How Important is Trump's Recognition of Jerusalem?

President Donald Trump's announcement to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and his decision to instruct the US embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, have dominated world headlines in recent weeks.  Many have analysed what lies behind his decision, and why he chose to take these steps now.  Amidst the speculation about these points, there appear to be no clear answers to these questions.

The reaction from around the world has been almost universally critically.  Except, of course, Israel's reaction where Prime Minister Netanyahu has lauded Trump's announcement as courageous, just and historic.  It is interesting to understand why western countries have been so opposed to this announcement, and why so many countries have responded in criticising Israel when Israel was not party to this action at all.  Not to speak of the anger shown by the Arab world with riots being held in many countries.  And the launching of missiles towards Israel in a way that one may have viewed Israel to be the offending party here.

Why has there been such a huge reaction to this announcement?  Previous American presidents, most notably Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama, are on record stating the Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Jerusalem Embassy Act has been on the US statue books since 1995, and dictates that the US embassy should be moved to Jerusalem.  In reality, Trump has said and done nothing new.  He has simply followed in the footsteps of others before him by reiterating the obvious. 

The fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital cannot be disputed.  The decision as to which city is the capital city of any country, is one that is taken by the country itself.  It is almost unheard of for any country's choice of a capital city not to be recognised or respected by members of the international community.  Israel declared Jerusalem to be her capital in 1948, a fact that was entrenched in the Basic Law in Israel in 1980 with the Jerusalem Law.  The Knesset sits in Jerusalem as do all government ministries.  Both the prime minister and the president have their offices and residences in Jerusalem, and foreign dignitaries are received in Jerusalem as the nation's capital.  Trump's announcement, or lack of announcement, makes no difference at all to the situation.  The fact that Jerusalem functions as the country's capital cannot be denied even by the most anti-Israeli person.

So why the furore over Trump's announcement?  It stems back to 1947 when the Arabs refused to accept the UN Partition Plan for Palestine that envisaged the sharing of Palestine, as it was, between Jewish and Arab states.  It also envisaged Jerusalem being a city under international control that would be shared between the Jews and the Arabs.  When the Arabs rejected this plan and grabbed whatever they could for themselves (including East Jerusalem), one would have thought that the UN plan was effectively rejected and binned.  Following a number of wars in the intervening period which saw the Arabs trying to grab more for themselves, but ultimately losing ground, the Arabs ironically still reject this plan as being not enough for them.  Perhaps this is because the Arabs continue to plot for the takeover of the entire city of Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Jews from all parts of it.  In spite of all of the history, the international community has continued to pressurise Israel to honour the plan, even though it was formally rejected by the Arabs.  In this context, the international community refuses to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, believing instead that the Arabs have some right to it.  They continue to demand a piece of Jerusalem for an Arab country, that seems unlikely to arise in the near future.  What has suddenly changed since 1947 when the Arabs rejected the plan to share Palestine and Jerusalem?  I don't think that anything has changed since then, and I suspect that the same plan would be rejected today by the Arabs as it was then.

For those who continue to insist that the Arabs have some rights to Jerusalem, Trump's announcement has been interpreted as reducing the possibility of this becoming reality.  They consider that Trump effectively took Jerusalem off the table from any peace talks that may take place.  If they were more honest, I believe that they would acknowledge the fact that the Arabs have no current plan or intention to sit down in peace talks anytime soon.  In my view, this means that Jerusalem was never really on the table at all.

Jerusalem has never been freer, than since the city was unified under Israeli rule in 1967.  All religions are free to worship at their holy sites, providing that they come with intention of behaving respectfully and peacefully.  While Jews were denied the right to visit the holiest site in Judaism when it was under Arab rule, Muslims have been assured the rights to their holy sites under Israeli rule.  The Israeli government has rebuilt the city of Jerusalem, improved its infrastructure and made it more desirable for all those who wish to live in and visit the city.  This should surely be something that influences the views of the international community regarding the most appropriate entity to rule over Jerusalem.  The argument that many of the citizens of Jerusalem, particularly in East Jerusalem, are Arabs who have no desire to be citizens of Israel is also used as reason why this area of the city should be ruled by a future Palestinian state.  It should be known that these residents were offered the right to Israeli citizenship, and have many rights as permanent residents of Jerusalem and Israel in spite of their rejection.  Just because entire neighbourhoods of Paris are dominated by Muslim residents, does not mean that these neighbourhoods should form part of an Arab state. Why is this different in Jerusalem?

The Trump announcement is not a trailblazer, and changes nothing in reality.  It is essentially an insignificant act for Israelis, Arabs and the international community.  Israelis may appreciate the statements of support for the Jewish right to Israel and Jerusalem, but are essentially indifferent to Trump's announcement.  They care little about what was said, and would have cared the same if it was not said.  Israelis are determined that the united city of Jerusalem be the capital of Israel, and nothing has changed.

There can be no doubt that the announcement by Trump has been seized upon by those who are determined to destroy Israel.  They have taken the opportunity to further their aim of ultimately ridding Jerusalem and Israel of Jews.  Trump's announcement is being used to justify this in a manner that is politically correct.  It seems entirely acceptable to launch rockets into Israel, to attack Israeli soldiers and to riot in Bangladesh in response to the Trump announcement.  The announcement itself was of no consequence, and nothing has changed.  Jerusalem will continue to be the capital of Israel whether the world accepts this or not.  Perhaps this is what Trump came to realise.

Obama's Final Act of Betrayal

Image courtesy of www.politico.com

After weeks of speculation as to how the US will vote at the UN Security Council when presented with the resolution condemning Israel's policy regarding the so-called "settlements", we now have a clear and unequivocal answer.  In the vote held on Friday, Barack Obama instructed his ambassador to the UN to abstain from the vote at the Security Council.  This action allowed the motion to be carried, with 14 countries voting in favour and 1 country (the USA) abstaining.  Had Obama decided to vote against the resolution, it would not have been carried despite the majority voting in favour.  Because the USA has a veto right at the UN Security Council, it had the power to defeat the motion on its own.  This veto right was not exercised on Friday.

