An Apology Too Far?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goldstone Gaffes Again

Judge Richard Goldstone finds himself back on the front pages of the newspapers this week, and again it seems to be for all the wrong reasons. His recent return to the headlines follows the publication of an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on Friday in which he claims that the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War would have been a different document if he knew then what he knows now.

This seems to be an astonishing admission to make after the immense damage that he has caused to the State of Israel by the publication of the Goldstone Report, and the subsequent criticisms that resulted from the report. While it is a welcome development that Goldstone has finally moved publicly to substantiate many of the claims made by Israel at the time of the publication of the report, this dramatic u-turn begs many questions as to why Goldstone is only now coming clean on some of the most important misrepresentations which underpinned the conclusions reached in his report.

In his Washington Post confession, Goldstone made mention of a few important points that support Israel regarding the way in which the war was conducted. Firstly, Goldstone has confirmed that Israel did take every action possible to prevent civilian casualties, in contrast to Hamas which made every effort to aim missiles at civilian targets. Secondly, Goldstone has acknowledged the efforts made by Israel after the war to investigate all cases of soldiers behaving contrary to this policy, or missile strikes which inadvertantly claimed civilian casualties. In the case of Hamas, there has been no attempt to investigate any events that took place during the war. None of this supports the extremely serious accusations of war crimes which were referred to in the Goldstone Report. It now seems as though he is withdrawing this claim as well. Perhaps, most importantly, Goldstone has conceded that the UNHRC, the sponsors of the report and the organisation for which he worked in publishing the report, "has a history of bias against Israel which cannot be doubted".

My criticism of Goldstone at the time of the publication of his report was, first and foremost, directed at his decision to accept the mandate at all. With the virulently anti-Israel history of the UNHRC, it seemed to me to be inconceivable that Goldstone could agree to be associated with such an organisation in any way. His defenceof this decision in the Washington Post last week is centred around the fact that he was able to change the mandate given to him by the UNHRCto make it less skewed against Israel, and the fact that it represented the first time that Hamas would be investigated by a public organisation. Somehow, he had the fantasy that he may be able to reduce the bias against Israel shown by the UNHRC. The decision by the Israeli government not to cooperate with the Goldstone Commission was not directed at Goldstone himself, but rather at the involvement of the UNHRC. In retrospect, this decision seems to have been justified. Instead of Goldstone helping to even the imbalance at the UNHRC, it seems as though it is the UNHRC that has completely corrupted Goldstone.

When examining Goldstones claims of "new" facts that have come to light which have served to convince him to completely reverse his previous views, I find very little that is truly new. The reality is that, even without the cooperation of the Israeli government, all the claims about Israel's conduct during the war were available for Goldstone to read at the time of his commission. He is now largely relying on this information to make an about-turn of 180 degrees. This is all information that was freely available, and should have been considered in the original work that he did. The investigation by the Israeli government into particular incidents during the war which took place after Goldstone's commission concluded its work, is not enough in my view to completely change the conclusions of the report, and certainly not sufficiently different from information that was available at the time that the report was published.

So why would a man like Goldstone, a Jew who has until now enjoyed close relations with the State of Israel, conduct himself in such a way to cause immense damage to the State of Israel? He is a senior jurist with immense experience in the area of international law and conflict situations. He has proven himself to be astute in coping with politicised situations in his previous work. He has shown himself to support the State of Israel and some of its most important institutions. Why is it that he has behaved in this amateurish way which borders on negligence?

The only answer that I can think of, is the one that was put forward by many at the time of the publication of his disastrous report. This is that he was simply trying to promote his own personal career. It seems that Judge Goldstone had fantasies of becoming the UN Secretary-General, and that he felt that a report which pandered to the UN and its anti-Israel lobby would assist him in his cause. In the process of playing his personal political games, he has caused untold and long-lasting damage to the State of Israel. At least we can be thankful that this has completely ruined any chance that he may have had of becoming UN Secretary-General.

The Israeli government have tried to capitalise on Goldstone's latest admissions. There was talk of getting the UN to rescind the original report. There was also discussion around the possibility of getting Goldstone's confession admitted as an official document to the UN. Neither of these two possibilities are likely, especially given the UN's anti-Israel stance. In addition, the only country that has bothered to make an official comment on Goldstone's retractions is France. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, this is of no importance (or does not serve their views on the matter). The bell on this most unsavoury episode cannot be unrung.

One positive thing that can be put forward about Goldstone, is that he did come out with the admission despite the fact that this can only serve to damage his personal reputation even further. Perhaps his conscience was weighing too heavily on him, or maybe the personal attacks and pressure that he has come under since publishing the report finally got to him. He did admit that the duress and distress that he has suffered over the past few months has been difficult to handle. All credit to the organisations and individuals who took it upon themselves to pressurise him. The South African Jewish community and Zionist Federation deserve special mention for making him feel like an outcast in his own home. This action was truly justified, and seems to have played a big part in causing him to admit the error of his ways. Goldstone should be really and truly ashamed of his management of this matter. His actions are unforgivable.

Unfortunately for Israel, the drama of the Goldstone confessions will come and go, and will soon be a forgotten story. The conclusions of the Goldstone Report, however, remain on the record at the UN. This is truly shameful.

Hamas Trying to Confuse

Hamas military wing spokesman Abu Obeida gave an interview on Friday to the press pack who were all hungry to listen to his "words of wisdom". Rather than clarifying the direction in which Hamas is planning to move in the future, Obeida seems to have caused confusion about the organisation's intentions and created the impression that there is some confusion amongst its ranks. But is Hamas really as disorganised about its future tactics as his statements suggest?

Two years have now passed since the Gaza War, "Operation Cast Lead", which saw Hamas and Israel pit their forces against one another. Although Hamas was not completely routed by the IDF, it would be fair to say that the movement suffered a substantial setback to their military infrastructure and capabilities. Two years is, however, a long time in Middle Eastern politics and things appear to have changed dramatically since then.

Hamas has followed a strategy of not confronting Israel in a direct way over the past two years. The missiles that have been launched from the Gaza Strip during the intervening period, have come from so-called renegade organisations that are not associated with Hamas. Hamas has ensured that the Israeli authorities are aware of this fact in order to prevent any retaliation strikes being aimed at them. The two year "ceasefire" has allowed Hamas to substantively rebuild its political and military position. Its ceasefire has served to allow it to recreate its infrastructure that was destroyed during the war. There are those who say that Hamas has more sophisticated weaponry, and in greater quantities than before the Gaza War.

Hamas' adherence to its ceasefire has, however, changed over the past few weeks with the organisation's militants having launched a number of missile attacks towards Israel. One attack late last week saw a Qassam missile explode a few hundred metres from a kindergarten, injuring a number of civilians. Israel has already struck back at Hamas by hitting some of its supply tunnels and a training base used by its militants.

