead, though during that conflict and after the international community and the public at large has remained fairly laid back in its criticism. There have been demands for a ceasefire though without the public outcry there is less pressure as a whole to push Sri Lanka to put an end to its hostilities.

During the height of the fighting Sri Lankan Prime Minister, Ratnasiri Wickremanayake said "We are not ready for a ceasefire and the war against terrorism is at the last stage....Some countries are pressurising us to go for ceasefire agreement. We cannot listen to the concerned international body or community which is putting pressure on us to accept a ceasefire agreement with LTTE. Our sovereignty must be respected and there should be no condition. We will not yield to any pressure." Sound familar? As a result, the terrorist organisation that is the Tamil Tigers, so the Sri Lankan government tells us, are nearing the last days of their existence as the war comes to an end.

UN Walkout at Durban II

2009-04-20T12:17:00.000-07:00

Mahmoud Ahmedinajad proceeded to prove all the anti-Durban I protestors right this afternoon as he launched into a predictable tirade against Israel and the Jewish people. Contrary to the principles and claimed purpose of the UN backed conference, Iranian's president proved to the world how hypocritical he actually is as by standing directly opposed to everything the Western world holds dear. As a result, many world leaders walked out of the conference as he began his speech to the delight and pleasure of the many spectators and thus reducing the conference to the shambles many were hoping it would be.

Some of those who boycotted the Durban II Conference in Geneva are:
Germany, Holland, US, Italy, Israel, Poland, Canada, and more. Instead of attending conferences such as these the right thing to do is indeed boycott them by not attending and thereby sidelining those who have no interest in furthering anti-racist values. By attending one only legitimises their claims as a possible option and turns what should be a fringe event into a mainstream one.

Durban 2 - "Anti-Racism Conference"

2009-04-19T13:45:00.000-07:00

Today marks the first day of the 5-Day 'Durban II' conference in Geneva, Switzerland and it is no coincidence that it will also be Holocaust Rememberance Day in the country which the conference is most aimed at - Israel.

In 2001, the UN backed conference, though not an official part of the UN, on Anti-Racism was the centre of huge controversy as it focussed itself squarely on the issues within Israel over more blatant cases of racism elsewhere in the world. Zionism was condemned outright as the contemporary form of Nazism and apartheid. Calls for Israel to disappear were rife as were demands for its politicians to be brought before an international tribunal similar to the one in Nuremberg. Anti-Semitic cartoons were circulated, copies of “Mein Kampf” and the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” were handed out. Beneath a photo of Hitler were the words that Israel would never have existed and the Palestinians would never have had to spill their blood if he had been victorious. A number of delegates were physically threatened, there were calls of “Death to Jews”. This farce came to a head when the Sudanese Minister of Justice, Ali Mohamed Osman Yasin, demanded reparations for historical slavery, although in his own country, people are being shamelessly thrown into a new slavery today.

8 years later and this time the conference is being held in Geneva but has been dubbed 'Durban II' due to its unchanged stance towards the issues on the table and its attacks on Israel as seen by the proposed text and mission statment of those who have organised the event.

A full copy of the proposed text can be found here.

It is ironic to say the least that this confernce against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance has a keynote speech by no other than Ahmed Amedinajad of Iran. With its committee chaired by Libya, One of the changes to the text has been to replace the description of Israel to be racist with the codename of 'Foreign Occupation' which clearly has Israel in mind. Would this mean then that the NATO occupation of parts of the former Yugoslavia, Afganistan, and Iraq are racist?

Campaigns to boycott the event have been raging for several months if not years with the final list of countries not attending amounting to the US, Germany, Australia, Italy, Canada, Holland and Israel protesting language in the final document that they say could single out Israel for criticism and restrict free speech. Although the first Durban conference had good intentions, it was turned into a hate-fest against Israel and signs were clear that its sequel would be no different.

For the official website of Durban II, please click here.

To see a copy of the latest official newsletter distributed to participants of the Duban II Conference, please click here.

Text of the Official Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

Mohammed Dahlan - A Fatah Moderate?

2009-04-16T12:26:00.000-07:00

To see what's happening - and what's wrong - with Palestinian politics, consider Mohammad Dahlan. In him is embodied the ideological and strategic straitjacket preventing Palestinians from making peace and getting a state of their own.

Dahlan, 48, is one of the two most able young Fatah leaders, the other being Marwan Barghouti. Dahlan, an architect of the first intifada in the late 1980s, became one of PLO and Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat's favorite proteges. A decade later, however, he broke with Arafat because he thought his boss was letting Hamas get too strong. If Arafat had heeded him, Fatah and the PA would be far better off today.

