US President Barack Obama recently found it necessary to issue a special invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for him to return to the White House for a" charm offensive". This was required due to the persistent negative press about Obama's treatment of Netanyahu during his previous visit to Washington. This epitomises the treatment that Obama has dished out to Israel since becoming president nearly 18 months ago. His first attempts have been derogatory to say the least. He was then forced to make a second attempt to fix the damage done. This fact has not gone unnoticed by the Israeli public who interpret his first action as the one which comes most naturally. Somehow, the attempts to fix the problem feel more contrived and less heart-felt when they eventually come.
During his presidency to date, Obama has visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq in the Middle East. He made sure that his "keynote address" on Middle East policy was delivered in Cairo. Despite the fact that Israel remains the USA's most important ally in the Middle East, and the only democracy in the region, Obama has made an obvious point of not visiting Israel. What can be deduced from this behaviour? Even though he has spent some considerable time in dealing with Middle East issues, and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in particular, it sends a clear message to Israel when the US president does not find the time to pay Israel a personal visit. His predecessors made it their business to publicly be seen visiting Israel, so why is Obama so eager to avoid such a public display?
The truth is that the necessity to revisit his relationship with Netanyahu is only one example of Obama having to admit having done the wrong thing in relation to Israel at the first attempt. It was only a few months ago that Obama was forced to admit that his approach in dealing with the Middle East was mistaken, and that his administration was forced to change the way in which this was being handled. He admitted that he could not impose a settlement on Israel, that Israel is a sovereign nation and the notion that he could impose a settlement was simply wrong. What was he thinking when he considered the possibility of imposing a settlement on Israel? And why did he think that admitting such a ridiculous thought would be ok? The insult that he dished out to Israel in the process was only slighlty less than the damage done to his own standing by admitting that he had held this view. We have only seen the tip of the damage done, both to his Middle East policy and to his personal standing.
I cannot help but feel that this is not a series of innocent mistakes. It seems more like a natural instinct that he is finding hard to suppress when dealing with Israel. Having allowed his first reaction to come to the fore, he is forced to eat humble pie by admitting to his mistake, and trying to make good the damage caused. Unfortunately, his mistakes are too frequent and too consistent. When he should be affording Israel some respect, he is found to be critical and derogatory towards her. When he should be holding the feet of Israel's Arab enemies to the fire, he is found to be too cosy with them, and too accommodating of their behaviour.
The Israeli public seems to have been quick to pick up on this fact. In a poll published in the "Jerusalem Post" on Friday, it became all too apparent how optimistic Israelis were when he was first elected, and how this optimism has completed disappeared. At first, Israelis were caught up with the positive euphoria that swept the USA after the election of the first African American president. In a poll in May 2009, no fewer than 31% of Israelis felt that Obama was pro-Israel while 14% felt he was pro-Palestinian. By June 2009, the views of Israelis had changed dramatically to reflect only 6% believing that he was pro-Israel and 50% viewing him as pro-Palestinian. Now, after his charm offensive with Netanyahu and his first interview with an Israeli TV station since his arrival at the White House, the same poll shows 10% of Israelis seeing him as pr0-Israel and 46% as pro-Palestinian. This may "only" be a public opinion poll with no real effect on the political landscape, but these are the same people who will be voting in the next Israeli general election. A candidate who is seen to be too close with a US president viewed as anti-Israel is likely to suffer at the polls.
At best, Obama's mixed messages and amateurish behaviour with respect to the Middle East can be viewed as naive and poorly considered. For somebody, however, who is such an expert at ensuring that his messages have the correct spin for public consumption, his actions seem to be more than unintentional errors. While I have no evidence to support some of the conspiracy theories that circulate about Obama's Muslim ancestry and a hidden agenda on the part of the US president to promote Muslim interests in the Middle East (at the expense of the Jews), it is difficult to understand what Obama is trying to achieve in the region. I was recently reminded that Islam is handed down through the paternal line, and that Obama's father was a Muslim. Obama has, of course, made a point of reinforcing his Christian faith at every possible photo opportunity. From a Muslim perspective, however, this does not deny that he is a Muslim - it simply makes him a bad Muslim.