In his press conference on Friday, Obeida stated that Hamas is hoping to maintain the unofficial ceasefire with Israel. He also went on to accept responsibility for terror attacks carried out by Hamas on Israeli targets over the past couple of years. These attacks saw 15 Israelis killed and many others injured. The commander of the military wing, Ahmed al-Ja'abari was more belligerent in his tone when he said that Hamas will not rest until Israel is removed from Palestinian lands. He said that Israel faces one of two choices - death or departing the lands. This does not sound like the same organisation that hopes to maintain a ceasefire with Israel. How can we make sense of the mixed messages that are being sent?

The reason for the mixed statements is the fact that Hamas is seeking to address its comments to different constituencies with differing agendas. The organisation's wish to rebuild its military capabilities gives rise to its desire to continue to keep in force its unofficial ceasefire with Israel. At the same time, however, Hamas has been coming under a great deal of internal pressure from residents of Gaza who don't see visible signs of Hamas resisting the Israeli blockade. This has forced Hamas to launch a few missile attacks, and hold the press conference to publicise the actions that it has taken, even though they were some time ago. Along with this, the belligerent tone taken by al-Ja'abari is clearly directed at the internal Gaza audience.

Despite the fact that Israeli intelligence will surely be tuned in to the nuances of "Hamas speak", and the fact that many of their threats are an attempt to placate their internal population, they will not be ignoring these threats. Hamas clearly does not wish to enter into a further direct conflict with Israel at this time, and is sending clear ceasefire messages to try to avoid such a situation. Behind the scenes, arms are flowing into the Gaza Strip in large quantities despite attempts by Israel and Egypt to restrict this. The next military confrontation is inevitable. Hamas' statement of not resting until all "Palestinian lands" are reclaimed from Israel is not an empty threat and is probably the truest of al the statements made. Hamas will be attacking Israel and Israeli targets again in the near future, and Israel knows and understands this only too well.

A ceasefire for Hamas is equally a ceasefire for Israel. The "quieter" period has allowed Israel to take steps to reinforce civilian buildings, schools, kindergartens and private homes in the areas close to Gaza that were previously subject to unrelenting rocket attacks. They are now far more secure against rocket fire than before. It has allowed Israel to devote efforts to build the "Iron Dome" anti-rocket defence system that is designed to counter short-range rocket fire from Gaza. The tanks that have been deployed on the Gaza border have undergone training and changes to cope with the different circumstances created with the new anti-tank missiles that have come into Hamas' possession. This is a period of rebuilding for Israel as much as it is for Hamas. All the time, Israel continues its intelligence observation of the actions taken by Hamas in its efforts to become stronger. It is Israel's view that she has a better ability to counter this - we certainly hope so.

The mixed messages sent by Hamas are an attempt to "have your cake and eat it". On the one hand, they wish not to enter into direct conflict with Israel to facilitate their process of internal rebuilding. On the other hand, the organisation wishes its supporters to feel that it is continuing to oppose Israel at every opportunity. Ultimately, the rebuilding exercise will mean only one thing - a further direct conflict with the IDF, perhaps more bloody and intense than before.

The most meaningful statements coming out of the press conference are undoubtedly those stating that Hamas will not rest until Israel is does not exist any more. This is always going to be Hamas' ultimate intention, and they are not ashamed to say so openly. The mixed signals are not really mixed at all. They are all clear and consistent Hamas' stated objectives - to do all that it can to destroy Israel. With an organisation like this, a temporary ceasefire is possible. Any hopes of a lasting peace, however, are completely out of the question.

Playing Military Politics

It was hoped that the announcement of the appointment of Major General Yoav Galant as the 20th chief of general staff of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) would bring an end to the "Galantgate" scandal. This episode involved the release of a PR document into the public domain which, it turns out, is a forgery. Unfortunately, the announcement has not had the desired effect, and the issue has continued to gain headlines in the media. Despite its negative aspects, however, I am of the view that the scandalous behaviour also has a positive side to it.

The competition to become the next chief of staff of the IDF has been fierce. The current incumbent, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, will have served in the position for four years out of a possible maximum of five years by the time he is replaced in February 2011. The process of nominating his replacement has been highly politicised and controversial.

In the first place, it was regarded as unusual that defence minister Ehud Barak decided not to appoint Ashkenazi for a fifth year, as permitted under Israeli law. The chief of staff (or ramatkal as he is known in Hebrew) is appointed for an initial period of three years. At the end of that period, he can be appointed for further periods of one year each up to a maximum of five years. Ashkenazi was not viewed to have made any major mistakes during his first period of time in the position. On the contrary, he was the one who oversaw substantial changes to the IDF following the lessons learned from the Second Lebanon War, and showed that he had successfully implemented them during the IDF's activities Operation Cast Lead. As such, there seemed to be no operational reason why Ashkenazi should not have the support of the politicians to see out a full five year term. Politics, it seems, intervened to cause the minister of defence to decide that four years would be enough for him. The only plausible reason offered by the press for this decision was the fact that the two men do not enjoy the best personal relationship.

Minister of defence Barak then announced his short list of candidates to succeed Ashkenazi. They were Yoav Galant (OC Southern Command), Gadi Shamni (military attaché in Washington), Benny Gantz (deputy chief of general staff) and Gadi Eizenkot (OC northern command). During the process of interviewing the candidates, a mystery document suddenly appeared in the public domain. The document was on headed paper of the Eyal Arad agency, a well-known local public relations agency with strong political connections and a track record of working effectively in the political arena. The document is reputed to outline a PR campaign to promote Yoav Galant in his efforts to become the next chief of general staff. It is generally regarded as inappropriate for the generals to go to such lengths to promote their candidacy for chief of general staff. It is regarded as unacceptable for generals to involve themselves with politicians to try to influence the view that the politicians hold, and their decisions, which affect the IDF. The discovery of his document gave birth to "Galantgate".

After further investigation, the police concluded that neither Galant nor Arad were involved in the preparation and circulation of the document. They have now arrested retired Lt. Col. Boaz Harpaz who is reported to have admitted to his role in fraudulently producing and distributing the document. He is currently being held by police. The act of forging a document and distributing it in this way is to be abhorred, and the culprits should be subject to all punishments available under the law. It is still unclear whether Harpaz's intention was to harm Galant or to promote him. In the event, the only impact that it seems to have had on his appointment to the top IDF position, is to encourage the minister of defence to advance the timing of his announcement in an attempt to defuse the situation.

On the face of it, the whole episode seems quite sordid. The series of events, from the decision by Ehud Barak to decide to replace Ashkenazi only for personal reasons, to the Galant document leave little to feel proud about. After all, the appointment of the right chief of staff for the IDF could have an impact on Israel's continued existence in the community of nations. Israel's very future depends upon making the correct appointment to this important position. This fact, however, also allows us to view the events in a slightly different light.