The decision by the USA delegation to abstain from Friday's vote flies in the face of USA policy at the UN Security Council in recent years on the subject of resolutions condemning Israel.  In the words of outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, Israel has been the victim of a disproportionate number of resolutions condemning her actions at the hands of various UN organisations.  One could interpret this to mean that Israel has been unfairly targeted by the UN, and unjustifiably singled out for constant criticism and condemnation.  The USA has somewhat redressed this imbalance by exercising its right of veto at the Security Council over the years, and has ensured that the unfair condemnations of Israel are not allowed to stand, at least in that forum.  The most recent example of this was in 2011, when the Obama administration vetoed a resolution that condemned Israel's settlement activity.  The resolution on that occasion was remarkably similar to the one passed by the Security Council on Friday by virtue of the US abstention.  So what has changed in 5 short years, that justified the US turning its back on Israel at this time?

In 2011, there was a great deal more at stake for President Obama.  He had been in office for approximately 3 years, and was already eyeing his re-election with the hope of returning to the White House for 4 more years.  His decision to veto the resolution on that occasion was all about serving his interest at that time, rather than showing what he genuinely felt and believed.  Fast-forward 5 years, and Obama has no political capital to win or lose from the Security Council vote.  He will vacate the Oval Office in less than a month, and this vote has no bearing on his future whatsoever.  The only reason that he would vote in one direction or another, is to reflect his genuine view on the matter.  This view is shown loudly and clearly in a resolution that is one-sided and false in its depiction of the reality.  This is the legacy that Obama and Kerry are leaving on their peace-making efforts over the years, that were presented as being fair and even-handed.

This act puts an entire 8 year presidency into context.  There were many conspiracy theories about what Obama's true position on Israel was.  Was he influenced by the fact that he comes from Muslim heritage?  Was he genuinely sympathetic to Israel's struggle for survival?  Did he understand that the obstacles to peace are numerous, and not only the fault of one party or the other?  He tried to cloud the answers to these questions, and presented himself as a friend of Israel throughout his term in office.  This single act at the end of his presidency, however, has clarified all that has gone before.    While Israel would never wish to oppose the possibility of reaching a genuine agreement with the Palestinians, it has always been important to Israel that any agreement be reached on the basis of mutual respect and recognition between the parties.  This respect and recognition has been sorely missing from the Palestinian side.

The only real purpose that this resolution serves, is to continue to perpetrate the view that Israel is solely to blame for the lack of progress towards peace.  And Israel's policy on settlements is an easy scapegoat to use to illustrate why Israel should be blamed.  If it was true that the settlements are the main obstacle to peace, why was peace not achieved in the period from 1948 to 1967, when there were no settlements to blame.  Not only was peace not achieved, the Arabs were hell-bent on destroying Israel at any and every opportunity.  But now, the settlements are being presented as the only reason for the lack of a peace agreement.  Where is the criticism of the fact that the Palestinians refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, that has a right to live in peace and security?  Or of the fact that the PLO charter continues to call for the destruction of the State of Israel?  Or the continuous terror attacks that Israelis are forced to endure?  These were conveniently ommitted from the UN Security Council resolution, and this emphasizes how one-sided how this resolution really is.

If the resolution served to somehow move the peace process forward or to make a positive contribution the situation, I would be able to understand Obama's decision to allow it to stand on the record.  Unfortunately, this is not the case.  Instead, it is a pointless finger-pointing exercise that makes little contribution to the creation of a positive environment for peace-making.  And now, it is clearer as to who is pointing at whom.  Obama, your true colours have been revealed.  Shame on you.

Obama's Insult

Image courtesy Financial Times https://www.ft.com

US President Barack Obama was in attendance on Friday at the funeral of former Israeli president and prime minister Shimon Peres, and was invited to eulogise the last of Israel's founding fathers.  Obama's attendance and eulogy was evidence, if any was needed, of Peres's standing in the international community and the circles in which Peres has moved during more than six decades of international diplomacy.  In spite of Peres's persona as an international statesman, his funeral was an intensely personal event for Israel and for members of the Peres family.  This fact seems to have been lost on President Obama judging by the text of his eulogy.

It almost felt as though Obama was trying using his attendance at the funeral to compete with the last US president who attended the funeral of an Israeli statesman just over 20 years ago.  On that occasion, President Bill Clinton created the simple but iconic phrase, "shalom chaver"(goodbye friend), when eulogising late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  Obama's own attempt at creating an icon of a Hebrew phrase was not simple enough, and fell flat.  Obama's phrase, "toda raba chaver yakar" (thank you dear friend) seemed to be too much of a take on Clinton's original phrase, and seemed much less sincere than the words uttered by Clinton two decades ago.  Even Bill Clinton's own eulogy on Friday of Shimon Peres seemed more sincerely spoken than that of Obama.

Obama had lost his way in his speech, and in the hearts of Israelis, long before the "toda raba chaver yakar" was uttered.  In fact, he had already succeeded in putting a foot wrong in his remarks of welcome, long before reaching the main part of his speech.  As one would expect at such an occasion, President Obama acknowledged members of the Peres family in mourning, Israeli leaders and representatives and other world leaders in attendance at the funeral.  This is where things started to go wrong.  Out of all the foreign leaders, who attended the funeral, President Obama chose to mention only one by name in acknowledging his presence.  That was the name of Palestinian Authority President Abbas whose presence, he said, "was a sign of unfinished business"!

That one comment infuriated me, and many of my fellow Israelis.  Is this what Obama's attendance at the funeral was all about?  To promote his political agenda and highlight his political failings, at the state funeral of one of Israel's founding fathers?  And what did Obama hope to achieve by making this comment?  His ability to achieve anything in Middle East peace-making is long past, as he enters the "lame duck" period of his presidency.  So what positive could have come from this comment?  To me, his comments indicated a lack of respect to those whose hospitality he was enjoying.

Out of all the elected leaders who had accepted the invitation of the Peres family and the Israeli government to attend the funeral, why did Obama choose to single out the one leader who does not enjoy a democratic mandate from his people to rule?  And did he not understand that this was also the leader who has supported waves of terrorist attacks that have been undertaken against Israel and Israelis over the past few months and years?  Even though Abbas may not have personally ordered these terror attacks to take place in the way that his predecessor did, he has provided Palestinian Authority money to the families of terrorists who were killed during the course of their murderous activities.  And he has sent out messages of sympathy and made condolence visits to the families of these evil murderers.  In doing so, Abbas has made clear to his people that such activities are acceptable and desirable.  This, in turn, creates a new generation of terrorists.  So for him to be standing on the hallowed ground of Jerusalem's Mount Herzl at the funeral was already a huge concession in the view of many Israelis, perhaps an unjustified and undesirable concession.  But Obama succeeded in rubbing salt into the wounds by choosing to give credibility and international standing to a man who is most unworthy of this.

