10 July 2016

Israel’s EU Challenge

Is effective hasbara possible?

Israeli hasbara has an uphill struggle. In fact, some believe it has an impossible task; that the EU and others are so far advanced in their anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and pro-Palestinian sympathies that hasbara is a waste of time, effort and money. In this view, the usual instruments of persuasion, facts, reason and logic will fail because they will be trumped by political interests. That is, regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the EU and others are happy to swear that a penny is square.

In assessing this theory, the background assumption adopted is that the Palestinians are incapable of and unwilling to accept Israel as the nation-state of Jews or the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism. This is the driving force of the conflict. To put this less rigidly, Palestinian acceptance may be possible – but only on a distant and imaginary horizon. This means that the conflict has many years to run before a decisive victory or peaceful accommodation. 

Therefore, on the basis of this war of attrition, the issue of how to persuade those such as the EU to be less hostile to Israel and less supportive of the Palestinians assumes a long-term importance. However, if the reasoning of the opening paragraph is accurate, the inevitable conclusion is that placing any reliance on more or better hasbara is doomed.

If two further propositions are added to the equation, these difficulties are compounded. The first is that Israel cannot somehow outsmart the EU, USA and others towards greater support. The second is that Israel does not possess the clout to coerce them into a more favorable position, to drop their opposition to settlements or their support for the PA and the Palestinian narrative.

This amounts to a significant predicament. Because in common with all human relations, institutions and agreements, international relations operate by a combination of consent and coercion. Therefore, the above reasoning produces the conclusion that these avenues are either useless or closed to Israel. If this is the case, the position for advancing Israel’s interests would be grim. And it is no wonder that desperate attempts periodically surface for a decisive breakout by means of a demonstrative unilateral action by Israel (see, From Occupation to Annexation: a desperate miscalculation).

A counter-perspective

Even if only partially true, this hypothesis means that outside an emergency ...

Read more

Inquiry into Anti-Semitism & Islamophobia among Labour Party Members, UK

19 June 2016

Inquiry into Anti-Semitism & Islamophobia among Labour Party Members, UK

As a former member of the UK Labour Party, now living in Israel, I am unable to contribute directly to the inquiry headed by Shami Chakrabarti, due to report in a few weeks. Therefore, these brief comments take the form of an open letter.

The inquiry panel will probably understand the great interest that this issue has created in Israel. The panel will also know of the alarm felt by many Jews in Britain and elsewhere that Jeremy Corbyn has associated himself with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah who seek the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state. These organizations explicitly and incessantly proclaim their genocidal anti-Semitism - the Hamas Charter is a spectacularly unhinged example. 

It is beyond belief that this is not known to Jeremy Corbyn and likeminded figures within the Labour Party. The explanation has been offered that expressions of solidarity with these organizations are for the purpose of encouraging peace in the Middle East. In his meeting with Jonathan Arkush of the Jewish Board of Deputies (Feb 2016) Jeremy Corbyn gave assurance that the Labour Party position was that Israel had a right to exist within secure and recognized borders. 

Unfortunately, these organizations have no interest in such an outcome. Instead of being committed to a 2-State Solution, they are openly dedicated to the annihilation of Israel. Therefore, if Jeremy Corbyn agrees that Israel has a right to exist, he would help ease Jewish anxiety and vulnerability if he gave an account of his progress in trying to get these organizations to agree to this position as the basis for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

1  Read More

From Occupation to Annexation?

20 May 2016

From Occupation to Annexation?

A Desperate Miscalculation

Formerly, calls for a One-State Solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were faintly disguised attempts to extinguish the only Jewish state in the world.  More recently, the idea of a One-State Solution has found sympathy in some Jewish-Israeli circles with the calls for the annexation of the West Bank – either completely or in part.  

Naturally, this raises questions of legality, morality and practicality.  These have scarcely been explored.  However, in his essay Resolution 242 Revisited (2015), Eugene Kontorovich drew attention to the question of whether there is a legal right to annex territory conquered and occupied in a legal war (assuming that the West Bank can be described as occupied).  His discussion of the International Law Commission draft and unratified codes from 1949 and 1954, which seem to tilt in this direction, is interesting but inconclusive.  At best, it points to a definite-maybe or possible should-be.  More legal work is apparently required.

However, after such a lengthy passage of time is there any good reason to expect an international consensus decisively favorable to annexation – especially with regard to such a contentious dispute?  Additionally, this would cut-across the more recently developed view that sovereignty does not reside with this or that state, government or ruler, but with the people.  As a result, the Palestinians are said to have both legal and moral rights to national self-determination which annexation would plainly prevent.  

In other words, from where we are now and from what we now know ....

1 Read more

GAZA: The Only Solution Absent Again?

17 May 2016

GAZA: The Only Solution Absent Again

Cause for Humanitarian Concern

PM Netanyahu Meets with Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this evening (Tuesday, 3 May 2016), met with Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende.  The two discussed defeating Daesh in the region and the possibility of improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza while carefully meeting Israel's security needs.

Prime Minister Netanyahu noted the State of Israel's role as an anchor of stability in the Middle East, which is vital to Europe's security.