In many countries around the world, heading up the armed forces is a purely ceremonial position. It is a position that enjoys high levels of public recognition and standing, without carrying significant responsibility. In many countries, whether the army is an effective fighting unit or not makes little difference to the country and its future. This situation is clearly not the case in Israel. The position of ramatkal is one of the most critical in Israel. The level of responsibility that goes with this position could scare off even the bravest of soldiers. The wrong appointment to ramatkal, or the wrong decision by the ramatkal could be the difference between Israel succeeding in fighting off her enemies or not. It could be the difference between having a Jewish nation, and not having one.

Under the circumstances, it is heartening to see how much competition there is from those wishing to take on this high-risk position. Despite the possibility that one small error could risk lives of soldiers and citizens, and the future of the country as a whole, there are many people out there able and willing to take on this responsibility. Unfortunately, this is also accompanied by a willingness to go to unethical, and even criminal, lengths to secure the appointment. There is no doubt that the public standing and privileges associated with the job are highly attractive. Nonetheless, the weight of responsibility surely outweighs any benefits that the ramatkal enjoys.

This willingness to take on a tough challenge with high risk and responsibility is shown to be present throughout the ranks of the IDF. We even see it with the new recruits, many of whom are now being enlisted, and their willingness to volunteer themselves for the elite (and most dangerous) units in the IDF. It is surprising as much as it is heartening to see how many of our young men and women are eager to make a real "difference" in the IDF by serving on the front line in the combat units, without thinking about the danger that it brings to themselves. Their enthusiasm is such that we see groups of youths undertaking physical fitness training throughout the hot summer months, to ensure that they are physically ready for the day when they enlist and are called upon to serve their country. Although it is obvious that these young people have a clear understanding of the risks confronting Israel and of the importance of the IDF in combating these threats, it still never ceases to impress me when I see the seriousness and the enthusiasm with which they enlist. The same can be said of most of the new recruits, whether they are slated for front line or back-of-the-house jobs. The army would never survive with only combat soldiers, and all soldiers play an important role in the effective defence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

In a strange way, the fierce competition and some of the dirty tricks employed to promote one candidate over the others for ramatkal is vitally important. It sends a clear message to thousands of soldiers, permanent force and conscripts alike, that serving in the IDF is something to be proud of and to fight for. The competition for positions that we see at the top is multiplied many times down the ranks, and even to those who are yet to enlist.

I fear the day when the position of ramatkal does not attract competition. Although it would be better to see a clean (and legal) fight amongst the candidates, the fact that so many people are so eager to fill the position surely bodes well for Israel. This fact is sent as a message to all others in the IDF about the pride associated with serving in this organisation. While I do not wish to condone dirty tricks in any way, I sure feel proud of the fight that Israelis are prepared to put up in order to have the right to serve the Jewish nation. While the police continue to hold Boaz Harpaz in custody and decide how he will be brought to justice for his role in the affair, he has succeeded in showing that the fight to be the best, and to serve the State of Israel, remains throughout the ranks of the IDF.

Forced to Abandon the South African Connection?

Despite the fact that I have lived outside of South Africa for nearly half of my life, I have always retained a close affinity and connection with the land of my birth. This is not only because of my ongoing family connections with South Africa. I feel that South Africa has influenced many of the things that I still enjoy in life. I cannot escape my love for sport, sunshine, braais, boerewors and biltong all of which were cultivated in South Africa. For the first time since leaving Cape Town in 1990, however, I feel that I am being forced to reconsider my strong links to South Africa. Up until now, I have succeeded in balancing my South African roots with my allegiance towards my new home, the State of Israel and my Jewish heritage. Recent events are making this a great deal more difficult.

When the ANC government came into power in 1994, it was inevitable that there would be a clash between Israel and South Africa. The new South African government consisted of the former resistance fighters of the ANC. During its years of engaging in military opposition to the apartheid government, the ANC enjoyed support and close links with the PLO and other Palestinian factions. Even though the diplomatic relations between Israel and South Africa were retained by the ANC government, it was never likely that the relationship between the governments of the two countries would be close. Despite this fact, they did succeed in retaining relations in a way that made it relatively easy for former South Africans and Jews in South Africans to be in close contact.

Ironically, the events that are giving me difficulty in balancing my South African and Israeli/Jewish identities have been precipitated by Jews. First, it was Jewish ANC government minister Ronnie Kasrils who decided to put pen to paper in criticism of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. His visit to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in 2007 was not helpful in promoting closer Israel - South Africa relations or in helping the position of the Jews in South Africa. The damage by Kasrils is, however, insignificant when compared to that done by Judge Richard Goldstone.

The publication of Goldstone's report into the Gaza war (Operation Cast Lead) has done immense damage to the status of Jews in South Africa, as well as that of former South Africans in Israel. Goldstone presented a report which was highly unbalanced and critical of Israel's actions, with only passing references to the significant efforts made by Israel to attempt to behave fairly and proportionately under very difficult circumstances. If this was not bad enough, he went even further by accusing Israel of committing war crimes. This is translated into accusing Israelis who fought in the war, of being war criminals. It has been suggested that Israelis should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague on charges of war crimes arising from the Goldstone report.

The ICC was brought into existence by the Rome Treaty signed in 2002. Israel was not a signatory to this treaty, which means that the ICC does not have any jurisdiction in Israel or over Israelis. This is currently the only issue saving Israelis from possible prosecution. Even this safety net appears not to be 100% secure as evidenced by the recent threat to arrest certain senior army officers and politicians in the UK. South Africa is, however, a signatory to the Rome Treaty. Two organisations, the Palestinian Solidarity Alliance and Media Review Network approached South Africa's National Prosecution Authority (NPA) a few weeks ago with a list of some 75 South Africans who allegedly fought in Gaza. These organisations had previously initiated action against Lt. Col. David Benjamin who was on a visit to South Africa during August 2009. Their approach to the NPA is based on the fact that these names are South Africans who are contravening the South African law forbidding South African citizens to serve in foreign armies. It is also based on Goldstone's recommendation that those fighting for the IDF in Operation Cast Lead be sent to the ICC for prosecution. Because many former South Africans have retained their South African citizenship, it seems as though they may be at risk of prosecution either under South African law or by the ICC.

For ex-South Africans living in Israel, it seems that there may be an easy answer. If they have decided to make Israel their home, why not give up their South African nationality? This will ensure that they cannot be accused of serving in a foreign army and this may also help to avoid arrest on war crimes charges under the Rome Treaty. Even though some may find this to be emotionally difficult given the strength of connection that still exists between members of the South African community in Israel and their former homeland, there is a more significant issue which comes in the way.