What was the unfinished business that Obama was referring to?  He would say that it is the unfinished business of making peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  But the Palestinians show little desire to finish this, and have taken no active and meaningful steps in this direction.  In Israel's view, the unfinished business is that of removing the objective to destroy Jews and the Jewish homeland from the charter of the PLO, and to openly and unequivocally recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.  Until that unfinished business is taken care of, and the support for terrorists is ended, there will be no further business.

There is no doubt that Obama was conscious that his comments would be controversial.  He is well aware of the position that Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken on the issue of the peace talks, and the stand taken by the Palestinians.  These remarks were made with full knowledge that they would cause a reaction, and that they would not be welcome.  This represents an insult to his hosts, and was inappropriate and uncalled for.

The actions by the US president seem consistent with his behaviour towards Israel over the last few years.  During the time of Obama's presidency, the Palestinian Authority has had its status at the United Nations upgraded, been accepted as a party to the International Criminal Court in The Hague and taken on a much higher standing in the international community.  All of this comes despite continuing to fund and encourage terror, and not being willing to recognise the democratic right of the State of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.  Instead of holding the Palestinians responsible for acts of terror and being prepared to criticise this publicly, the US president has continuously castigated Israel for constructing homes in Israeli-ruled territory.

Prime Minister Netanyahu acquiesced to the request by the Peres family to invite Mahmoud Abbas to the funeral, and to seat him in the front row.  His hands were tied in terms of agreeing to grant Abbas permission to enter Jerusalem for the funeral, even though he may have wished to act otherwise.  Obama should have considered this enough, instead of making a more public spectacle of an already uncomfortable situation.  Sometimes less is more, although Obama seemed insensitive to this during his eulogy.

It is somewhat ironic that Abbas's presence at the funeral was also castigated by his own electorate, many of whom considered Peres an enemy of the Palestinian cause.  With so many Palestinians and Israelis joining together in the dislike of Abbas's presence at the funeral, perhaps this should have been a clear enough message to Obama that raising this in public would serve to damage his objectives rather than progress them.  Perhaps this is a clear indication why American peace-making efforts, particularly those driven by Obama, have been so unsuccessful.

Iran and Obama

What is it that is driving US President Barack Obama to seemingly single-mindedly pursue an agreement with Iran?  From the outset, he has appeared determined to reach this agreement, almost at any price.  This is despite strong opposition and warnings from the US's key allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Although the agreement that is being sought with Iran comes under the auspices of the United Notions and the European Union together with a group of countries that includes Germany, France, the United Kingdom, China and Russia, there is no doubt that it is the US and Obama that are making all the running in trying to achieve this agreement.  On the face of it, there seems no obvious reason why Obama would wish to do this.  In the absence of clear publicly-visible reasons to reach such an understanding with Iran, the situation inevitably gives rise to conspiracy theories about what may be happening behind the scenes, that is driving Obama to act in the way that he is.

The US broke off diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980, soon after the Shah was deposed and around the time of the Iran hostage crisis.  The US gave strong support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, even if this meant providing support to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the 1980s.  All of this was done in the interests of opposing Iran.  The current threat that the Iranian regime represents in the world order is clearly not new to the US administration.  The question remains as to what has happened over the past few years that gives the urgency for Obama to reach this agreement with Iran, where his predecessors followed policies towards Iran that were exactly the opposite?

Some have put forward the theory that Obama is pursuing a policy of engagement with Iran.  The theory on engagement says that it is better to have a relationship with Iran to allow visibility and supervision of its nuclear program, rather than allow it to proceed with its nuclear activities in an unsupervised and secretive way.  There are certainly cases where a policy of engagement has proven itself to be successful, and reach positive results.  There are also glaring examples of the failure of engagement, where even more damage was done as a result of the belief that all parties are pursuing a common objective.  Possibly the most obvious failure of engagement was when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain pursued his policy of appeasement in relation to the Nazi regime during the late 1930s.  His triumphant declaration of securing "peace for our time" after concluding the Munich Pact in 1938 could not have been a greater misjudgement of the facts.  The Second World War broke out less than a year later.  A policy of engagement has a place, but only under very specific circumstances and conditions.  The moment there is any doubt about what may be driving the other party to wish to pursue engagement, it is a policy that can do much more harm than good.  This certainly seems to be the case with Iran.

Iran has two clear objectives from the talks with the P5+1 group.  The first and primary objective is to lift the crippling sanctions that have been applied to it over the past few years by western countries.  There can be no doubt that these sanctions have had a devastating effect on Iran's economy.  Iran has a heavy burden in funding daily economic activities, funding its nuclear development and also funding a large number of proxies conducting terror activities around the world.  This is tough for any economy, and even more so for an economy where its primary economic activity is suffering severe constraints due to international sanctions.  Iran's second clear objective is to gain an international stamp of approval for its nuclear activities.  These activities have been conducted in secrecy until now, despite the international community being aware of the fact that this has been pursued behind closed doors.  The opportunity has now been offered for Iran to get international approval for its nuclear development program, and Iran would certainly wish to accept this chance with both hands.

By giving such great compromises to Iran, President Obama is allowing a golden opportunity to slip through his hands and is breaking the cardinal rules of international diplomacy.  The fact that Iran has been brought to its knees by the effects of the sanctions, should present the chance that Obama needs to force Iran to kill off its nuclear program once and for all.  The "concessions" that Obama triumphantly announced that he had received from Iran sounded more like Chamberlain's misguided announcement of "peace for our time".  After Iran admitted to having lied about the fact that its nuclear facilities were not being used to produce a nuclear weapon, Obama still felt comfortable about accepting Iranian promises about how it would conduct its nuclear activities going forward.  Why do Iran's past lies not count for anything when moving into this brave new world?  Why would anybody believe that Iran has suddenly decided to reveal all details of its nuclear program moving forward, when it has never done so in the past?   As president of the Supreme National Security Council for 16 years, Iran's President Rouhani frequently boasted of how he succeeded in using talks with western countries to buy time to advance Iran's nuclear program.  It seems as though nothing much has changed.  According to some interpretations of the framework agreement reached in Lausanne, Iran will be formally free to pursue a nuclear weapon as soon as 10 years from now.  It is a frightening thought that Obama has officially signed this off.