For many years, Dahlan was the key PA-Fatah "general" battling Hamas in the Gaza Strip. So when Hamas totally defeated Fatah in a 2007 coup and seized control there, Dahlan was responsible for the debacle. Now he's back as special adviser to PA leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Aside from his anti-Hamas credentials, Dahlan has been considered a relative moderate on the peace process. But what does this mean in practice? Dahlan told Al-Sharq al-Awsat that the second (2000-2005) intifada and terrorism against civilians harmed Palestinian interests. His critique, though, was based not on moral considerations but came because such acts hurt the Palestinian image and made Israel react more toughly.

He also complains that the uprising lacked a clear goal. Yet Dahlan never defines what that objective should have been. Here's the movement's fatal flaw. Neither he nor the PA nor Fatah tell Palestinians to accept Israel's existence and build their state alongside it in permanent peace. Such a notion is outside the actual Palestinian debate. Next, Dahlan talks of his hatred for Hamas, but not because it blocks any deal with Israel. He accuses Hamas of murdering hundreds of Palestinians and being an Iranian tool, a gang that is building a radical Islamist state in Gaza.

So what's his solution? Merely that Hamas and the PA unite. Yet given what Dahlan says about Hamas, what possible joint strategy and activities could such a coalition pursue? Clearly, peace with Hamas is more important for Dahlan than peace with Israel. And make no mistake: These two alternatives are mutually exclusive.

Indeed, Dahlan is ready to do anything to cooperate with Hamas, as long as it accepts the PA and Fatah as leading partner. He explains the PA won't ask Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Fatah isn't bound either to any PA recognition of Israel and, "as a resistance organization," can continue attacking Israel whenever it chooses.

Why, then, has the PA agreed to accept Israel's existence? Dahlan says only to get international aid money and support. If this is how Dahlan thinks, his comrades' views are more extreme. The inescapable implication is that if the PA ever signs a peace treaty - though don't hold your breath - and gets a Palestinian state whose capital is east Jerusalem, this would not block Fatah or Hamas from continuing armed struggle.

This attitude fits perfectly with the fact that even today the PA does nothing to prepare its people for peace and compromise. The claim that a Palestinian state should and will some day encompass all of Israel is maintained by schools, sermons, leaders and media. It is contained, too, in the demand for a "right of return" - flooding Israel with several million Palestinians - as more important than getting a state where refugees can be resettled in a country of their own.

No wonder every poll shows overwhelming Palestinian support for armed attacks on civilians and little backing for a compromise peace that would end the conflict forever.

Of course, there won't be a Fatah-Hamas unity deal since Hamas won't give up control over the Gaza Strip, and neither faction will accept the other's rule. But Dahlan is saying that on anything concerning Israel, Fatah is ready to accept Hamas's view rather than demand the Islamist group moderate.

The idea that the world should encourage a PA-Hamas merger is one of many ridiculous notions connected to the fantasy that Palestinian leaders are ready for comprehensive peace. If there's unity, Dahlan, Barghouti and others will join Hamas in launching new waves of armed struggle.

The PA's current rulers tell the West (but not their own people): We want a two-state solution based on peace with Israel. In contrast, Hamas says: We will only accept total victory and Israel's destruction.

Dahlan and Barghouti have another viewpoint. They advocate armed struggle to force Israel from the West Bank and back to pre-1967 borders. At that point, they say, they'd make a peace deal in which they impose their own terms. Of course, if they were to win such a victory, who can say they'd stop there? And even if they accepted a two-state solution, they would leave the door open for a two-stage solution in which Israel would disappear.

This doesn't mean Israel can't work with the PA and Fatah on immediate issues. The basic deal is that the PA gets international funds and support for keeping power in the West Bank in exchange for reducing terrorism to the minimum and keeping Hamas at bay. If there's a PA-Hamas deal, Israel has no further interest in cooperating with the PA.

But there will never be a comprehensive peace agreement ending the conflict as long as Hamas's motto is: "Today the Gaza Strip and today all of Israel," while Fatah and the PA say, "Today, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and tomorrow Israel." If even Muhammad Dahlan can't go visibly farther than that, any overall peace process is, unfortunately, a mirage.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal.