A few years ago, message was sent around the community of South Africans in Israel advising that the South African government had issued an instruction forcing all former South Africans living abroad to use only a South African passport when travelling to South Africa. There is nothing that I have found in writing that confirms this regulation, but subsequent enquiries at the South African consulate in Tel Aviv confirmed this to be true. Besides the cost and inconvenience of maintaining an additional passport, our family and others like us have no issue in adapting to this regulation in the interests of staying on the right side of the South African authorities. With many family members remaining in South Africa, the likelihood that we would want to visit South Africa from time to time is high. Being on the good terms with the South African authorities is certainly our preferred approach.

With the new threat of possible prosecutions and arrests on war crimes charges in South Africa, a great dilemma arises for the South African community. Many of us or our children have served in the Israeli army, or will be doing so in the future. I am personally proud of the fact that my children will be serving the Jewish state and the Jewish people via their service in the IDF. For people like my children and their contemporaries, they are faced with the choice of risking arrest in South Africa or giving up their South African citizenship. Whilst the implications with the South African government of choosing the second option are not entirely clear to me, it has come to my attention that at least one former South African due to enlist with the IDF soon has been asked to give up her South African citizenship by the IDF. It seems as though the decision as to what to choose may be made automatically for those who will be joining the IDF in the future.

While I clearly oppose the accusation of any war crimes having been committed by the IDF in any of the operations that it has been involved in, I would welcome the possibility of continued good relations between South Africa and Israel. The fact that one South African Jew can cause so much damage and is able to destabilise a relationship that has existed for so long seems to me to be inconceivable. I hope that these unjustified actions will not force our community to abandon our South African connection.

Soldiers Speak Out

The Goldstone Commission has brought into sharp focus the behaviour of the Israel Defence Force (IDF) during the recent Gaza War, Operation Cast Lead. It has questioned the culture of the IDF and the conduct of individual soldiers in carrying out their orders.

Goldstone has painted the IDF as an army without morals. He has depicted it as a force that purposefully pursues civilian targets in the worst case or, in the best case, disregards the consequences on civilians of the actions it takes. Those of us who are closer to the daily activities of the IDF know that nothing could be further from the truth. We know that the IDF is an organisation that often takes risks to protect enemy civilians even though this could risk the lives of Israeli soldiers and civilians. How can it be that Goldstone and his associates do not see this. After all, comparing the behaviour of Hamas to that of the IDF is like comparing day to night.

I have been sent details of an interesting website that illustrates this point (thanks Ivan). The website - Soldiers Speak Out - carries the testimonies of various Israeli soldiers from their combat experience. Some of the stories worry me because it sometimes seems that the care for the enemy civilians far oversteps the line of reasonableness. In some of the stories, the risks to Israelis by protecting Palestinian civilians was far too great. In my view, the IDF is there to protect Israelis in the first instance, then consider the protection of Palestinian civilians. On the other hand, I gained great strength from realising that the IDF has morals, has a conscience and a heart. This is both at an institutional level as well as at the individual level. Even though the job of a soldier demands a certain amount of heartlessness, the IDF has shown that it is not required to lose your humanity to do a good job as a soldier. In fact, sometimes being human adds to the qualities of a soldier.

Please go to the website and please listen to the stories. It is important to show just how wrong and unjust the Goldstone Report really is.

www.soldiersspeakout.com

Three South African Jews and the Gaza War

A side story arising from the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War has run in newspapers in certain parts of the world. The story surrounds the role played by Lt. Col. David Benjamin, an Israel Defence Force (IDF) reserve officer serving in the Military Advocate General's office during Operation Cast Lead. In these stories it is alleged that Benjamin committed war crimes in this role during the Gaza War.

I have known David Benjamin since we were at university together in Cape Town during the late 1980s. We were both leaders in different Zionist youth movements encouraging the Jewish children in South African to identify more strongly with their Judaism, and with Israel as the Jewish state. After completing his law degree in South Africa, he moved to live in Israel. Soon after making aliyah, Benjamin joined the IDF where he held many legal positions during the time of his service. He ultimately was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel when serving in the Military Advocate General's office as the head of the international law department. Although he had already resigned from the IDF prior to the outbreak of Operation Cast Lead, he is reported to have returned to his former position in the Military Advocate General's office during the Gaza War.

So why the focus on Benjamin? After all, he was not the Military Advocate General. Surely any accusations of war crimes directed against lawyers who advised field commanders as to what actions were allowable should be directed against the legal chief rather than somebody like Benjamin?

The twist is in the fact that Israel did not sign up to the 2002 Rome Treaty that brought the International Criminal Court into existence. As such, the ICC does not have jurisdiction to indict its citizens. South Africa, however, did sign up to the Rome Treaty. When Benjamin immigrated to Israel, he retained his South African citizenship whilst taking on Israeli citizenship. By virtue of the fact that he is still a citizen of South Africa, Benjamin falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC. It is claimed that the ICC in the Hague had been alerted to this fact by various pro-Palestinian groups and had begun an investigation into Benjamin's role in committing "war crimes". This was initiated following an interview that Benjamin conducted with Bloomberg.com. In this interview, he confirmed that the international law department was intimately involved in the planning of the Gaza War.

An opportunity to act further on this case presented itself when Benjamin travelled to South Africa after he was invited by the South African Jewish community to attend a conference on international law during war time. During his trip, South African prosecutors were asked to open an investigation that Benjamin had committed war crimes. In order to avoid any confrontation, Benjamin departed South Africa earlier than he had planned.

Whilst this opportunistic behaviour is no less than could be expected from those whose sole purpose in life is to damage and discredit Israel at every opportunity, some of the responses by members of the South African Jewish community were less than acceptable. In particular, the remarks issued by the director of the conference, Professor Dennis Davis, were shameful. Davis is a district court judge in South Africa and a lecturer in international law at the University of Cape Town. Davis is an outspoken and active member of the Jewish community in Cape Town and formerly had Benjamin as a student in his class when he was a law student. Davis spoke out against the comments made by Benjamin at the conference that Israel did not commit war crimes. Davis is quoted as saying that if Benjamin was still a student in his class, he would fail him!

It is not enough that a Jewish South African called Richard Goldstone is responsible for publishing a report into the Gaza War that does not attempt to reflect the extremes to which
Israel went in order to fight a war of necessity in a fair and moral way. His report accuses Israel of war crimes, and recommends the indictment of Israelis on these charges. We now have a Jewish South African judge in the form of Dennis Davis who adds insult to injury by going further than Goldstone in singling out an individual like Benjamin on such crimes.