It is clear that Obama had a huge job on his hands to convert the euphoria and enormous hope that rested on his shoulders at the time of his election into actions that would satisfy his electorate and the world at large. It could be argued that the expectations were so high, that he had no chance of fulfilling them. When it comes to his Middle East policy, however, his efforts have been abysmal. The work done so far, and the damage with it, seems to be too large to overcome. It is my view that, irrespective of what he may achieve in the Middle East during the remainder of his time in the White House, nothing will be enough to recover from his poor start. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
Sunday, 18 July 2010
Monday, 12 July 2010
Can a Country be Jewish and Democratic?
Israel has frequently been criticised for being undemocratic due to the fact that it is a Jewish state. There are those who believe that it is impossible for Israel to be democratic as long as it is a Jewish country, and continues to adhere to the objective of maintaining its Jewish majority and character and protecting it wherever possible.
The preamble to Israel's Declaration of Independence confirms the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael to be known as the State of Israel. There can be no doubt that the driving force behind the creation of the State of Israel was the establishment of a Jewish country for Jews. The need for this in 1948 seemed to be clear to the majority of the world, as was evidenced by the vote at the United Nations which specified that a Jewish State will come into existence. Although the world order is different now more than 60 years later, the need for the existence of a Jewish state is as strong now as it was then. But, does the fact that Israel is uniquely Jewish prevent it from being a democracy? If so, what elements of being a Jewish state do not allow it to be a democracy?
While there appears not to be a universal definition of democracy, it is generally accepted that democracy is a form of government by the people, usually through elected representatives. The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English, 2009 says that democracy is "a system of government by the whole population of all eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". This system of government is one which allows the majority to decide how they wish to be governed. Even though many democracies today have also built in minority protection provisions, this concept is not necessarily a democratic one to the extent that minorities are granted protections or preferences at the expense of the majority.
Although Israel's Declaration of Independence does not mention the word "democracy", there can be no doubt that the founding fathers had every intention of establishing a democratic country. In support of this, the declaration did set out in some detail the democratic principles which the nascent state would follow. It specified that the State of Israel "will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations".
As a Jewish country, some aspects of Israeli society are governed by Jewish law. One example of this is the laws of marriage, which have no civil equivalent. This means that, in order to get married in Israel, it is necessary to hold a religious ceremony and be married by religious law. This is equally true for Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. It also means that Israeli law does not accommodate intermarriage between the faiths. While this may be extremely inconvenient, especially for those who wish to marry somebody of another faith, it is applied equally to all citizens of Israel. Can this be viewed as undemocratic? Although it does limit who a person may marry under the laws of the State of Israel, this does not fall into the definition of undemocratic.
The Law of Return, a law which affords immediate citizenship of Israel to all people with one Jewish grandparent, is often cited as being undemocratic. It essentially gives preferential citizenship of the State of Israel to all those who are Jewish or descend from a Jewish grandparent. By contrast, those who do not have Jewish ancestry are obliged to make application through the usual channels for Israeli residency and citizenship, are required to meet qualification requirements and will need to be naturalised. Although the Law of Return is different from laws applicable in other countries, the concept of having residency and citizenship laws which apply to different people in different ways is not uncommon. One example is the laws of the UK which favour citizens of the European Union and of the Commonwealth over other citizens for residency. There are those who may feel that these laws are discriminatory in that they favour some people over others. This may be so, but this fact in itself does not make the country undemocratic.
Israel is a small, democratic and Jewish country. Although it is not a unanimous view, the majority of Israel's residents wish to run it according to Jewish laws and traditions, and wish to see it stay that way in the future. It is for this reason that the weekly day of rest is Saturday and this is also the reason why shops and offices close on Yom Kippur, but remain open on Christmas. The democratic process has determined that this is how people want to live in this country. Other countries choose to adopt laws and traditions of other religions, and this does not cause their democracy to suffer. There should be no reason why the adoption of Jewish traditions should bring Israel's democracy into question.