In his announcement of the successful conclusion of the framework deal, Obama clearly showed the weakness of the agreement and the betrayal of his Middle Eastern allies.  He acknowledged that Iran is engaged in sponsoring terror activities and groups around the world.  The fact that Iran continues to publicly call into question Israel's right to exist and advocates her annihilation is undisputed.  The terror activities and ongoing threatening behaviour is all being funded out of Iran's economy.  Despite Obama trying his best to separate between Iran the terrorist and Iran the nuclear power, and to emphasise that the new deal does not change the US policy towards Iran's terror activities, it doesn't require an advanced knowledge of politics and diplomacy to understand that all of these things are linked and intertwined.  Lifting sanctions against Iran will immediately channel more money into terror activities, and channel money into building further nuclear activities and nuclear weapons away from the prying eyes of the international community.  Despite Israel's constant requests, there was no requirement on Iran to cease its anti-Semitic and discriminatory activities against the state of Israel.  In agreeing to lift restrictions on Iran while refusing to demand that Iran stop its activities of terror around the world and stop its discrimination against Israel, Obama has effectively becomes a party to them.  Not only has he let down Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other countries in the Middle East who are threatened by Iran on a daily basis, he has placed the entire free world at risk.

The question still remains as to why Obama would find it fit to pursue this policy, that has so much risk attached to it?  Does he honestly believe that the greater visibility that he believes he has achieved will really place a limit on Iran's nuclear activity?  I would like to think that the president of the US is smarter than being duped into such a misconception.  Perhaps it has to do with the need to show some success in an otherwise dismal record in the pursuit of its policies in the Middle East, or to have a legacy of some sort before leaving office.  This legacy promises to dog him to his dying day and beyond, in the same way that appeasement continues to cloud the legacy that Chamberlain left.

It took less than two weeks for the effects of the Lausanne agreement with Iran to be felt.  Russia, one of the P5+1 countries, announced that it would be selling its sophisticated S-300 anti-missile system to Iran.  This is a sale that has been on hold for many years, delayed as a result of the sanctions regime against Iran.  Now that the US and the P5+1 group have found it acceptable to reach a formal international agreement with Iran, it opens the floodgates for international trade with Iran to resume, even before sanctions have been lifted.  Iran is already benefiting from the policy of engagement, even before it has lifted a finger to implement any of the terms that it has undertaken to implement under the terms of the agreement.

Iran is unashamed in its sponsor of terror and pursuit of conflict, death and destruction against Sunni Muslims, Jews and western countries.  Any person or country that enters into an agreement with Iran effectively becomes part of these activities.  Obama has entered into the agreement with Iran in full knowledge of this situation.  History will judge him accordingly.

The People of Israel Have Spoken

The ballots have been counted in Israel's election 2015, and people have recovered from the surprise of a result which has deviated substantially from the opinion polls and exit polls.  I believe that the surprise comes, not from the result itself, but because of the extent to which people's expectations were inaccurately set by the polls in the media.  The people of Israel have spoken, and they have spoken loud and clear.
 
It is possible to draw a number of conclusions from the comprehensive and unexpected manner in which Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Likud party have been returned to power.

1.  Security issues are at the top of the national agenda.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's election platform was based upon security issues, and the nature of the threat that exists against the State of Israel.  Some have called it scare-mongering people to believe that Israel is under an existential threat, in order to convince people to vote for him.  He even appeared in front of the American Congress during the latter stages of the election campaign,  in an attempt to reinforce this point for the Israeli public, the American public and the world at large.  With the strength of anti-Israel feeling evident within the international community, within the United Nations and evident from individuals around the world, it hardly comes as a surprise that the Israeli people believe him when he is says that Israel is under threat.  And when considering the rhetoric coming from countries like Iran and countries along Israel's borders, it is easy to understand why this feeling is so great.  When adding the growing levels of anti-Semitism, much of it dressed up as anti-Israel views, I don't believe that this threat arises from paranoia.  It is true to say that Israel is not on the verge of being wiped out, as was the case a few times in the past.  The Israeli army is certainly strong enough to stand up to any physical threat to our country.  This does not, however, diminish the threat and the desires of Israel's enemies to destroy her.  The majority of the Israeli electorate believe that Israel is under a substantial international threat, and have good reason to believe this.

2.  Peace with the Palestinians is not a priority.
It is noticeable that the issue of peace with the Palestinians played no role in the election campaigns of any of the parties.  The left-wing parties did not seek election on the strength of promises to bring compromises in the interests of reaching peace with the Palestinians, and the right-wing parties did not seek election on the basis that they would not be prepared to enter into peace with the Palestinians.  It would appear as though the Israeli public has understood that peace is unattainable with people who are not prepared to recognise that Israel is a Jewish country.  This is despite the fact that it is a most basic Israeli aspiration to seek a just and equitable peace.  The realisation that the Palestinians are not willing or ready to agree upon the compromises that are necessary to reach a peace, has not been easy to understand.  It is tough to accept that the Palestinian leadership has no intention of entering into a peace agreement at all.  It is unfortunate that the international community continues to try to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, and to insist that now is the time to force the parties to negotiate to reach a peace agreement.  It is even more unfortunate that the international community places the blame on Israel for the lack of progress towards peace.

3.  Tzipi Livni is unelectable.
Isaac Herzog sought out Tzipi Livni to join him at the head of the Zionist Union list.  The combined list was regarded as greater than the sum of its component parts, and this was borne out by the election result.  It seems unlikely that Labour and Hatnua could have secured 24 seats if they had run as separate lists.  When agreeing to form the Zionist Union list, Herzog and Livni also agreed to rotate the position of prime minister between the two of them in the event that their list should win the election.  There were many in the Labour Party and across the country who wondered why Herzog had agreed to conceed such a strong position to Livni, when her power to bring support to the Zionist Union was questionable.  Only one day before the election, Tzipi Livni announced that she was giving up on her right to be prime minister in the rotation agreement.  This was widely interpreted as the Zionist Union acknowledging that more people would be inclined to vote for them if they knew that Livni would not be prime minister.  The act was also seen as an immense act of weakness on the part of the tough lady.  It was also the final word in confirming that Tzipi Livni is unelectable as prime minister.  She lost credibility while she migrated from the Likud, across Kadima and Hatnua to ultimately team up with Labour at the opposite end of the political spectrum.  She was unable to form a government in 2009, despite her Kadima party won the highest number of seats in the general election.  This act of her giving up her right to be prime minister is the final nail in her prime ministerial ambitions.  It also opens a broad debate about whether Isaac Herzog is electable as prime minster.