Israeli Government 2009: The Year of Instability

2009-04-01T08:59:00.000-07:00

Arab League Summit in Doha

2009-03-30T01:08:00.000-07:00

Today marks the first day of the Leaders of Arab League meeting in the Qatari capital of Doha for the first Arab summit to be held since Israel's operation in Gaza. Of immediate interest is Qatar's leader embracing Sudan's president, Omar Al-Bashir, in his most brazen act of defiance against an international arrest warrant on charges of war crimes in Darfur. Al-Bashir is currently subject to an international arrest warrant, because of his government's actions in the Darfur province of western Sudan, and his attendance has angered international human rights organisations. Around 300,000 people have died and 2.5 million lost their homes in Darfur in the last years, as a result of a campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter conducted by the Sudanese regime against the non-Arab population of that area. Al-Bashir's trip to Doha represents a clear challenge to the International Criminal Court. The Arab League has declared its opposition to the arrest warrant against Bashir, and the summit is preparing a statement calling for the warrant to be dropped

The Doha gathering is another chance for Qatar to enhance its role as a regional broker - with the growing confidence to occasionally break ranks with traditional regional heavyweights Egypt and Saudi Arabia and their Western allies. In January, Qatar hosted a Gaza crisis conference that included two leaders sharply at odds with Washington: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal. The following month, Qatar mediated preliminary talks between Sudan's government and the most powerful Darfur rebel group. But, as a key US ally that hosts 5000 American troops and warplanes, Qatar's rulers will be careful not to step too far from the Western-leaning fold.

High on the agenda for discussion will be concerns at growing Iranian influence in the region, efforts to bring about a renewed Palestinian unity government, and developing a response to the new Netanyahu government in Israel. Few observers predict major achievements for the summit, which reflects the divided nature of the Arab world - riven by a division between pro-western states and states aligning themselves with Iran. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has declined to attend the summit, and instead has sent his minister of legal affairs, Mufid Shehab. The Egyptian decision is being seen as a calculated snub to Qatar, which is increasingly aligning itself with the pro-Iranian bloc. The Egyptians are furious because of Qatari support for Hamas in Gaza, and the hosting by Qatar of a meeting in Doha during the Gaza operation attended by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. Cairo regards such Qatari actions as both counter-productive and hypocritical, given Qatar's close relations with the US.

Gilad Shalit Release Talks Fail

2009-03-17T13:14:00.000-07:00

And so it seems the campaign to release Gilad Shalit has come to the end of its current phase. With final push talks from the government of Ehud Olmert over with no successful result, the campaign nevertheless continues. Noam Shalit, Gilad's father is far from giving up hope and has set up camp outside the PM's office in Jerusalem until the end of the PM's term. The breakdown in the talks came as Israeli negotiators, Diskin and Dekel, reported that over the past few days Hamas had toughened its stance in talks over a possible prisoner swap, raising its demands and backtracking on previous understandings.

Israel and Hamas were apparently coming close to an agreement on the number of Palestinian prisoners to be released in exchange for Shalit. According to the sources, the remaining brunt of contention was which of these prisoners would be freed to the West Bank.

During a special cabinet meeting called to discuss the status of negotiations for the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, ministers were presented with a list of ten high-profile Palestinian prisoners which Israel was willing to release so long as they were not allowed to return to the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The ministers were also read a list of prisoners which Hamas has demanded be included in the deal, but which Israel adamantly refuses to free. In an unprecedented move, the cabinet voted to publish the names of the latter ten prisoners. Below are the names of these 10 prisoners and the crimes for which they were imprisoned:

Hassan Salama - Given 38 life sentences in prison in 1998 for murdering dozens of Israelis in bomb attacks. Among other terror attacks, he planned an Ashkelon suicide bombing which killed a soldier, and two bus bombing attacks in Jerusalem in 1996 which killed 44 people.

Bahij Badar - Arrested in 2004 and given 18 life sentences for planning attacks which killed 18 Israelis. He is considered a major figure in the Hamas movement.

Abdallah Barghouti - Given 67 life sentences for his role in a string of terror attacks which killed 66 Israelis, and wounded 500 others. Among the attacks which he planned were the 'Sbarro' and Moment Cafe bombings in Jerusalem.

Mahmoud Hassan Ahmoud Arman - Convicted in 2002 for his direct role in a series of attacks which claimed 34 Israeli lives. Along with being involved in planning the Moment Cafe bombing, he was the architect of the bombings at a cafeteria in Hebrew University and a night club in Rishon Letzion.

Ibrahim Hamed - Convicted for his role in a string of attacks which murdered 82 Israelis and wounded hundreds more, including a 2001 double suicide attack in Jerusalem's Zion Square which killed 11 people.