Although both Goldstone and Davis are great legal minds, unfortunately their legal acumen is misguided in this case. There is no harm in holding Israel and the IDF responsible for its actions when these actions are independently contrary to accepted norms and standards. In the case of the Gaza War, however, the extremes to which the IDF went in order to protect the innocent civilians despite the despicable behaviour of Hamas in trying to exploit this fact, is deserving of commendation and not criticism. The time has come to speak out in favour of the wonderful job done by Benjamin and his colleagues. The time has also come to speak out against Goldstone, Davis and other self-hating Jews. I am ashamed to be a South African Jew when I am classed alongside such individuals.

It is my fear, with the increasing threat to Jews around the world and in South Africa, that the Jews living outside of Israel will be forced to turn more and more towards Israel to protect them and their Jewish heritage. Perhaps this is what is required for individuals like Goldstone and Davis to recognise the wonderful job done by Benjamin and other soldiers in the IDF to protect Jews and Jewish freedom around the world. It is a shame that certain Jews in the diaspora still cannot appreciate the value of the risks taken and sacrifices made in Israel to keep them safe wherever they are. Be assured that, in the unfortunate event of a Jewish emergency anywhere in the world, Israel will always take seriously its responsibility to protect and provide a safe haven for all Jews, even those who have turned their backs on Israel during a time of need.

The Goldstone Farce

The establishment of the UN Fact Finding Commission on the Gaza Conflict by the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations was accompanied by a great deal of scepticism. I also felt these sceptical pangs as I considered this strange decision on the part of the UN. I decided, however, that I would give it the benefit of the doubt in the hope that this would allow the world to really see Operation Cast Lead for what it was - an attempt to return peace and security to the citizens of southern Israel. After all, they were forced to endure years of insecurity with the incessant firing of rockets and other missiles randomly into civilian areas.

Judge Richard Goldstone was appointed as head of the Commission. I have in common with him the fact that he is Jewish and South African by birth, but it seems that we have little else in common. On the face of it, his extensive experience makes him an ideal person to head the Commission. He is a former judge of South Africa's Constitutional Court and he was a prosecutor in the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It did not take long, however, for it to become clear that the intentions of the UN were not to undertake an objective enquiry. Goldstone's anti-Israel bias made him a perfect person for the UN to appoint to ensure that their objective was achieved.

The Israeli government saw from a very early stage that the main purpose of the commission was to criticise the actions of the Israeli government and army, and hang them out to dry. As a result, they decided not to cooperate with the commission. This decision has been criticised by various parties, but I feel that it was the right decision. There is no reason to cooperate and to provide confidential information to an investigation when the purpose of this cooperation is to simply use it against you at every opportunity.

When the Goldstone Commission findings were published, many inches of newspaper columns were devoted to the one-sided nature of its findings. The Israeli government immediately went into attack mode to defend itself against the ridiculousness of the report. I decided that I wish to read the report myself, and not to rely on the filtered impressions of journalists and political commentators. I did manage to read the executive summary of the report, but only just. The truth is that I found it to be so openly biased and lacking in objectivity that I could not read any more.

A shocking aspect of the report for me was the fact that the UNHRC set a brief for the commission to cover only the events between 27 December 2008 (the date of Israel's invasion of Gaza) and 18 January 2009 (the date of the cessation of Operation Cast Lead). This simply ignores the reason for the invasion and the events that caused the Israeli government to decide to attack Gaza. In fairness to the commission, it did examine these contributing events (although in a very cursory manner) and even concludes that the firing of the rockets onto the Israeli civilian population is a violation of international law. The Commission even devoted a few lines of its report to the kidnapped Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. Here, the language is much less forthright and the Commission says that he should be treated humanely and that the ICRC should be allowed to visit him. The report is, however, a catalogue of criticisms of Israel and the way in which it conducted its war. It even criticises Israel's specific attempts to avoid civilian casualties despite the use of civilian locations by the Hamas militants to fire their rockets and fight their battles.

For me, however, the biggest omission of the report is a recognition of the simple right that Israel has to exist in peace. The fact that Hamas continues to deny Israel this right in a public and unashamed way is surely the main contributing factor to the ongoing conflict. If it was not for the fact that Hamas wishes to destroy Israel or to see it destroyed, it would not spend more of its time attacking Israel and Israeli civilians than it does on looking after its own people. This is what justifies its bombing of Israeli civilians to cause terror and insecurity. This, in turn, is what forced Israel to attack Gaza. Surely Goldstone can understand this?

The Goldstone Commission report is indeed unfortunate. This is not only because it fails to address the key underlying cause of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza (and the Middle East conflict), or to treat Israel's actions in an objective manner. Having read parts of the report, it is not clear to me why the Commission was established at all. What was the purpose of the Commission? It is surely not too difficult to find evidence of acts of war during a war. Wars are inevitably situations which bring out the worst in people. We don't require commissions of enquiry to prove this. So why appoint a commission to prove that acts of war were committed during a war? And once this is proved, what happens next? Should governments and armies be prosecuted for acting to protect their citizens? Which conflicts justify the appointment of such a commission, and which conflicts need not have commissions of enquiry? Why was the Russian invasion of Georgia not subject to a similar commission? Will the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have commissions appointed? I suspect not.

Unfortunately the UN continues to show its bias against Israel. This bias not only manifests itself in the report by the Goldstone Commission, it shows itself in the number of anti-Israel resolutions that have been passed. This does not even consider the huge number of resolutions that have been defeated due to vetoes being exercised. As a body that is theoretically unbiased and a protector of the rights of nations and peoples, the UN could do well to make clear the fact that Israel has a right to exist in peace. Is this too much to ask?

Why I am Proud of the IDF

I have written on numerous occasions that I believe that a Jewish army is essential for the survival of the Jewish people. The Israel Defence Force (IDF) is this Jewish army. Unfortunately the IDF has come under a great deal of international criticism recently. It stands accused of mistreating the Palestinians, of acting in an inhumane manner, of targeting civilians during its battle activities, of destroying civilian homes and property in an unnecessary way. Numerous of its commanders cannot travel to European countries for fear of being arrested under a variety of war crimes arraignments that have been authorised. Perhaps we might expect this reaction from certain members of the gentile community who have shown themselves to be anti-Jewish and anti-Israel at every opportunity. For me, what is more disappointing that this is the fact that there are so many Jews around the world who have been convinced to believe the anti-IDF propaganda, and who actively speak out against the IDF. I wish to try to create a little more balance by explaining why I am proud of the IDF.

Many will believe that I have a strong bias in favour of the IDF by virtue of living in Israel and, therefore, relying upon the Jewish army for my personal protection. This may indeed be true. I will try to present a more factual account of how I view the IDF. Inevitably, it will be difficult for me to remove my own emotions and personally-held views from my account.