4.  Toughness by Israel's leaders on the international stage is desirable and respected.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has always been a master at presenting Israel's case on the international stage, and showing toughness and being unashamed and uncompromising in doing so.  He is the new type of Jew that Jabotinsky could only dream of during the years of the pogroms in Eastern Europe.  Despite the fact that a number of generations have come and gone since Jabotinsky's time when he dreamed of this Jew, it seems as though Israelis continue to like, respect and desire this quality that Netanyahu possesses.  At a time when attacks on Israel in the international community  are at an unprecedented high and when anti-Semitism around the world is rising to levels that are unknown since the Shoah, there is something appealing to Israeli eyes and ears in a leader who is prepared to confront and beat these attacks by facing them head-on.  The sight of him addressing the US Congress just before the election will have confirmed Netanyahu's ability and willingness to do this for any Israeli who doubted it.

5.  Bias in the media counts for nothing.
There can be no doubt that the Israeli media waged a campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu in order to remove him from the prime minister's residence.  He tried calling out the Yediot Haachronot and its online version Ynet during the course of the election campaign, by accusing the editor Noni Moses of publishing untruths in an attempt to discredit him.  Israel's media, and its lack of independence and editorial integrity, has come under scrutiny in recent months.  It is not only the anti-Netanyahu camp that stands accused, but equally Sheldon Adelson's Yisrael Hayom, and its unashamed support for Netanyahu.  The Israeli people have shown that, despite the vicious and overwhelming anti-Netanyahu sentiments published in many Israel printed and online newspapers, they have been able to make up their minds independently about who they wish to lead the country over the next 4 years.  Even the opinion polls, that did not even get close to the election result at any point, could not influence the electorate.  Since the election result has been made known, the anti-Netanyahu lobby has not given up and continues to castigate Israelis for making the wrong choice in the election.  They make an even greater laughing stock of themselves by doing this.

6.  Even Obama cannot unseat Netanyahu.
US President Barack Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his recent trip to address the US Congress in Washington.  The reason given for him not meeting with Netanyahu was that he did not wish to influence Israel's election result in any way.  When looking at Obama's actions in the period leading up to the election, and particularly his response to the election result, it seems that nothing could be further from the truth.  There is no secret that Obama has no time or patience for Prime Minister Netanyahu.  There is no secret that Obama would have been much happier if somebody else, anybody, would have been elected as the prime minister in the election.  There were strong rumours that Obama was somehow behind funding the V15 group that rose up in Israel prior to the election in attempt to unseat Netanyahu almost at any price.  The slogan of this group, and also much of the rhetoric behind the Zionist Union's election campaign, was anti-Netanyahu.  They were encouraging people to vote against Netanyahu, as opposed to enticing people to make a positive choice and to vote for something that they do want.  My interpretation of Obama's decision not to meet Netanyahu prior to the election, was a real attempt to influence people to vote against him, and not to stay neutral as he was trying to get us to believe.  Perhaps he was concerned that a meeting may have helped to convince people to vote for a man that he would like to see consigned to the dustbin of history.  The Israeli people have shown that even the most powerful politician in the world cannot influence their choice.  This is not a happy moment for Obama, and his concerted campaign against Netanyahu and Israel since the election has demonstrated that he is a very sore loser.   It seems inconceivable that US foreign policy in the Middle East can suddenly change as a result of an election result and a few statements from Netanyahu.  Obama's message that "this is not personal" has shown to be completely false.  Ultimately, the vote of the Israeli people is stronger, even than Obama.

Israelis are notoriously independent in their views and actions, and have a reputation for being steadfast and stubborn.  This has come through very loudly in the 2015 election.  And all of this with a turnout of voters in excess of 70%, the highest number since 1999.  Even the number of Arab voters was more than 60%, the highest number in history.  Despite numerous attempts to influence against the re-election of Prime Minister Netanyahu, he has returned to power with a stronger mandate than before.  He is on the verge of becoming Israel's longest-serving prime minister in history.  Israel is held up as the only real democracy in the Middle East, and the democratic process has spoken.  The time has come for those who preferred a different result, and who would have liked to see Herzog as prime minster, to rally around and accept the result that Israeli democracy has selected.  Continuing to fight against it does not serve a purpose.  This is not to say that those who justifiably oppose Netanyahu's policies should be silent and not express their views.  There is, however, a democratic way of doing this.  This does not include intervention from the US president, or unjustified attacks from the media.  Democracy is alive and well in Israel, and the people have spoken.

A Storm in a Teacup, or Diplomatic Snub?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on his way to Washington this week to present his case on Iran to a joint session of Congress on 3 March.  This is despite huge pressure that was put on him, both in the USA and in Israel not to go ahead, or at least to postpone his trip to Capitol Hill.  Having accepted House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner's invitation to make the address, it always seemed unlikely that Netanyahu would change his mind.  Many Israelis seem undecided as to whether this is a good or bad thing, and whether this is likely to do more harm than good to already troubled relations between the US and Israel.

The prime minister was certainly justified in accepting what appeared to be a genuine invitation from a legitimate source.  House Speaker Boehner is within his rights to invite guests to address Congress, and Boehner's office has issued a statement confirming that the invitation was already well on its way to Netanyahu before the Israeli election date was set early in December 2014.  The prime minister has used every possible opportunity to make known his (and Israel's) opposition to the agreement currently under negotiation between Iran and the P5+1 countries, and it would have come as no surprise to anybody that Bibi was quick to jump at this opportunity as well.  The timing of the invitation was particularly attractive, to address the US lawmakers just prior to the date that was set for the finalisation of the agreement.  Where the discussions with Iran are concerned, Boehner and Netanyahu are on the same side of the fence in opposing US President Barack Obama's seemingly single-minded intention to come to an agreement with Iran almost at any price.  If Boehner wished to find a like-minded international leader to address the US Congress on this matter, Netanyahu was the most obvious person to turn to.  Like Netanyahu, Boehner fears that giving Iran the green light to enrich Uranium with an official international stamp of approval, even at low levels of enrichment, would destabilise the balance of power in the Middle East and the world.  Obama's desire to establish a legacy before leaving the White House next year, could leave a most dangerous problem for Israel and the western world following his departure.