Queries to PM Media Adviser

1/    Did they discuss what the Norwegian government could do to produce the only real solution to the humanitarian situation in Gaza - a government in Gaza not dedicated to war and the annihilation of Israel?

2/    Did they discuss what the Norwegian government can do to ensure that Norwegians understand the aim of Hamas and its Charter of destroying Israel?

Islamic Wars and Palestinians

8 October 2015

Islamic Wars and the Palestinians

Lies, Damned Lies and Taqiyya

The current eruption of murderous attacks on Jews over the issue of the Temple Mount is causing speculation about a third intifada. It also provokes Jewish despair at the blatant lies of the PA leadership – and the repetition of Palestinian propaganda by much of the international media. The mixture of Islamism and Arab nationalism, neither of which accepts Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, continues to be the driving force of the conflict. 

As a fundamental factor, Islam divides the world into the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War) which is under the rule of Dar al-Kufr (the House of the Unbeliever). Apart from temporary treaties, war is permanent. A significant product of this idea is that anyone leaving Islam is seen exactly as we view someone siding with an enemy in war: as a traitor. 

Do all or the great bulk of Muslims think this? I've no idea. But in the UK I slightly knew someone who was a noted Catholic theologian. He would sigh in amused dismay at the distance between the beliefs of the Catholic hierarchy and himself and those of many of his fellow churchgoers. So it wouldn't be a surprise to find something similar in Islam. Not everyone is a theologian. 

However, with Catholicism, no-one can be forced to adhere to it any longer and there are lots of alternatives for those who don't like it. And anyone who prefers something else can denounce the Pope as the anti-Christ (or whatever) as loudly as they wish without fear of being burned at the stake. Alas, we know that in Arab states the public criticism of Islam is impossible and changing religion very dangerous. Therefore, as a generalization, Islamic intolerance has a far greater hold on minds and behaviors than, for example, modern western Christianity.

1 Read more

Protecting Israel's Blockade of Gaza

29 June 2015

Protecting Israel’s Blockade of Gaza

The Legal Rules and Israel’s Hasbara

The new flotilla of ships from Sweden and elsewhere, currently attempting to breech Israel’s efforts to stop war-material reaching Hamas, will provide Israel with enormous diplomatic and hasbara opportunities.  These will be primarily in the areas for the promotion of Israel’s legal rights and opportunities to shift public perceptions of Israeli blame onto the Palestinians. 

Israel’s legal rights to act in international waters against attempts to break a lawful blockade are specific.  They include the legal permission to stop, search, divert, seize and even attack ships attempting to breech the blockade. 

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 1994 provides:

1 Read more

The Israeli Demand that Palestinians Accept Israel as a Jewish State

15 January 2015

The Israeli Demand that Palestinians Accept Israel as a Jewish State

Why the Deal-Maker for Israel is the Deal-Breaker for the Palestinians - and Vice Versa

Part 1 Reut and wrong

Gidi Grinstein is founder and CEO of the Re’ut Institute of Tel Aviv. The great thing about his article Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People / Palestine as the Nation State of the Palestinian People (Re’ut-Institute website), is that it takes as its subject the crucial issue at the heart of the Israeli conflict with the Arabs. The not-so-great-thing is that it does this with a shallow analysis that trivializes and distorts a serious matter.

The issue is the Israeli requirement that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish People.   Prime Minister Netanyahu has regularly made this the fundamental building block of any 2-State Solution.  For example:

There will be no Palestinian state before the state of Israel is recognized as the Jewish people’s state, and there will be no Palestinian state before the Palestinians declare an end to the conflict.

(Y.net.com 02/12/2012)

Gidi Grinstein finds that this Israeli demand is:

a just one, yet non-essential, and therefore unnecessary.  

Unfortunately, he supports this view with some silly arguments. Yet, Gidi Grinstein is both smart and substantial.  Therefore, his use of explanations that trivialize the issue is worrying.  For example, he says this:  

1 Read more

Abbas' Cairo Interview: The Demise of Israel: Hidden in Plain Sight

12 December 2014

ABBAS’ CAIRO INTERVIEW

The Demise of Israel:  Hidden in Plain Sight

Here are three quotations from the interview given by PLO appointed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to the Egyptian newspaper ‘Akhbar Al-Yawm’ on 30 November 2014.

Israel must recognize the June 4, 1967 border.

We cannot recognize a Jewish state.

There are six million refugees who wish to return, and by the way, I am one of them.

(MEMRI 05 Dec 2014 Special Dispatch 5898)

The occasion was the meeting of the Arab League on the previous day in Cairo where the Arab League restated its position as:

categorical rejection of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state

(Al-Ahram online 29 Nov 2014)

These terms were almost identical to a statement by the 22-member body made earlier in the year when the Council of the Arab League stated that it:

emphasizes its rejection of recognizing Israel as a ‘Jewish state’

(Al-Jazeera online 09 Mar 2014)

The same Al- Jazeera article observed that:

1 Read more

The New Egypt and the Clash of Civilizations

22 February 2011

The New Egypt and the Clash of Civilizations

More Lessons of History

In 1973, the leaders of Egypt learned two critical lessons from the October 'Yom Kippur' War. The first was that it took a truly enormous effort to make even limited military gains against Israel. As part of its preparation for the assault, Egypt devoted a huge proportion of its GNP to the military. Military spending rose from 13% of GNP in 1969 to 25% by 1973.