Because Israel is such a small country, there is always the danger that an influx of non-Jewish people may use the democratic process to change the nature of the country. We already see the ridiculous situation where Arab citizens of Israel are elected to the Knesset as lawmakers of the country, and who then act in a way that attempts to undermine the Jewish character of Israel. They even collaborate with Israel's enemies to place the country's security at risk and endanger her people. Surely this is an abuse of Israel's democracy.
In order to ensure that Israel remains a Jewish country consistent with the objectives of her forefathers, and in the spirit of the approval by the nations of the world at the United Nations vote, it is necessary to democratically ensure that Israel continues to have a Jewish majority. With the vastly varied birthrates prevalent among different segments of the population and the immigration of non-Jews (some even under the Law of Return), this may ultimately prove to be a challenge.
Israel's enemies continue to use every possible tactic to discredit and to de-legitimise Israel at whenever possible. This includes using the notion that a Jewish country can never be democratic because it promotes a Jewish character and gives citizenship preference to Jews. The truth is that these are policies employed by all democracies, albeit in slightly different guises. In fact, it is ironic to see how little democracy is evident in countries from which many of Israel's enemies come. Despite this fact, they have no shame in using this argument against the Middle East's only democracy, and one of the beacons of democracy in the world.
Could it be that these people, to whom democracy has suddenly become an important issue, are using this argument as an anti-Semitic tactic? Stranger things have happened.
The preamble to Israel's Declaration of Independence confirms the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael to be known as the State of Israel. There can be no doubt that the driving force behind the creation of the State of Israel was the establishment of a Jewish country for Jews. The need for this in 1948 seemed to be clear to the majority of the world, as was evidenced by the vote at the United Nations which specified that a Jewish State will come into existence. Although the world order is different now more than 60 years later, the need for the existence of a Jewish state is as strong now as it was then. But, does the fact that Israel is uniquely Jewish prevent it from being a democracy? If so, what elements of being a Jewish state do not allow it to be a democracy?
While there appears not to be a universal definition of democracy, it is generally accepted that democracy is a form of government by the people, usually through elected representatives. The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English, 2009 says that democracy is "a system of government by the whole population of all eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". This system of government is one which allows the majority to decide how they wish to be governed. Even though many democracies today have also built in minority protection provisions, this concept is not necessarily a democratic one to the extent that minorities are granted protections or preferences at the expense of the majority.
Although Israel's Declaration of Independence does not mention the word "democracy", there can be no doubt that the founding fathers had every intention of establishing a democratic country. In support of this, the declaration did set out in some detail the democratic principles which the nascent state would follow. It specified that the State of Israel "will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations".
As a Jewish country, some aspects of Israeli society are governed by Jewish law. One example of this is the laws of marriage, which have no civil equivalent. This means that, in order to get married in Israel, it is necessary to hold a religious ceremony and be married by religious law. This is equally true for Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. It also means that Israeli law does not accommodate intermarriage between the faiths. While this may be extremely inconvenient, especially for those who wish to marry somebody of another faith, it is applied equally to all citizens of Israel. Can this be viewed as undemocratic? Although it does limit who a person may marry under the laws of the State of Israel, this does not fall into the definition of undemocratic.
The Law of Return, a law which affords immediate citizenship of Israel to all people with one Jewish grandparent, is often cited as being undemocratic. It essentially gives preferential citizenship of the State of Israel to all those who are Jewish or descend from a Jewish grandparent. By contrast, those who do not have Jewish ancestry are obliged to make application through the usual channels for Israeli residency and citizenship, are required to meet qualification requirements and will need to be naturalised. Although the Law of Return is different from laws applicable in other countries, the concept of having residency and citizenship laws which apply to different people in different ways is not uncommon. One example is the laws of the UK which favour citizens of the European Union and of the Commonwealth over other citizens for residency. There are those who may feel that these laws are discriminatory in that they favour some people over others. This may be so, but this fact in itself does not make the country undemocratic.