It is easy to be suspicious about Obama's reaction to Netanyahu's visit to Washington, and his his true intentions behind the reaction.  We know that Obama has little time or respect for Netanyahu, and this visit to Washington, coming as it does at the invitation of Obama's arch-rival in the Congress, is a perfect opportunity for Obama to make his negative feelings for Bibi more public.  The White House has accused Netanyahu of not following protocol by not advising them of his visit to Washington.  The prime minister's office says that the same protocol was followed this time as for previous visits.  John Boehner has admitted not following protocol on his part, and he purposefully did not advise the White House of Netanyahu's upcoming visit.  He says that the reason for this, was the fear that the White House would make every effort to undermine the visit in an attempt to prevent the visit from going ahead.  This is precisely what we saw happening when details of the visit were made known in the press.  The administration moved immediately to say that no meetings would be accommodated between the prime minister and administration officials.  Obama went further by hiding behind the fact that the administration has a policy of not meeting with foreign visitors in the weeks leading up to a general election.  The Obama administration also announced that they would no longer provide updates to Israeli government officials about the progress of the talks with Iran.  This laid the groundwork for Secretary of State John Kerry to accuse  Netanyahu of having no knowledge of what is happening in the talks with Iran, and therfore having no right to make comments about the terms of the agreement.

The reactions all reek of a combination of anti-Netanyahu behaviour, and US party politics.  The Obama-led Democrats seem hell-bent on reaching an agreement with Iran, while the Republicans are doing all that they can to scupper the deal from proceeding.  Throwing Netanyahu into the centre of this battle is an ideal plan, particularly for Obama's Democrats.

For Netanyahu, even if the visit to Washington was not originally designed as an attempt to strengthen his position just before the election, it still presents an ideal opportunity to do so.  Netanyahu's election platform is based almost entirely upon foreign relations and security issues.  As opposed to candidates like Yair Lapid and others who focus more on  the economy and internal matters, Netanyahu's plan of attack plays to his personal strength of international diplomacy.  There is nobody in Israeli politics who can represent Israel on the international stage as Netanyahu can, and those voters who have forgotten or overlooked this are about to be reminded in this week's speech to Congress.  Israeli TV has decided that they will broadcast Netanyahu's speech to Congress live, except for a short delay to allow it to remove any election-specific comments that they be included in the speech.

The local and international press has come out in strong criticism of Netanyahu for cynically using an opportunity to promote himself before the election.  There seems equally to be a case against Obama for using the opportunity to try to put Netanyahu down to ensure that he is not re-elected, and for using this to promote the deal with Iran. 

The matter that has been lost in the crossfire, is the agreement with Iran.  It is of grave concern that Iran may be granted the right by the international community to have the capability of producing a nuclear bomb, or coming very close to it.  The highly aggressive language that Iran uses in public against Israel, and the acknowledged military threat that Iran presents to Israel, make this possibility a frightening prospect.  Coupled with the increasing anti-Semitism around thw world, much of it tied to vehement anti-Israel attacks, there seems to be a strong case in favour of Netanyahu using every opportunity to present Israel's case where he can.  While politicians play little political games in Washington and do all that they can to discredit individuals, the door is left open for Iran to freely pursue its contruction of a threat that could put future generations of Jews and Israelis in grave danger.  This danger is not unique to Jews and Israelis, but ultimately extends to all of the Middle East and the western world.  President Obama seems somehow to have lost sight of this, but perhaps it concerns him less than his own personal battles and legacy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has his weak points, and has been known to behave to promote his own interests on numerous occasions.  There can be no doubt that he is fighting for his political survival, as the opinion polls show he is struggling to gain any advantage over his political rivals ahead of the upcoming election.  There are, however, some international issues that are above party politics and that don't wait for elections.  The Iran problem is surely one of these.

The Case in Favour of Acting Against Syria

The UN weapons inspection team has left Syria, after completing its investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria in an attack a couple of weeks ago.  Following the horrific scenes that were splashed across our TV screens and strong intelligence corroboration, it is difficult to anticipate that the UN team will conclude that no chemicals were used.  Indeed, there has been strong intelligence and media information to suggest that this is not the first chemical attack in Syria over the past couple of years.  With reports that 1,000 were killed in the most recent attack, however, it is by far the most serious use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War so far.

Not only is the use of chemical weapons abhorrent to all sensible people, it is also outlawed by a number of international treaties and UN resolutions.  Syria's use of chemical weapons is an anathema to anybody who has any sensitivity to human suffering.  It is also an act that is objectively illegal in terms of international law.  The fact that these weapons were used by a government on its own people, is a fact that is extemely difficult to understand.  People should ordinarily be defended against terrible attacks like this by its national government, in the same way as young children should be defended by their parents.  When the parents are guilty of causing damage to the children, an outside body needs to be available to step in to protect those who are innocent and have no others to protect them.  The same is true of the situation in Syria.  This is the moment for the international community to step in, and protect the innocent men, women and children of Syria from being hurt by their own government forces.  It is also the moment for the international community to send the message that contravention of international law has consequences.

For Israelis and for Jews, the requirement for the international community to act is a much more personal issue.  The dithering of the international community in situations like this almost always evokes the parallel of the failure of the international community to act against the Nazi genocide machine.  International forces were implored to bomb the train tracks that led to the Auschwitz extermination camp, but refused to do so.  Millions of lives were lost as a result.  Jews can never forget this failure to respond.  For Jews living in Israel, it goes even further.   Failure to act against Syria could put Israel's security at direct risk.  There can be no doubt that Syria is watching to see if the world responds to this event, as a precedent for how it may behave in the future.  Syria's benefactor, Iran, is also watching with eager eyes.  Until now, Iran has been allowed to develop its nuclear weapons program with impunity.  By seeing that the international community does not respond to protect innocent people and international law when required, Syria and Iran will be led to understand that they have a free hand to do almost as they please in the future by virtue of the failure on the part of the international community to respond.  This is a message that we cannot afford to send.