Abbas A-Sayid - Until his imprisonment he served as the head of the Hamas movement in Tulkarem. He was convicted for a number of deadly attacks against Israel, including a suicide bombing in the Hasharon Mall in Netanya which killed 5 Israelis.

Mohand Sarim - One of the planners of the Park Hotel bombing in Netanya, which killed 29 Israelis and wounded 64 others in Passover 2002.

Ra'ad Hutari - Caught in 2003 and convicted for recruiting a number of suicide bombers, included the one who perpetrated the 2001 attack at the Dolphinarium in Tel Aviv, which killed 22 people and wounded 83 others.

Jamal Abu Al-Hija - Formerly the head of Hamas's military wing in Jenin. He was sentenced to 9 life terms in prison for his role in a number of terror attacks, including a car bombing near a Hadera mall which killed 2 people and wounded 64 others.

Mua'at Balal - Given 26 life terms for his role in a string of attacks in Israel, including a 1997 suicide bombing in the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem, which killed 18 Israelis. He was also directly involved in the 1997 suicide attack on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem, which killed 8 people and wounded 200 others.

Reports on the Arab side of the presence in Cairo of the head of Hamas' military wing, Ahmed Jabari, might reveal the seriousness with which the organization is taking the present round of talks. But even in Hamas there are apparently opposing interests. For Jabari it is important to release as many senior prisoners as possible, The political leadership in Gaza wants the siege on the Strip lifted. Khaled Meshal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, might be more interested in the release of prisoners from the West Bank, so as to challenge the rule of the Palestinian Authority there. Hamas' leaders understand well the implications of the rise of a narrow right-wing government in Israel. They say they do not fear Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is clear to them that he will have difficulty presenting them with a more generous offer than Olmert's. Further delays in closing the deal will also raise the level of bitterness among the families. But Monday night, at least, it seemed Hamas was having difficulty showing flexibility on the question of the number of prisoners to be expelled.

The fate of Gilad Shalit has become a central topic of conversation in many Israeli homes over the past few days. The question, "what will happen to the boy?" is heard everywhere. The media is also enlisted almost fully in calling for the release of the soldier, marginalizing opponents to a swap. Support for a deal is legitimate, but even those who support it should ask themselves if those calling for release at any cost will be around to share the blame when some of those freed commit new attacks.

Gilad Shalit Release

2009-03-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

Egyptian mediated talks relating to the release of Gilad Shalit have intensified in the last few days, leading Ehud Olmert to postpone by one day a special Cabinet meeting to address the issue. This coming Saturday, 21 March, will mark a thousand days since Shalit was kidnapped by Palestinian militants on the Israel-Gaza border. Last week, his family moved into a protest tent outside Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's residence in Jerusalem, to increase pressure on the government to secure his release. They want Israel to conduct a prisoner exchange with Hamas. If concluded, via the Egyptian-brokered deal currently being formulated, this would bring the release of hundreds Palestinian prisoners, including many murderers and coordinators of terror. Throughout Israeli society, people are deeply sensitive to the issue of the captured soldier and express solidarity with the suffering family, but there is a controversy about the price of his freedom. This analysis sets out the context of the intensified media focus and addresses the tough questions facing Israel's political leadership.

Since Gilad Shalit was kidnapped on 25 June 2006, Israel has been actively trying to secure his release. In August 2006, Ehud Olmert appointed Ofer Dekel, former Deputy Head of the Shin Bet (Israel's equivalent of MI5) to coordinate efforts. With senior defence official Amos Gilead also heavily involved, negotiations have ebbed and flowed, but there are signs of current progress. Dekel has made three recent visits to Cairo for talks with Egyptian Intelligence Chief General Omar Suleiman. Notably, the serving Shin Bet chief, Yuval Diskin, has also been assigned to the case.
Last Thursday, Israel reportedly agreed to release "all 450 of the prisoners demanded by Hamas in exchange for Shalit." It seems that the dispute now concerns Israel's insistence that certain high-risk prisoners be deported rather than allowed to return to Gaza or the West Bank. Whilst it remains unclear whether a deal can be struck this time round, a special Israeli cabinet session that was scheduled to take place today, possibly the last of the present government, has now been postponed until Tuesday, presumably in the hope that it will be able to vote on a deal if one is reached. If they do not, it is not known how the process will move forward.