Israel is a small, democratic and Jewish country. Although it is not a unanimous view, the majority of Israel's residents wish to run it according to Jewish laws and traditions, and wish to see it stay that way in the future. It is for this reason that the weekly day of rest is Saturday and this is also the reason why shops and offices close on Yom Kippur, but remain open on Christmas. The democratic process has determined that this is how people want to live in this country. Other countries choose to adopt laws and traditions of other religions, and this does not cause their democracy to suffer. There should be no reason why the adoption of Jewish traditions should bring Israel's democracy into question.
Because Israel is such a small country, there is always the danger that an influx of non-Jewish people may use the democratic process to change the nature of the country. We already see the ridiculous situation where Arab citizens of Israel are elected to the Knesset as lawmakers of the country, and who then act in a way that attempts to undermine the Jewish character of Israel. They even collaborate with Israel's enemies to place the country's security at risk and endanger her people. Surely this is an abuse of Israel's democracy.
In order to ensure that Israel remains a Jewish country consistent with the objectives of her forefathers, and in the spirit of the approval by the nations of the world at the United Nations vote, it is necessary to democratically ensure that Israel continues to have a Jewish majority. With the vastly varied birthrates prevalent among different segments of the population and the immigration of non-Jews (some even under the Law of Return), this may ultimately prove to be a challenge.
Israel's enemies continue to use every possible tactic to discredit and to de-legitimise Israel at whenever possible. This includes using the notion that a Jewish country can never be democratic because it promotes a Jewish character and gives citizenship preference to Jews. The truth is that these are policies employed by all democracies, albeit in slightly different guises. In fact, it is ironic to see how little democracy is evident in countries from which many of Israel's enemies come. Despite this fact, they have no shame in using this argument against the Middle East's only democracy, and one of the beacons of democracy in the world.
Could it be that these people, to whom democracy has suddenly become an important issue, are using this argument as an anti-Semitic tactic? Stranger things have happened.
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Is Ahmadinejad Trying to Prepare the Groundwork?
Iranian president Ahmadinejad never loses an opportunity to criticise Israel or to suggest that the "Zionist entity" has no legitimate place on the world map. Although other leaders around the world, even the western world, may hold the same views, none has the audacity of the Iranian president to make these statements in such a public and confrontational way. Ahmadinejad has shown the audacity to go as far as even using the platform of the United Nations to make his outrageous and unacceptable declarations. Besides simply demonstrating the sort of anti-Semite that he is, what is really driving Ahmadinejad to continue making these statements?
The fact that he has the nerve to make such speeches is one thing. One may be prepared to accept this as coming from an uncouth and undesirable anti-Semite. The real problem is that the world seems to stand by and tolerate this most public and unacceptable display of racism without little more than a whisper or a murmur behind closed doors. By standing by and allowing Ahmadinejad to rant on without visibly standing up to criticise his public racism, the world essentially condones and accepts his behaviour. This, in turn, sends a dangerous message to the citizens of the world about what can be tolerated, and what is unacceptable.
The tactic that has been adopted by Ahmadinejad is clear, and has been successfully employed many times before. Over time, if Ahmadinejad continues to de-legitimise Israel in the way that he has been doing to date, the public will be tuned to accept any negative events that may befall Israel. An action such as an attack on Israel will simply be the next step in his strategy, and is likely to be accepted by the broader public as an entirely logical action in light of the substantial groundwork that has been done in preparing public opinion. Those who have been convinced that his statements are well founded will rejoice in any action taken to destroy Israel, and those who are not convinced will likely stand by and watch because they will have been readied to anticipate this as a logical next step.
Examples can be cited where the same tactic has been employed with great success. The implementation of Apartheid in South Africa also used a campaign of de-legitimisation before enacting the racism into law. By the time the racist policies were placed on the statute books, the general public was not only ready for this, it even expected that the legislation was necessary on the back of the substantial public campaign to make certain groups of people look like inferior citizens. The same tactics were used when forcing Jews to live in the Pale of Settlement during the 19th century and up to the end of the First World War. The general public was honed to accept that Jews were creatures that most people would not want to associate with, or live alongside. The action of expelling them to the shtetls (small Jewish towns) was supported by most citizens.