It is understandable that the major world powers are war-weary, and are not seeking to open a new front after having fought harsh and costly battles in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years.  Their reluctance to get involved in Syria is all the more understandable after it transpired that the Second Gulf War was instigated after publication of faulty intelligence information.  These events damaged reputations, and harmed the trust that was placed in world leaders at the time by their citizens.  Nobody amongst the current world leaders wishes to repeat these mistakes.  The British House of Commons has already voted, and rejected British military participation in Syria.  President Obama confounded even his closest advisers by deciding to seek the approval of Congress before taking action in Syria.  This approval is by no means assured, despite the strong conviction on the part of the president that action is required.  The American people, and Congress, needs to be more convinced that this will not end up being another Iraq or Afghanistan for US troops.  Somehow, world leaders need to be able to to sell the importance of intervention in order to get the support of their local constituencies.

There are a number of precedents in recent years for short, sharp operations that do not draw foreign troops into a protracted war.  Libya is one example that springs to mind.  This would surely be a good template to use in Syria.  It represents a sound solution that will mean the international community responds to unacceptable behaviour, while foreign forces are not drawn into protracted commitments in faraway countries.  The objective of such an operation will surely be to destroy stockpiles of chemical weapons still being stored in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and other countries. Such an action will make the region and the world a better and safer place.

The IDF remains on high alert in anticipation of a possible US strike on Syria.  For Israel, such a strike is a double-edged sword.  On the one hand it sends a message to Syria and Iran that the US remains ready and willing to intervene militarily in the region if rquired, and also will possibly destroy stockpiles of dangerous weapons held on Israel's borders.  On the other hand, a strike on Syria by the US will almost certainly elicit a strike on Israel by Syria.  Syria will not wish to have its honour publicly dragged through the mud by the US in the case of a strike by it on Syria.  The only realistic way for Syria to retaliate against the US is to strike its closest regional ally, Israel, in response.  It is for this reason that the IDF is on high alert, and the reason that many Israelis are opposed to a US strike on Syria.  By the US turning a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Israel will be assured a greater prospect of peace and quiet in the short-term.  In the longer-term, however, this would be a much more dangerous situation.  Syria will continue to build its stockpile of chemical weapons on Israel's border, and will continue to understand that they can use them with impunity and without necessarily being held to account.

In spite of the obvious short-term threat to Israel, it is my view that US and the international community needs to step in to respond to these actions as a matter of priority.  Syria cannot be left in any doubt about the unacceptability of using chemical weapons.  This will also send a clear message to Iran about the willingness of the international community to intervene when required.  I have every faith in the IDF, and its ability to repel any attack that Syria may launch on Israel in retaliation to a US attack on Syria.

Any action of war should be taken seriously, as it always results in people being killed.  Even if the US manages to undertake a short, sharp and concentrated attack on Syria, it will inevitably result in loss of life. This may even risk Israeli lives depending on how Syria chooses to respond.  I have no doubt, however, that this is preferable to the alternative which allows Syria to believe that it has free reign to behave as it pleases in the future.  Actions involving chemical weapons should always have consequences, and this is no exception.  Teaching Syria (and Iran) this lesson now, will ensure greater regional stability in the longer-term.

Is the Time Right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Obama's Israeli Triumph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Lines and Green Lines

As is the usual practice at this time of year, the world's focus turned last week to the hallowed halls of the General Assembly of the United Nations.  The events there have, by now, become an annual ritual.  Eyes became trained upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as his travelling circus rolled into New York City.  Everybody was awaiting his next insult directed at Israel and other western countries.  He did not disappoint.  He did the rounds of the TV talk shows who were falling over themselves to get him on their stages.  He poked his finger in the eye of his American hosts and continuously threatened Israel's existence and place in the community of nations.  US President Barack Obama made his speech at the General Assembly, and left town as soon as he possibly could.  Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas pleaded for the establishment of a Palestinian independent state, without addressing any of the main sticking points that are preventing him from achieving this objective.  Prime Minister Netanyahu put on his usual show, defending the rights of the Jewish nation to exist in peace and security (for his speech to the UN click here).  All of these actions have become fairly well-rehearsed over the past few years.  This year, however, there were some subtle differences.

The assessment of one of the Israeli newspapers was spot-on when it wrote that the international leaders seemed to be talking straight past each other, and aiming their addresses at people who were a long way from the General Assembly halls.  The newspaper decided that Obama aimed his address at his Jewish voters in Florida, who he hopes will help to swing the vote to re-elect him for a further presidential term in November.  They thought that Abbas was aiming his speech at Hamas leaders who, he hopes, will find a way to further Palestinian unity and implement the agreement that was signed some time ago.  It was decided that Netanyahu aimed his speech at the central committee of his ruling Likud party in his attempt to convince them that he is not compromising his red lines on Iran's nuclear weapons, nor his position regarding conditions under which he would reach an agreement with the Palestinians.  Despite the world leaders being in close proximity to one another, nobody seemed to be talking to each other.

Illustration by Eran Wolkowski courtesy of Haaretz

Another newspaper described the Netanyahu and Abbas speeches as "one talking about green lines and the other talking about red lines".  The green lines refer to the borders originally drawn up for the State of Israel, and in effect until the Six Day War in 1967.  In his speech to the UN, Abbas again complained that the Israeli settlements are the main obstacle to peace.  With the support of many in the international community, Abbas believes that a future Palestinian state should be established on the borders of the "green line".  Netanyahu is firmly opposed to returning to the green line, and has made this clear on a number of occasions.  In an attempt to bring the international community around to his way of thinking, his government continues to act against settlers trying to establish new outposts in the West Bank, in places which are not properly authorised and legal.  The steps that Netanyahu has taken against these new and illegal settlements have gained the wrath of many in his Likud party.

Photo by Reuters

The red lines refer to the fact that Netanyahu feels that Iran is being allowed to behave with a free hand while the international community waits for the sanctions to take effect.  He is insistent that red lines should be drawn, which would create limits on Iran's behaviour.  The clear implication is that the international community should be prepared to draw these red lines, and should also be prepared to take military action against Iran in the event that it transgresses the red lines.  At the UN General Assembly on Thursday, Netanyahu made his point about red lines on Iran very explicitly using a prop showing a neatly-drawn nuclear bomb (in the shape of a hand grenade).  On this sketch, he used a red marker to add where he thought  the red line should be drawn.