Mounting pressure for a prisoner exchange
A well-organised Free Shalit campaign in the closing stage of Ehud Olmert's premiership has intensified media focus on the issue. Gilad was a 19 year-old-conscript when he was captured. His youthful image is now instantly recognisable to all Israelis, as his picture can be seen on T-shirts, car bumper stickers and posters across the country. A song written in his honour, ‘Return Home', is frequently heard on national radio stations. His time in captivity is updated daily in newspapers and on popular websites, often with the message: ‘Gilad is still alive'. A story about peace that he wrote at school when he was 11 has been turned into a popular illustrated children's book. In the latest public campaign, a single word has been taken from a handwritten letter released to his family and blown up on billboard posters. The word is ‘hatzilu', meaning ‘save me'.

His father Noam and his mother Aviva are now well known public figures in Israel. Noam Shalit appears in the media on an almost daily basis. Since he and his family moved to the protest tent last week, they have met with President Shimon Peres, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and other leading politicians, such as Shaul Mofaz and Dalia Itzik from Kadima and Shas's Eli Yishai. They have been joined by hundreds of ordinary people from all walks of life wishing to show their support. Images of members of Israel's ultra-orthodox and secular communities together in the Jerusalem tent are an expression of the deep yearning for Gilad Shalit's safe return felt throughout Israeli society.

Other high profile individuals also play an instrumental role. They include Karnit Goldwasser, the widow of one of two soldiers abducted by Hezbollah in 2006 (their bodies were returned in a prisoner swap last summer), and the family of missing airman Ron Arad, shot down over Lebanon in 1986. Though the family tends not to speak openly about these issues, Arad's wife, Tammy, last week said that she supported freeing "Palestinian murderers" for Shalit's release. Some (though by no means all) of those left bereaved by terror attacks also show their solidarity with the Shalit cause. Internationally, due to the fact that Shalit also holds French citizenship, Nicolas Sarkozy has also played a diplomatic role, and Shalit was recently named as an ‘Honorary Citizen of Paris'.

It is the sense that the clock is ticking in the face of political developments in Israel that concern the Shalit family and campaign activists. They fear that the present transition of power could lead to Shalit being ‘lost forever'. This trepidation is fuelled by Israel's failure, to this day, to discover the fate of Ron Arad who, like Shalit, was known to have been held alive for several years after his capture, before the trail of efforts to bring his release ran cold. Olmert's associates say he is keen to "clear his desk" before he leaves office by resolving the Shalit case. Ironically, though, if he brings forward an agreement now, the question will be asked as to why the terms of such a deal were unacceptable a year ago or longer. Shalit campaigners, meanwhile, are trying to remain focused on the present and to pressure Olmert to put an end to the matter which arose on his watch.
They fear that Israeli Prime-Minister designate Benjamin Netanyahu will not want to be seen making a major concession to Hamas upon taking office. Hamas would certainly declare the deal as a major victory over Israel. That Hamas has reportedly demanded freedom for Marwan Barghouti, a prominent political figure and potential rival to Hamas, who was convicted on five counts of murder in 2004, shows how it is trying to use this issue to improve its support across Palestinian society.
It seems that Olmert's associates are pushing the ‘tough Netanyahu' image in order to try to pressure Hamas into seeing current talks as a ‘last chance' to reunite Palestinian prisoners with their families; Noam Shalit has similarly appealed to Hamas along these lines. It is also in Netanyahu's interests to see the issue resolved before his government is formed. He would certainly prefer not to be dragged into an Egyptian mediated negotiation over this issue, which would diminish his uncompromising image vis-à-vis Hamas. But it would be almost impossible for him to avoid undertaking efforts to bring about the return of a kidnapped soldier.

The Price of Freedom
There is a consensus in the country, and within the major political parties, about the responsibility of the state to the soldiers risking their lives for it. Yet at the same time, Israel knows how conscious its enemies are of its vulnerability, due to the high value it places on bringing its soldiers home. This paradox is at the root of the controversy over the price to be paid for securing the release of missing servicemen.

Those in Israel who advocate paying a heavy price for Gilad Shalit's return cite a history of disproportionate prisoner exchanges going as far back as the 1956 Sinai Campaign. More recently, in January 2004 a reserve Israeli Colonel kidnapped in Dubai and the remains of three soldiers ambushed by Hezbollah in 2000, were returned to Israel in exchange for 429 prisoners, and the bodies of 59 Lebanese fighters. In July 2008 the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Oded Regev were sent back to Israel in return for the freeing Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar, four other Hezbollah fighters and the bodies of 199 more. Many Israelis who support such exchanges see them as the unfortunate but inescapable consequence of many years of conflict. It is argued that the release of prisoners does not significantly alter Israel's military superiority over Hamas and its other enemies.