The most extreme, and perhaps most successful example of this strategy was employed by the Nazis prior to the Second World War. In the same way as Ahmadinejad does now, the Nazis never missed an opportunity to blame the Jews and to discredit them as human beings. By the time the extermination camps were built and the Shoah (the Jewish genocide during the Second World War) was initiated, the German population was fine-tuned to accept, tolerate and even desire that the Nazi government would take such action against the Jews. It was a logical next step to act out on the propaganda that the public had been fed about the Jews.
It is this strategy which Ahmadinejad and his cohorts are employing, and achieving some success. Even in our internet age where people are better informed and better able to make up their minds in an independent way, this propaganda is having an impact. I feel sure that there would be outrage if a Kassam or Katyusha rocket would be fired towards the sovereign territory of the USA, Sweden or New Zealand. In Israel, however, the world does not even receive the reports of the tens of rockets that are fired towards its sovereign territory on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. It is accepted as part of the landscape and not worthy of even reporting the event in the international press. The expectations have been set that firing rockets at Israel is "acceptable". There is no international outcry, no condemnation and no outrage. There is simply silent acceptance that this is the way that things are.
For Ahmadinejad, the first stage has been achieved. Israel can be publicly discredited and belittled without fear of international recriminations. Missiles can be fired at Israeli civilians without the world even noticing. The next stage is to ready the world for a missile attack that could kill vast numbers of Israelis or destroy Israel. Sufficient propaganda to convince the world that the "Zionist entity" does not deserve to have its rightful place in the family of nations may cause people to turn a blind eye to this as well. Perhaps, like in the Shoah, the public will expect Iran and the Arabs to follow up their propaganda and rhetoric with actions to destroy the State of Israel.
We live in a time when thousands of innocent citizens in Darfur, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and other places can be exterminated in the most evil way while the world looks by, or looks the other way. The notion that these people are not of sufficient value for the world to step in to assist them before the tragedy, or that they may somehow deserve this treatment still seems to exist.
For Israel and Jews around the world, this is the moment when the Israel Defence Force (IDF) steps in to take corrective action. When foreigners try to intervene to ship weapons and arms to our enemies who seek to destroy us, the Israeli Navy will intercept the shipments and prevent this danger. Even if the operation does not quite go according to plan, the message is clear. While the world sits back and allows such actions to take place before their eyes, the IDF will not. While Ahmadinejad trashes Israel on every international platform, the IDF will act against him and his allies to protect Israel and all Jews, no matter what the opinion of the international community.
It is a shame that the international community continues to be so gullible in its views, and so impotent in standing up to threats of this type and genocides which too frequently still occur. The truth is that Ahmadinejad may not be satisfied with directing his attentions only towards Israel. Bin-Laden and others have shown that all western countries are on their radar, and not exempt from terrorist activities. Israel is a proud nation whose citizens are willing and able to stand up to this threat. Past events have proved this on countless occasions, and no amount of groundwork done by Ahmadinejad can change this.
The fact that he has the nerve to make such speeches is one thing. One may be prepared to accept this as coming from an uncouth and undesirable anti-Semite. The real problem is that the world seems to stand by and tolerate this most public and unacceptable display of racism without little more than a whisper or a murmur behind closed doors. By standing by and allowing Ahmadinejad to rant on without visibly standing up to criticise his public racism, the world essentially condones and accepts his behaviour. This, in turn, sends a dangerous message to the citizens of the world about what can be tolerated, and what is unacceptable.
The tactic that has been adopted by Ahmadinejad is clear, and has been successfully employed many times before. Over time, if Ahmadinejad continues to de-legitimise Israel in the way that he has been doing to date, the public will be tuned to accept any negative events that may befall Israel. An action such as an attack on Israel will simply be the next step in his strategy, and is likely to be accepted by the broader public as an entirely logical action in light of the substantial groundwork that has been done in preparing public opinion. Those who have been convinced that his statements are well founded will rejoice in any action taken to destroy Israel, and those who are not convinced will likely stand by and watch because they will have been readied to anticipate this as a logical next step.