There can be no clearer indication that the these  leaders are on completely different pages, and thinking about completely different things.  There appears to be no common purpose or urgency about what needs to be achieved next, in order to bring about the much sought-after peace in the Middle East.  Abbas is enjoying a period of stability within his West Bank stronghold.  A routine of some sort has been established for daily life within his constituency.  Few attacks on Israel have been perpetrated by Palestinians, and this has resulted in far less intervention by Israeli troops in Palestinian society.  Quality of life has been improved by the relative stability.  Abbas has greater support of his people (as evidenced by the lack of any real shows of dissatisfaction), and he has no interest at the moment to be put under pressure to call an election.  Hamas is weakened by its leadership struggle for somebody to replace the outgoing Khaled Meshal, and this has substantially reduced the tension between Abbas and his Hamas rivals.  It seems as though Abbas has little intention or reason to upset this situation.

Netanyahu's attention and focus is almost entirely devoted to Iran's nuclear program, when he is not stealing time for domestic matters.  Between Iran and working on his campaign for elections currently scheduled for 2013, Netanyahu seems to have little time or inclination to deal with Palestinian matters.  The same is true for President Obama, who has not shown any inclination to spend much time on the Middle East conundrum in his four years in office to date.  Although all the speeches referred to work that needs to be done on the "peace process", actions speak louder than words.  The actions indicate that all three leaders are not unhappy with the status quo, and that none of them are poised to do anything dramatic to change it.  This perhaps explains the lack of coordination in the various speeches.  It almost appears as if the lack of coordination was coordinated!

The Ahmadinejad show at the UN is extremely unfortunate.  It seems as though the world has come to accept that this is the way that things are, and is prepared to tolerate his bad behaviour.  It is OK for him to bash Israel from the UN podium (and anywhere else), despite prior warnings by the UN and the USA for him to tone down his rhetoric.  The USA and Canada were the only two countries to walk out of the General Assembly when he rose to speak.  All of this bodes extremely badly for the world's response to Iran's nuclear weapons.  Will this be taken for granted as well?  If so, it is entirely appropriate for Bibi to be focusing on red lines, even if the rest of the world prefers him to concentrate on green lines.

Fifty Fateful Days

Former government minister Tzachi Hanegbi has been quoted as telling a closed meeting of Likud activists that the next fifty days are the most fateful in Israel’s history.  Hanegbi is not a member of the government or even of the Knesset, having recently been convicted of moral turpitude in relation to previous ministerial posts held.  He has also flip-flopped between political parties when he decided to join Ariel Sharon’s Kadima party, then return to the Likud.  Hanegbi is, however, known to be a close confidante of Prime Minister Netanyahu.  Under the circumstances, his statements are being closely analysed for hidden significance.

The fact that his statements were clearly not intended for outside consumption has added even greater weight to them.  Now that the words have been recorded and smuggled to the outside world, the press is taking the opportunity to speculate as to precisely what they mean.  In his statement, Hanegbi compared the next fifty days to a dozen or so days during the Yom Kippur War which he considers to be equally as fateful, and upon which the balance of Israel’s fate hung.  He referred to the fact that allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons has a price tag.  Hanegbi made a request of the Likud faithful to support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and to “allow him quiet” and “strengthen his legitimacy” so that he can take the necessary decisions calmly.

The seriousness of the situation with Iran has been evident and obvious to many within Israel and  outside for some time.  It is the first time, however, that somebody who is believed to be close to the inner core of government has indicated a timetable of any type on this matter.  The reference to the next 50 days seems to tie in quite closely with speculation that has been previously heard, suggesting that the window of opportunity to carry out a strike against Iran is limited until the US presidential elections are held in November.  After the election takes place, there are strong reasons why Israel will not be able to expect support for an attack on Iran, irrespective of whether Obama is reelected or Romney is successful.  It is not clear when the window of opportunity may reopen after the election, but it is assumed that it will take a good few months.  By then, the situation in Iran may be beyond the point of no return.

For some time now, Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed his frustration over the lack of international support to deal with the Iran nuclear program.  Despite the fact that Iran has consistently failed to provide adequate responses to the international community in relation to its nuclear program, the world (led by President Barack Obama) seems content to provide it with the time it needs, while ostensibly waiting for the sanctions to take effect.  This is valuable time that is being wasted, and which Iran is taking maximum advantage of to get its nuclear bomb beyond the point where action can still be taken to destroy it.  I hope that the world will not look back in the future, and regret not having used these days more productively.

Many ask why it is that Israel does not act unilaterally against Iran, in the same way as the action was taken against Syria and Iraq?  It is my guess that we can never fully understand the differences in the circumstances that exist now with Iran, when compared to those that existed in Iraq and Syria.  For one, the Iranians are lying in wait ready and have hundreds, if not thousands, of missiles waiting to be fired towards Israel.  That seems to be a very powerful reason to change the tactics used.  The prime minister has responsibility for the safety of his citizens, both now and in the future.  As opposed to the situation that existed previously, the Iranian issue is far too public and high-profile to allow the IDF to carry out stealth missions without any consequences.  The world’s media is lying in wait for the first Israeli aircraft to take off from their hangars towards Iran.  Any attack of this type will probably be broadcast live on Al Jazeera and CNN.

When Tzachi Hanegbi spoke about 50 fateful days, I think he referred as much to the consequences of inaction, as to the consequences of any action.  If the prime minister has decided that it is too risky to send the forces in unilaterally, the question is what has he decided to do instead.  Clearly, doing nothing is not an option.  We are now relying on the creativity of the Israeli mind to find ways to get the Iranian nuclear bomb without the need to send in the troops.  Let us hope that this is  already in train.

With the onset of the Jewish New Year, we sincerely hope and pray that 5773 will bring a final answer to this issue.  We hope that, by the time we reach 5774, the issue of the Iranian nuclear bomb will be behind us once and for all.  We pray for the health and safety of all of our brave soldiers who give their time, energy and their souls in protecting Israel and the Jewish people.  May we find that elusive missing piece of the puzzle that will lead our country towards peaceful coexistence, and prosperity for all her people.

Wishing you and your family, and all the people of Israel, a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.