The converse view is encapsulated by the words written on a banner at a small, separate demonstration set up for a brief period last week, near to where the Free Shalit campaigners are encamped. It read: "Yes to freeing Shalit, no to freeing terrorists." This argument challenges the rationality of exchanging a single soldier for hundreds of prisoners, including those with ‘blood on their hands'. The risk, as the intelligence community points out, is not only that releasing terrorists threatens the loss of further civilian lives, but that by negotiating such deals, it rewards the captors, and creates an incentive for future hostage taking.

But since neither military operations nor economic sanctions are likely to lead Hamas to surrender the soldier, adopting a stance which rejects the return of prisoners would effectively kill any chance of a deal. Ultimately though, politicians in a democracy have wider responsibilities. They cannot unthinkingly put the interests of a uniformed soldier, or even an entire military brigade, before the protection of the civilian population. As such, in the face of uncertainty, the degree of risk to Israeli security as a whole falls to their judgment.

In security terms, Ofer Dekel and Yuval Diskin are tasked with determining not only the quantity and identity of the Palestinians that would be released in return for Shalit, but their destination upon being freed. Allowing militants to return to the West Bank could destabilise the relative calm that Israel, the PA and the international community have achieved there, in contrast to the Gaza Strip. Lethal bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians are more easily perpetrated from the West Bank than Gaza, and Israel wants to avoid a scenario where a major prisoner release in exchange for Shalit leaves more bereaved families in its wake. As such, the acceptable conditions for a deal, from Israel's point of view, may rest with whether agreement can be reached over the deportation of prisoners.

Conclusion
The ongoing captivity of Gilad Shalit haunts Israeli society. For a country where most families have members serving as conscripts or reserves in the army, the return of kidnapped soldiers touches most individuals on a very personal level. When the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Oded Regev were returned from Lebanon last year, the grief that they were not returned alive was palpable. But so was the sense of relief that the doubt about their wellbeing had been taken away and that the episode had been concluded. Nevertheless, in deliberating Gilad Shalit's return, Israeli decision makers are forced to calculate the value of human life in the starkest terms by making a judgement about the risk to Israel's security.

The public pressure on the government to resolve the issue also has broader implications. The problems resulting from Hamas's rule in Gaza would not disappear with the resolution of the Shalit affair. But for as long as Hamas continues to hold the abducted soldier, the horizon will be that much bleaker, because Israel will never give up its efforts to retrieve him. The people would not allow it..

Dilemmas on Iran

2009-03-05T05:53:00.000-08:00

If Israel is going to attack Iran in the next two years, it must take the following possible developments into account: The attack will fail. The attack will succeed in part and delay the Iranian nuclear program only somewhat. The attack will succeed but lead to a harsh counterstrike. The attack will ignite an unending Iranian-Israeli war. The attack will cause Israel's allies to break off their alliance with it. The attack will lead to worldwide condemnation of Israel that will isolate it and turn it into an international pariah.

If Israel does not attack Iran over the next two years, it must take into account other possible developments: A nuclear Iran could become a regional power that will tip the scales in the struggle between extremists and moderates in the Middle East. A nuclear Iran that controls the energy routes could gain enough power to squeeze Europe, Russia, China and even the United States. A nuclear Iran could erode Israeli deterrence and initiate serious and ongoing confrontations in the south and north. A nuclear Iran and the terror groups it supports will cast a pall of fear over many Israelis.

In about two months, Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu will meet U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House. That meeting will be fateful. It alone can extricate Israel from the trap of a bomb or a bombing. However, the meeting will be difficult. Netanyahu will have to persuade a dovish president to force a hawkish position on a defense establishment that does not want it.

An Israeli conservative will try to convince an American Democratic president to act in the Iranian crisis the way John F. Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. If Netanyahu succeeds, the West will be able to overcome the worst danger it has faced since the Cold War. If he fails, Israel will face the most difficult dilemma in its history.

Many mock Netanyahu because he compares the Iranian threat to the threat of 1948. The mockers are wrong. True, Iran will be in no hurry for a nuclear strike against Israel. A nuclear Iran will not necessarily generate apocalypse now. However, if Iran becomes as strong as France, it will create new strategic circumstances in which Israel will find it hard to survive for long. But if Israel acts hastily, it could expose itself to unprecedented risks. That is why the challenge in the run-up to 2010 - the year the Israeli intelligence community believes Iran will have enough fissionable material to make a bomb - is so great. Resolution 2010 is an existential one.