Let me start by saying that the IDF is not a perfect organisation. It has many flaws. But this is to be expected in any organisation of this size. The IDF currently numbers approximately 175,000 soldiers and staff, most of whom are drafted conscripts and serve their compulsory 3 years for boys and 2 years for girls. In any organisation that numbers 175,000, it is clear that there will be individuals in this organisation who are less than fit for purpose. And this is where each person is handpicked according to strict recruitment criteria. Imagine the situation where an organisation is forced to recruit all-comers to fill jobs. This is the case with the IDF. Whilst certain recruits are rejected due to their lack of suitability to serve, it is inevitable that recruits to the IDF include petty thieves, drug addicts and drug dealers, people with psychological problems, people who are unable or unwilling to submit to authority and people who hold extreme political and religious views on or side or other of the spectrum. The IDF is required to take this mixed bag of recruits and mould them into a fighting unit that can operate under the most extreme battle conditions. All of this for the very survival of Israel and Jews around the world. As with any army or other organisations, such "rogues" can ruin the best-laid plans of the IDF.

Despite its almost impossible task, the IDF has succeeded in building a very effective fighting force. This is an army that designs, manufactures and uses much of its own military hardware and technology. This is an army that is forced to operate under the most testing and extreme of conditions where opposing soldiers masquerade as civilians in order to exploit the IDF policy of avoiding civilian casualties, almost at any price. It is forced to respond to enemy soldiers who operate from civilian neighbourhoods, who fire mortar shells from private apartments and who use women and children to shield themselves from IDF responsibilities. These are the same people who find it acceptable to strap suicide bombing belts to women, and to hide them in ambulances to transport them to their destinations. The targeted sites for such suicide bombs are frequently restaurants, shopping malls and buses which are used by non-military people trying to conduct their daily lives.

And yet, the IDF largely manages to conduct itself in a manner that is exemplary. When all the misinformation is removed from the reports of the Gaza operation Cast Lead, it becomes clear that no schools or civilian targets were hit by the IDF even though many were used as bases to attack them. It is now known that the number of casualties, and particularly the number of civilian casualties, were highly exaggerated. Ultimately, most of those killed in Cast Lead were enemy soldiers operating against the IDF. And the number of attacks that were halted at the last minute in order to avoid the possibility of civilian casualties will never be known to the general public.

In the year 2009, Israel should not be called upon to justify her continued existence in international community. Much more important, she should not have to battle every day to secure her existence against the forces that wish to see her destroyed. And yet, this is Israel's reality. Under these circumstances, the IDF is forced to fight a battle to secure Israel's existence. Inevitably, there will be episodes from the battlefield that do not show the IDF in a good light. For the most part, the work done by the IDF and the principles that the army adheres to are to its credit, and often beyond the call of duty.

This makes me feel proud of the IDF, and I call upon all Jews to support Jewish army and its soldiers as they undertake an important and enormously difficult job.

Should Gilad Shalit's release be a pre-condition for a ceasefire in Gaza?

I was very pleased to read outgoing Prime Minister Olmert quoted in this morning's papers saying that there will be no truce in Gaza without the release of Gilad Shalit. As pleased as I was to read this, I have two regrets in this regard. My first regret is that he did not make this statement a lot sooner. My second regret is that he withdrew Israel Defence Force troops from Gaza, and called a halt to Operation Cast Lead, without first securing the release of the captured soldier. This is how strongly I believe that Gilad's release has to be a pre-condition for any further progress with Hamas in Gaza.

The reason for me holding this strong view is very simple. Gilad was kidnapped by Hamas with a supposed view to extract value from Israel for his release. After all, Israel has never been ashamed to admit to the fact that it values nothing more than the safe return of its soldiers, alive or dead. Whilst this has weakened Israel by laying it open to kidnappings such as the case of Shalit, there is no pretence on the part of Israel to hide the value that it places on bringing its boys home.

So, Hamas has kidnapped Shalit to extract value from Israel. Almost three years have passed since this day, during which time Israel has devoted much time and resources to negotiating with Hamas for his return. The press continually reports the fact that discussions between the parties mention many hundreds of prisoners to be released from Israel's jails in return for Shalit. And yet, Hamas never really looks serious about coming to an agreement. No matter how much Israel seems to be prepared to trade for Shalit's release, Hamas always seems to sense that it can extract more. Perhaps the release of Hamas prisoners is not as valuable to them as Shalit's release is to Israel? Maybe this has something to do with the fact that, whereas the Palestinian prisoners are treated like human beings and family visits are allowed, Hamas has not even so much as allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Shalit. There is no certainty that he remains alive at this moment in time. A negotiation becomes very difficult when one of the parties is not really negotiating, and does not really value anything sufficiently highly to trade with the other side for this.

Such an impasse has prevented progress for nearly three years. During this time, Israel's only option has been to continue to search for the one thing that Hamas values enough to force a trade for Shalit. A surprise military strike in the form of Operation Cast Lead has created this opportunity. Finally, Israel has identified that Hamas values a long-term truce with the removal of other associated restrictions above all else. Having worked for such a long time to identify this, Israel is now forced to hold this as the bargaining chip for Shalit. There seems to be little alternative prospect of gaining his release.

The values system displayed by Hamas in its negotiations has proved to be difficult for the Israelis to understand. A society that praises its youth for becoming suicide bomb martyrs is indeed a very difficult one to trade with. If it does not value the lives of its youth, what does it value? Having finally isolated one chink in the armour that could possibly secure the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli government should not and cannot let this opportunity go.

A Hindsight View of the War

All events in history seem different when they are looked at with the benefit of hindsight. This is not only because new information comes to light after the event which allows us to judge the event more fairly, it is also due to the fact that things always seem to look different when they are considered from a distance. I am not exactly sure how much time is required to pass until this different view can truly be seen, I have, however, discovered that after only one week since the ceasefire has been in effect following Operation Cast Lead, there are some things that I am already seeing in a different light.

Before examining the things that I see differently, there are some things about which my views have not changed. Firstly, my admiration for the IDF and for all the reservists and standing soldiers has not changed. I feel immense gratitude for the bravery shown by all of these people. The willingness on the part of reserve soldiers to drop their lives and run to the front line in defence of our homeland is an act of patriotism that defies all expectations. All Israelis, and Jews around the world, owe these men and women and their families a debt of gratitude. It is my contention that there cannot be another holocaust whilst we have a strong Jewish army. I feel strong in my belief that a holocaust is surely a long way off with this Jewish army. The lessons of the Second Lebanon War were learned, and we have seen the signs of this.

The second thing that my views remain the same about, is my admiration for the fortitude and resilience of the citizens of Israel, particularly those in the south who came under daily rocket attack. The way in which they kept the home front strong under extremely difficult circumstances, supported the efforts of the army and refused to give up when weaker people would have surrendered bodes well for the future of our country and our people.