Examples can be cited where the same tactic has been employed with great success. The implementation of Apartheid in South Africa also used a campaign of de-legitimisation before enacting the racism into law. By the time the racist policies were placed on the statute books, the general public was not only ready for this, it even expected that the legislation was necessary on the back of the substantial public campaign to make certain groups of people look like inferior citizens. The same tactics were used when forcing Jews to live in the Pale of Settlement during the 19th century and up to the end of the First World War. The general public was honed to accept that Jews were creatures that most people would not want to associate with, or live alongside. The action of expelling them to the shtetls (small Jewish towns) was supported by most citizens.
The most extreme, and perhaps most successful example of this strategy was employed by the Nazis prior to the Second World War. In the same way as Ahmadinejad does now, the Nazis never missed an opportunity to blame the Jews and to discredit them as human beings. By the time the extermination camps were built and the Shoah (the Jewish genocide during the Second World War) was initiated, the German population was fine-tuned to accept, tolerate and even desire that the Nazi government would take such action against the Jews. It was a logical next step to act out on the propaganda that the public had been fed about the Jews.
It is this strategy which Ahmadinejad and his cohorts are employing, and achieving some success. Even in our internet age where people are better informed and better able to make up their minds in an independent way, this propaganda is having an impact. I feel sure that there would be outrage if a Kassam or Katyusha rocket would be fired towards the sovereign territory of the USA, Sweden or New Zealand. In Israel, however, the world does not even receive the reports of the tens of rockets that are fired towards its sovereign territory on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. It is accepted as part of the landscape and not worthy of even reporting the event in the international press. The expectations have been set that firing rockets at Israel is "acceptable". There is no international outcry, no condemnation and no outrage. There is simply silent acceptance that this is the way that things are.
For Ahmadinejad, the first stage has been achieved. Israel can be publicly discredited and belittled without fear of international recriminations. Missiles can be fired at Israeli civilians without the world even noticing. The next stage is to ready the world for a missile attack that could kill vast numbers of Israelis or destroy Israel. Sufficient propaganda to convince the world that the "Zionist entity" does not deserve to have its rightful place in the family of nations may cause people to turn a blind eye to this as well. Perhaps, like in the Shoah, the public will expect Iran and the Arabs to follow up their propaganda and rhetoric with actions to destroy the State of Israel.
We live in a time when thousands of innocent citizens in Darfur, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and other places can be exterminated in the most evil way while the world looks by, or looks the other way. The notion that these people are not of sufficient value for the world to step in to assist them before the tragedy, or that they may somehow deserve this treatment still seems to exist.
For Israel and Jews around the world, this is the moment when the Israel Defence Force (IDF) steps in to take corrective action. When foreigners try to intervene to ship weapons and arms to our enemies who seek to destroy us, the Israeli Navy will intercept the shipments and prevent this danger. Even if the operation does not quite go according to plan, the message is clear. While the world sits back and allows such actions to take place before their eyes, the IDF will not. While Ahmadinejad trashes Israel on every international platform, the IDF will act against him and his allies to protect Israel and all Jews, no matter what the opinion of the international community.
It is a shame that the international community continues to be so gullible in its views, and so impotent in standing up to threats of this type and genocides which too frequently still occur. The truth is that Ahmadinejad may not be satisfied with directing his attentions only towards Israel. Bin-Laden and others have shown that all western countries are on their radar, and not exempt from terrorist activities. Israel is a proud nation whose citizens are willing and able to stand up to this threat. Past events have proved this on countless occasions, and no amount of groundwork done by Ahmadinejad can change this.
Sunday, 27 June 2010
What Does Hamas Really Want for Shalit?
Friday 25th June 2010 marked the fourth anniversary since Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was taken into captivity by Hamas. He was kidnapped on the Israeli side of the Gaza border and quickly smuggled into the Gaza Strip. This is where he has been held for four unrelenting years in the most evil and un-humanitarian way possible.