By Ari Shavit - From Ha'aretz.

Saudi Arabia and the Mumbai Attacks

2009-02-15T05:53:00.001-08:00

It is well known amongst Counter-Terror experts that Saudi Arabia has a two-faced policy towards terrorism. On the one hand it does everything it can to keep terrorism out of its own borders, though on the other it is more than happy to export and support it in other lands. The attacks in Mumbai in November last year have until now been associated with a group called Lashkar e-Taiba though it would be a mistake to think of this group as purely a locally supported group and not part of the bigger picture.

Groups like Lashkar e-Taiba are supported in 3 ways by Islamic states like Saudi Arabia. The first is the ideology of global jihad. Saudia Arabia has an interest in exporting its ideology of Wahhabism to all the muslims in the world in competition with its Shiite opposition based in Iran. It does this export of Wahhabism through the Global Da'wa Infrastucture that it has been building up over the past 30 years or more. This infrastucture takes the form of Madrasas (Religious Schools), Islamic Centres, charities, mosques, conventions, leaflets, etc. This in and of itself is not so worrying, but rather it is the use of this infrastructure for the spread of Radical Islam that is cause for concern.

The second is funding and support from external sources. Saudia Arabia is known for funding a lot of the Da'wa infrastructure and providing money to organisations which can be seen to be providing aid and support to those in need. Much of this financial support however also finds its way into organisations that have no intention for it to be used for aid, but rather to contribute to the global islamic jihad. The main root of this ideology was formed by Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Baz.

The third is a territorial base which enables them to conduct activities and maintain training camps.

The notion of global Islam has also penetrated to Gaza and to some extent in the West Bank. This phenomenon exists under the umbrella of Hamas, which enables a revival of global jihadi organizations in Gaza such as Jaish al-Islam and others. The emergence of these groups is worrying because they are very much inspired by the global jihadi, Saudi Wahhabi ideology - a strict interpretation of Islam which is being interpreted into political and terrorist activity. What is important in this phenomenon is the radicalization of the already radicalized society in Gaza.

The bottom line is that we are seeing the same pattern of global jihad-oriented groups starting to be active in Gaza. They have carried out some attacks, mostly directed against foreign, Western institutions like the YMCA and the American School. Yet they have played only a marginal role in attacks against Israeli targets.

For more on this subject please read a new article by Jonathan Fighel, a Senior Researcher at the International Institute of Counter-Terrorism at the InterDisciplinary Centre, Herzliya.

Another article on the Mumbai Attacks by Siddartha Rimana, can be found here

Israeli Elections 2009 Results

2009-02-11T07:44:00.000-08:00

Although the final results have not yet been announced, scheduled for 18th Feb, once the remaining soldier's votes and those Israelis living abroad have been counted, indications show that Tzipi Livni is set to become the next Prime Minister of Israel...if she can form a coalition in time.

Both Kadima and Likud seem to be claiming a victory for although Livni won more votes, it is unclear if she will be able to form a coalition at all. Indeed, we may see a re-run of her efforts of coalition building after winning the Kadima Leadership that failed, and resulted in this General Election in the first place. After a surprise comeback though, following months of speculation that Bibi Netanyahu would be the outright winner, Kadima's Tzipi Livni pipped him to the post by a narrow margin. So is she the real winner or is it someone else?

The next government will be an incredibly fragile one indeed with perhaps the biggest winner being the one who although did not make it to be PM, will have an enourmous amount of power in leveraging off the two leading parties of Kadima and Likud. Yisrael Beteynu made leaps of success in this election, relegating Ehud Barak's Labour party into an unprecendented 4th position, clearly highlighting how much support Labour has lost and how detached it has become in the eyes of the Israeli people.

So will Livni be a good PM? Well, it is certainly time for change and an end to the Old Boys Club and the usual faces at the top. Riding on a ticket against corruption, Livni also represents a clean start in this respect too. Bibi, as the predicted winner, will no doubt be disappointed with this result. But he will nevertheless take comfort in the impressive fact that Likud's strength more than doubled from its disastrous result in 2006, and that the balance of power in the Knesset now lies with the right-wing parties. Likud's result was clearly hampered by the highly effective campaign of hawkish Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beitenu party, growing their support from 11 to 15 seats.