The third thing that I have not changed my views about is Hamas. The choices that they make and the tactics that they use to try to destroy Israel and its people seem to sink to lower levels every day. They way in which they make use of the civilian population, women and children especially, to try to exploit Israel's sensitivity to getting civilians involved in war, and to try to create negative headlines when civilians get caught up in the war should be despised by all decent humans. Reports emerging from the war zone that Hamas has considerably inflated the numbers of their civilian casualties for the purpose of negative press against Israel, reinforce my previously held contempt for this organisation.

I do, however, regard the ceasefire implemented a week ago in a different way. This reflects my view of the political establishment and the job that they have done in managing the events of the war, and the way in which it was ended. I wish to make it clear that I fully support the decision made by the politicians to go to war, and I believe that their conduct during the war was exemplary. It is clear to me that they too learned the lessons of the Second Lebanon War.

When considering the decision to declare a unilateral ceasefire, however, I am not fully in agreement. What seemed like quite a good idea a week ago, in the interests of getting our soldiers out of Gaza as soon as possible, now looks like a flawed decision. When the IDF was sent into Gaza at the start of the operation, the pretext was the ongoing rocket fire aimed at Israeli towns and cities around the Gaza Strip. This rocket fire, whilst substantially reduced during the course of the war, was not stopped. I accept the fact that Hamas had plans to dramatically increase the rocket fire and also to extend the towns and cities that were targeted in the event of a war. This plan was very effectively snuffed out by the IDF. And yet, we were unable to stop the rocket fire completely. I wonder whether we can honestly say we have achieved our objectives when rockets were still being fired in the period immediately following the ceasefire.

Also linked to the decision to declare a ceasefire is the not-so-small issue of our kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit. It feels incomprehensible to me that we can send the might of our army into Gaza where Gilad is being held, and stop fighting before we have him in our hands. I desperately wish to believe all the reports that that negotiations for his release are progressing, and have been greatly enhanced by the war. In my view, if Gilad is not released under some sort of deal within the next month, I will judge the political decision to declare a ceasefire a failure.

I am delighted with the government's decision to go to war, and with the way in which the army executed its responsibility. The rocket fire, albeit still a threat, has stopped for now. What remains is to bring Gilad home.

How to Win the Peace

Operation Cast Lead, otherwise known to most of us as the Gaza War, seems to have progressed broadly according to our expectations. The IDF has done an admirable job of dismantling Hamas positions that endanger Israeli lives. Many Hamas militants have been neutralised and weapons destroyed. Although the daily barrage of rocket fire has not been stopped entirely, it has been substantially reduced. With each passing day of the war, we suffer less rocket fire. And even though we mourn the loss of every precious life of those who have been prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of the homeland, we are thankful that the casualties that we have suffered have not been greater.

Some voices from the military establishment are now saying that they have achieved all that they can hope to achieve. I interpret this to mean, all that can be achieved without unnecessarily and arbitrarily risking lives on either side in a negligent manner. So, what happens when the military job is done? Can we trust our political leadership to operate in the same precise and patriotic way to captalise on the great job done by the IDF? Once the war is won, how will we win the peace?

The answer to this question centres on what we can expect out of a ceasefire agreement. Given that we do not officially recognise Hamas as the entity which governs Gaza, there is an interesting question as to whether we should even enter into a formal ceasefire with Hamas. If not with Hamas, then with whom? I don't believe we have much of a choice. It is clear that this war is with Hamas, and nobody else. If so, the ceasefire agreement must be with Hamas, and nobody else. Having said that, it seems clear that there should be other parties to the ceasefire agreement. Egypt has an important role in helping to prevent a future build-up of arms in the Gaza Strip. This is also true of other members of the international community in helping to police any agreement that may be implemented.

In light of the above, the ceasefire agreement that I would want Israel to sign would contain the following key aspects:
1. Release Gilad Shalit. For me, this is not negotiable, and would appear on the top of my agenda. With the Hamas infrastructure severely damaged and the leadership structure weakened, this must surely be the best moment to demand Gilad's release. I would not cease the war in Gaza without this term being agreed to.
2. Dismantle the rocket launchers in the Strip. These are the main source of insecurity to Israeli towns and settlements surrounding the Gaza Strip. By dismantling these launchers, it allows Israeli civilians to get back to their regular daily existence, something that they have looked forward to for the best part of 8 years.
3. Stop the arms smuggling. The Gaza border with Egypt is riddled with many hundred tunnels dug below the surface. These tunnels are used to bypass the Israeli control over Gaza which attempts to deny Hamas the means to obtain weapons to attack Israel. The tunnels and the associated trade on the Egyptian side of the border are an economy unto itself. Not only are they used to smuggle food and other daily subsistence goods, they are a conduit for huge sums of cash and large quantities of arms being brought from Iran and other countries. This must be stopped to guarantee future peaceful coexistence.

In return for the above, I would cease the current Operation Cast Lead and would be prepared to agree to other terms including the provision of humanitarian aid and an attempt to conduct peaceful coexistence with Gaza and its citizens. Of course, any act that reneges on the agreements would result in a very significant and harsh response from Israel.

The Israeli political establishment is currently making a number of different statements about a ceasefire, two of which seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. On the one hand, there seems to be support for a unilateral ceasefire. I have no idea what this would achieve. To me, it appears to throw away all advantage that has been gained by the military. Without understanding what may be giving rise to such a thought, it seems a ridiculous prospect to me.

The other view coming out from the politicians is that there should be no ceasefire unless Hamas agrees to a cessation of hostilities for a period which is longer than a year. We all know that Hamas has, as its main objective, the destruction of the State of Israel. So how can any period of cessation of hostilities be significant and worthy of trusting? Whatever period is agreed upon, the next round of hostilities appears inevitable. And the timing will be according to whatever Hamas wishes and is unlikely to be determined by any ceasefire agreement.

It is difficult to measure the effectiveness of the current round of hostilities. History will, no doubt, judge this in hindsight. There can be no doubt, however, that the military success is heavily dependent upon the success that the politicians can extract from the situation. It is my hope that the politicians do their job well on this occasion and, as a very minimum, succeed in bringing home Gilad Shalit. In my view, this would win the peace.

Not Déjà Vu

When I heard the news on Thursday morning that bombs were landing on Nahariya, it felt like déjà vu. It took my mind racing back to the Lebanon War in the summer of 2006 when bombs were raining down on the northern parts of Israel.

But this is no déjà vu. Almost two weeks into the Gaza War, I can safely say that this war bears no resemblance to the Lebanon War whatsoever. And I am really happy to be able to say that. In retrospect, the Lebanon War was not a loss for Israel, but it was certainly not a victory. It contained certain aspects that none of us were proud of. Some of the problems experienced during the war could be felt even by civilians, and these feelings were borne out in the findings of the commission of enquiry that was established to investigate the conduct of the war by Israel. Suffice it to say that this war was not Israel's proudest military moment.