Even the most basic human rights required under the Geneva Convention have not been afforded to Gilad during his captivity. The International Committee of the Red Cross has made numerous requests to be given access to Gilad, all of which have been denied by Hamas. The excuse given is that such access will give the Israelis information about where he is being held, and this may result in an Israeli raid to try to free him. It is my belief that Israel knows exactly where Gilad is being held. The only thing stopping the IDF from mounting a raid to return Gilad home, is the fear that Hamas may kill Gilad if there was an attempt to free him by force. The IDF can never forget the death of kidnapped soldier Nachshon Waxman who was killed in a raid to free him in 1994.
During the past four years, the Shalit family has not left a stone unturned in their efforts on behalf of their brother, son and grandson. They have ensured that his name is on everybody's lips and in everyone's thoughts by mounting advertising campaigns, holding numerous meetings with government and holding events and activities. Gilad's grandfather recently met with Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss the matter with him on behalf of the family. The family will leave on Sunday to walk from their home in the north of Israel to Jerusalem. They intend to set up a protest tent opposite the official residence of the prime minister, and not to leave it until Gilad is home. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Shalit family, and their efforts under the most extreme and tragic of circumstances.
Hamas and other Palestinian groups have frequently made clear their desire and intention to kidnap Israelis, preferably IDF soldiers. We are led to understand that their objective is to use captured Israelis as tools to negotiate the release of their colleagues held in Israeli jails for terror activities. This is confirmed by previous prisoner swap deals which have been successfully negotiated, and in which hundreds of Palestinian prisoners have been set free by Israel in exchange for one Israeli, or even the remains of an Israeli. The Israeli government takes very seriously its responsibility to return home captured Israelis, or their remains, almost at any price. Still fresh in our memories is the deal done with Hezbollah to return the bodies of captured soldiers Eldad Regev z"l and Ehud Goldwasser z"l almost two years ago. We also recall the deal done to repatriate rogue Israeli businessman Elchanan Tenenbaum in 2004.
When considering the above facts, it is surprising that Shalit continues to languish in captivity in Gaza. There can be no doubt that Israel wishes to do all that it can to return him home as soon as possible. The government has appointed Hagai Hadas as its official negotiator on the case, and has enlisted the help of a German mediator with the express intention of concluding a deal to free Gilad. Hamas, on the other hand, seems not to have made any real steps in the direction of concluding a deal to free their colleagues in line with their stated intentions. Although not all the details of the negotiations have been made publicly available, judging by things that have come out in public and particularly reactions of the independent German mediator, there is evidence that Hamas has not been negotiating in good faith. There is a view that Hamas is not holding Gilad hostage for the purpose of releasing its prisoners, but rather for the purpose of holding Israel hostage. This, they are achieving very effectively.
This lack of good faith, and the tactic of holding Israel to ransom without any real intention of releasing the hostage, is consistent with much of Hamas' behaviour in its dealings with Israel. Whether it is the use of civilian neighbourhoods to wage war, the firing of missiles randomly at Israeli civilians or faking situations for the sake of international news cameras, Hamas has shown itself to be untrustworthy and unreliable in almost every respect. All the while that negotiations for the release of Shalit continue, Hamas remains in the news. The moment that the deal is done, there is a danger that they may lose the news headlines. Perhaps this is the reason why they don't intend to conclude a deal.
As time goes on and there is no evidence of any meaningful progress for the release of Gilad, I am increasingly of the view that the IDF may have no choice but to mount an operation to free him by force. While this does risk the possibility that he may be killed, it also represents a small chance that he may be freed. For now at least, this chance looks better than a possible negotiated solution.
Until then, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with Gilad. Special prayer for Gilad's safety.
Even the most basic human rights required under the Geneva Convention have not been afforded to Gilad during his captivity. The International Committee of the Red Cross has made numerous requests to be given access to Gilad, all of which have been denied by Hamas. The excuse given is that such access will give the Israelis information about where he is being held, and this may result in an Israeli raid to try to free him. It is my belief that Israel knows exactly where Gilad is being held. The only thing stopping the IDF from mounting a raid to return Gilad home, is the fear that Hamas may kill Gilad if there was an attempt to free him by force. The IDF can never forget the death of kidnapped soldier Nachshon Waxman who was killed in a raid to free him in 1994.