If Livni cannot form a coalition, then the decision will fall to President Shimon Peres to elect the leader who he thinks can form the better coalition, even if this is not the party with the largest proportion of the votes. In this case, that would be Netanyahu. Netanyahu has claimed that the election is a victory for the right-wing camp, and has said he will turn first to the right-wing parties to back him. Likud, Yisrael Beitenu, Shas and the smaller religious and right-wing parties taken together have 65 seats, enough to form a majority government. This certainly makes Netanyahu by far the most likely candidate for prime minister. But a coalition of right-wing parties will be far from ideal for Netanyahu for several reasons. Firstly, he would rather place himself in the centre of a broad-based centrist coalition, where he can trade off the demands of parties to the left and right, rather than being the most moderate player in coalition of parties all pulling him further to the right. This is especially the case with the new Obama administration looking for diplomatic progress. Secondly, in such a coalition, he would have to satisfy the demands of at least four of the five smaller right-wing parties: Yisrael Beitenu (secular nationalist), Shas (Sephardi religious), United Torah Judaism (Ashkenazi ultra-orthodox), Jewish Home (national religious) and National Union (right-wing mix of secular and religious). If any one of them were to jump ship, his Knesset majority would be in danger. Satisfying their various demands, which typically include budget commitments that benefit their constituencies, will be all the more difficult in an economic climate in which finances will be extremely tight, and economic dependence on the US potentially greater. Thirdly, these parties will struggle to get on with one another. In particular, the two largest of them, Shas and Yisrael Beitenu, will have to overcome extremely bitter recriminations that broke out in the last few days.

Is there a chance of the two largest parties joining together in a government of national unity? With Israelis concerned about the threats that face the future stability and security of the country, this is by far the most popular option for the public. Together, Kadima and Likud have 55 seats. With the participation of any of Labour, Shas, or Yisrael Beitenu, the government would have a majority. There is a strong precedent for the two largest parties working together in Israeli politics. In particular, between 1984 and 1988, Labour and Likud, who each had around 40 seats in the Knesset, entered a power-sharing agreement where the role of prime minister was rotated after two years.

Kadima and Likud share an agenda which is focused on the broad national interest, rather than the specific sectoral demands typical of the smaller parties. On the diplomatic front, they agree on the need to isolate Hamas and other extremists in the Palestinian camp and continue to work with the moderates in the West Bank Palestinian Authority. They also agree on the primacy of Iran as a growing existential threat to the State of Israel, as well as the need to address the threat of the global economic crisis. The main factors which may prevent such a government, however, are the differences Likud has with Kadima on whether or not to continue substantial peace negotiations with the Palestinians and Syrians. Just as important as the policy differences is the clash of personalities among the party leaders, particularly the animosity between Livni and Netanyahu. However, both leaders have expressed their readiness to work with each other in a government of national unity. Given the challenges and internal contradictions facing any other coalition, this could yet turn out to be the most feasible option.

Whatever the make-up of the next Israeli government, the challenges that face it are considerable. After the last election in 2006, Ehud Olmert formed a government committed to continuing the process of withdrawing from most of the territories in order to consolidate Israel as a Jewish and democratic state within recognised borders. Hezbollah and Hamas, under Iran's sponsorship, succeeded in derailing the ambitions of that government, by attacking Israel from territories it had previously vacated. They weakened the case in Israel for further withdrawals. Furthermore, the rise to power of Hamas in Gaza and the divisions within the Palestinian camp have made the two-state solution that most Israelis favour look increasingly difficult to achieve. All the main parties agree that there can be no long-term agreement with Hamas, so long as it seeks Israel's destruction as its long-term goal. Whilst a renewed ceasefire with Hamas may be possible, there is a lack of consensus on how to deal with Hamas in the long term, and how to strengthen moderate Palestinians.
Equally serious threats lie over the horizon, including the ticking clock of Iran's nuclear programme. The radical Islamist regime, committed to Israel's destruction, is moving fast towards nuclear weapons capabilities. Whilst the EU and US are also committed to stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the conjunction of nuclear weapons and sponsorship of terrorism which Iran represents is a much more immediate threat to Israel. In Israel's favour is the fact that large sections of the Arab world feel as threatened by Iran and its radical alliance as Israel does. But leveraging this shared interest into a diplomatic force for change in region will be more difficult as long as the Palestinian question remains unanswered.
The most immediate challenge is economic. Among the government's most pressing tasks will be to pass an overdue budget for 2009. If it fails to do so within 45 days of its formation, a new election will be triggered by law. With the global financial crisis lapping at Israel's shores, Israel faces a potentially crippling budget deficit. Among the most immediate dilemmas facing the incoming administration will be how to build a budget and an economic policy that can withstand the economic storms ahead.