Employing advanced Soviet bridging techniques, an extremely enterprising technique to blast tank pathways through Israeli sand-barriers and a huge supply of sophisticated Soviet weaponry, the much admired assault by Egyptian forces was a tremendous success in crossing the canal and pushing back Israeli defences. Yet even with the advantage of a powerful opening attack and almost total surprise, the attack failed to completely achieve its modest aim of seizing two Israeli military roads running parallel to the canal a mere 30 kilometres (20 miles) inside the Sinai....

1 Read more

The Need to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapon Capabilities and Restore US International Leadership

12 February 2010

The Need to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapon Capabilities and Restore US International Leadership

Rationality & Miscalculation in International Conflict

Iran does not need nuclear weapons for defence. Its nuclear weapons program was originally conceived as a counter to Saddam’s Iraq. This is no longer any threat to Iran. Israel never has been a danger to Iran – apart from its current need to protect itself from the threat from Iranian nuclear weapons. 

There are only two possible reasons for Iranian nuclear weaponry. The first is to intimidate and dominate. The second is for aggressive use. The first is certain. The second is a frightening prospect. 

The Shi’a-Muslim ‘Internationale’

In 1919 following the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin and Zinoviev set up the Communist International – the ‘Comintern’. Its aims were to supersede the earlier ‘Second International’ which was dominated by non-revolutionary socialist parties; to encourage the growth of communist parties throughout the world; to disrupt capitalist powers antagonistic to the new soviet state and to overthrow the capitalist states....

Read more

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 3

27 January 2010

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 3

Can Obama Restore US Credibility in International Affairs?

Speaking softly and charming the socks off everyone is fine. But when this strategy fails to turn wild and dangerous regimes into partners for peace and stability, what then? 

Firstly, without a big stick and the willingness to use it, friends can't rely on you. This means they are bound to make alternative arrangements - especially the weak ones and those nearer danger. Two broad alternatives are possible for them: join an alliance against the danger or strike the best deal possible with it. 

Secondly, without a big stick and the willingness to use it, enemies don't fear you. This means they gain the confidence for hostile ventures because they can succeed and escape retribution - or think they can. This means that weak leadership makes problems worse. For example ....

1 Read more

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 2

26 January 2010

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 2

Coercion, Consent and the International Power Vacuum

Shortly before becoming President of the US in 1901, Theodore Roosevelt made his famous declaration, “speak softly and carry a big stick”. This expresses an essential element of international relations.
In international relations, effective leadership is only possible when friends and enemies are confident that the leaders are able and willing to act decisively. States with dictatorial and anti-liberal values, different ambitions, aims, pressures and different means at their disposal will only fall into line when it's in their own interests to do so or they have no other viable option. This is the usual mix of consent and coercion. Between close friends, this may more politely be called being cajoled or convinced. Or between less close friends, being bullied and/or bribed.

In short, the use of soft and hard power is an absolute requirement for any functional international order - or any other order, for that matter....

1 Read more

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 1

24 January 2010

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 1

The Vacuum in International Leadership

Sadly and dangerously, the track record of Obama in international matters is terrible. It is only impressive for those who love his words but ignore the results. In short, he impresses those who don’t count. To the nasty regimes he is a buffoon.

Obama’s Abysmal Track Record

Any doubts about this should be dispelled by a quick look at just a selection of his international activities:

i) His first presidential visit overseas to Turkey was rapidly followed by Turkey making a series of very public and ostentatious demonstrations of support for enemies of the US (and Israel): Sudan, Syria, Iran and Hamas. 

ii) On his first presidential visit to Europe, Obama asked for help from the Europeans to deal with economic crisis and to raise more troops for Afghanistan. Naturally, he was listened to in a friendly and polite fashion, with great photo ops, and super sound bites etc, but his requests were politely declined....

1 Read more

The Defection of Turkey

03 Nov 2009

THE DEFECTION OF TURKEY

An Escalation of Problems for Israel

In 2003 Turkey denied access to the US for the invasion of Iraq. This created a headache for the invasion plans which had to concentrate forces mainly in the south. Since then, and since Obama’s visit in early 2009, Turkey has publically and serially taken sides with enemies of US: Hamas, Syria, Iran and Sudan. Each is a deadly enemy of Israel. Further, Turkey cancelled its participation in recent multi-national military exercises involving Israel - and thus forced the US to cancel the exercises altogether. 

These developments are unprecedented. It is hard to characterize them as diplomatic theatre. We can conclude that a sharp break is definitely in progress here. So, what is going on?

Exactly what are Turkey's interests? Well, 'solidarity' with fellow Muslims and reorientation towards the Muslim world seems to rank high. The ruling AKP (Justice and Development Party) government has probably given up on EU entry. It was never keen anyway. Economically, the denial of full European Union membership spurs Turkey in the direction of the Middle East, where the AKP are inclined to go anyway for theological, historical and cultural reasons.

1 Read more