In saying this, I should add that I am no military expert or commentator. In military terms, I am a complete outsider and novice. I made aliyah at an age when the military was not interested in my services. As such, I have little or no understanding of the internal workings of the IDF, of military terms, tactics or strategies at all. My comments are being made in my capacity as a citizen of the State of Israel who expresses a purely amateur and uneducated view on military matters.

From the very outset, the Gaza War seems to have been conducted in a highly professional manner. Everything about it seems to have been well thought-out, communicated and executed. The initial strike took Hamas by surprise. The politicians were well prepared in their addresses to the Israeli and foreign press. Their messages were consistent, the text well drafted and well presented. This is a welcome contrast to the haphazard briefings during the Lebanon War, many of which came too late and with poor language and message choice. The Minister of Defense at the time, Amir Peretz, was a poor choice during peacetime. During a time of war, he proved to be hopelessly out of his depth and a disastrous choice.

During the Lebanon War, there was a constant stream of complaints coming from serving soldiers and reservists alike. The equipment was inadequate, old and outdated. Soldiers were not being provided with food and water required for a basic survival. The military plans appeared poorly thought out, and many soldiers felt that their lives were being unnecessarily placed at risk by being sent into operations that had no prospect of success. This amounts to negligence on the part of the military leaders as a minimum. Private individuals and organisations were raising funds to buy their loved ones, and fellow members of their units, protective military equipment to compensate for the extremely poor way in which the soldiers were equipped. The call went out up and down the country for food and water to be provided to feed our soldiers and to quench their thirst. This does not leave a country feeling confident that its military is "on top of things" and ready to defend the nation. In fact, quite the opposite, it left the army with low morale, and the citizens with a view that they army could not be depended upon. On a daily basis, the citizens of Israel had the impression that the military actions taken by our army were having little or no impact upon our enemies. I have no doubt that the lack of preparedness also cost lives of soldiers and civilians.

The messages coming back from the front-line this time are completely different. Soldiers are well equipped with all that they need including military gear, food and water. Organisation of the call-up of reservists has been good, including training and preparation work done after the call-up. Morale on the front-line is high, and the nation is right behind our military in supporting them emotionally as best we can. There has been loss of life including some soldiers unfortunately killed by friendly fire. But there is no sign of the haphazard way in which things were previously done. On the contrary, we have the feeling that our soldiers are able to influence and impact the behaviour of our enemies, albeit not stop them entirely - yet. We are being told how the protective equipment has saved numerous lives and injuries. Overall a most positive picture which indicates the best is being extracted from our military effort under enormously difficult circumstances.

So what has happened in 18 short months since the last war, that can make this one feel so completely different? Ironically, we have the same Prime Minister at the helm. Olmert is what would usually considered to be a lame-duck Prime Minister in the final days of his tenure. He has been smart in keeping a low public profile during the course of the war, and has preferred to give Tzipi Livni (Foreign Minister) and Ehud Barak (Defense Minister) greater public roles. We cannot escape from the fact that Olmert, lame-duck or not, is leading this effort. Whatever one may think about Olmert (and he has provided significant food for thought), he seems to be doing an admirable job on this occasion. Barak and Livni are new to their roles since Lebanon 2006, and have presented themselves excellently. Barak is a breath of fresh air in comparison to Amir Peretz. Not only has he been well prepared, he is a military man who engenders a sense of comfort in the population by his actions and confidence.

Most significant since the summer of 2006, is the fact that the Chief of General Staff, and almost the entire upper echelon, of the IDF have been replaced. With those changes have come new training methods, additional equipment and a new approach to fighting terrorism and groups like Hamas. The army has been well prepared and well equipped for the task. The results of these changes are evident in the method of approaching the task, the morale of the soldiers and the casualties that we have suffered to date.

But I do not have any illusion that this war will lead to any greater prospect for lasting peace in the Middle East. On the contrary, I see it as yet another battle in the ongoing war for Jewish survival. It is said that there will only be peace when the Arabs recognise Israel's right to exist. With groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, whose main objective is the demolition of the State of Israel and it citizens, this will not happen any time soon. Golda Meir's famous quote is as relevant today as it was when she first stated: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."

Until that day comes, our army will defend our right to exist in this land, and protect our Jewish freedoms. It is my prayer that each of our soldiers will return safely to their families after having safely seen off this latest threat to our existence.

A War of No Choice

The inevitable happened, and the IDF finally struck Gaza. The Israeli government was given no choice in the matter, as no responsible government would allow its citizens to be bombarded day after day without acting to protect them. And so Operation "Cast Lead" was initiated by surprise during the course of Saturday in order to finally deal with this ongoing problem.

The name "Cast Lead" is the English equivalent of a term taken from a famous Chanukah song - "My uncle made me a dreidl of cast lead". The significance of the name is that the assault was initiated on the 6th day of Chanukah. It also coincided with the start of the Hebrew month Tevet and with the holy Sabbath day. The response could not wait another day due to the fact that lives were increasingly at risk in the area surrounding the Gaza Strip. And despite the fact that we were left with no choice and the army is willingly waging war to protect Israeli citizens, I believe it would be fair to state that most Israelis would much prefer not to be in this war.

President Shimon Peres was quoted in the press today as being confused as to why Hamas would have decided to attack Israelis. He, of course, has a point. The "occupation", the usual reason given for any terrorist activity aimed against Israel, is no more in Gaza. The unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was completed more than 3 years ago. So, the occupation can no longer be a valid reason. Instead of establishing a model government and cooperating with its neighbours in the interests of advancing the welfare of its people and nascent nation, Hamas has spent more time and dollars on attacking Israel. There can be no logical explanation except one - the intention to destroy Israel completely. For me, it is astonishing that this objective comes at the expense of all else, especially at the expense of the well being of the citizens that Hamas purports to represent. But this is the reality that Israel faces, and this is the base of the war in Gaza today.

What saddens me, and many of my fellow Israelis, is the suffering of the innocent victims of the war. In particular, I am appalled by the way in which Hamas attempts to use civilians as human shields during a time of war. At best, it prevents attacks on certain targets. Israel, unlike Hamas, does it's utmost to prevent civilian casualties and has been known to call off attacks or redesign them in the interests of limiting casualties. At worst, it provides Hamas with a great front page story when civilians are hurt or killed.

Whilst I am not under any illusions that this war will put an end to Hamas and their terror tactics aimed at destroying Israel, hopefully it will give the residents of southern Israel some much needed peace and quiet for a time. We also pray that it will bring the release of Gilad Shalit who is constantly in our thoughts.