During the past four years, the Shalit family has not left a stone unturned in their efforts on behalf of their brother, son and grandson. They have ensured that his name is on everybody's lips and in everyone's thoughts by mounting advertising campaigns, holding numerous meetings with government and holding events and activities. Gilad's grandfather recently met with Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss the matter with him on behalf of the family. The family will leave on Sunday to walk from their home in the north of Israel to Jerusalem. They intend to set up a protest tent opposite the official residence of the prime minister, and not to leave it until Gilad is home. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Shalit family, and their efforts under the most extreme and tragic of circumstances.
Hamas and other Palestinian groups have frequently made clear their desire and intention to kidnap Israelis, preferably IDF soldiers. We are led to understand that their objective is to use captured Israelis as tools to negotiate the release of their colleagues held in Israeli jails for terror activities. This is confirmed by previous prisoner swap deals which have been successfully negotiated, and in which hundreds of Palestinian prisoners have been set free by Israel in exchange for one Israeli, or even the remains of an Israeli. The Israeli government takes very seriously its responsibility to return home captured Israelis, or their remains, almost at any price. Still fresh in our memories is the deal done with Hezbollah to return the bodies of captured soldiers Eldad Regev z"l and Ehud Goldwasser z"l almost two years ago. We also recall the deal done to repatriate rogue Israeli businessman Elchanan Tenenbaum in 2004.
When considering the above facts, it is surprising that Shalit continues to languish in captivity in Gaza. There can be no doubt that Israel wishes to do all that it can to return him home as soon as possible. The government has appointed Hagai Hadas as its official negotiator on the case, and has enlisted the help of a German mediator with the express intention of concluding a deal to free Gilad. Hamas, on the other hand, seems not to have made any real steps in the direction of concluding a deal to free their colleagues in line with their stated intentions. Although not all the details of the negotiations have been made publicly available, judging by things that have come out in public and particularly reactions of the independent German mediator, there is evidence that Hamas has not been negotiating in good faith. There is a view that Hamas is not holding Gilad hostage for the purpose of releasing its prisoners, but rather for the purpose of holding Israel hostage. This, they are achieving very effectively.
This lack of good faith, and the tactic of holding Israel to ransom without any real intention of releasing the hostage, is consistent with much of Hamas' behaviour in its dealings with Israel. Whether it is the use of civilian neighbourhoods to wage war, the firing of missiles randomly at Israeli civilians or faking situations for the sake of international news cameras, Hamas has shown itself to be untrustworthy and unreliable in almost every respect. All the while that negotiations for the release of Shalit continue, Hamas remains in the news. The moment that the deal is done, there is a danger that they may lose the news headlines. Perhaps this is the reason why they don't intend to conclude a deal.
As time goes on and there is no evidence of any meaningful progress for the release of Gilad, I am increasingly of the view that the IDF may have no choice but to mount an operation to free him by force. While this does risk the possibility that he may be killed, it also represents a small chance that he may be freed. For now at least, this chance looks better than a possible negotiated solution.
Until then, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with Gilad. Special prayer for Gilad's safety.
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Religion Taken Too Far
The story involving the Haredi school in the West Bank settlement town of Immanuel has stolen all the news headlines this week. While it was a welcome change to see stories of the Gaza flotilla raid drop from the front pages, this was not the story that we had hoped to see replace it. It is a story which truly begs the question as to how far religion should be taken, and at what price.
The story stretches back three years when the problems in the school in Immanuel first began. The high school, which is funded by the Ministry of Education, caters to the religious girls of Immanuel. The settlement houses a group of Slonim Hassidim, who are Ashkenazim with their ancestors coming from Europe, in addition to a community of religious Sephardim. The girls of both groups are designated to attend the girls school at the centre of the disagreement. At some point, the Haredim from the Slonim sect decided that the Sephardi families are not sufficiently religious for them, and that they do not wish their daughters to attend the school with the Sephardi girls. The main objections cited were that the families watch TV, have internet at home and adhere to a dress code that is too lax. In response, the Ashkenazi families included 25 Sephardi girls who were sufficiently religious for their standards, then separated their daughters from the remainder of the Sephardi girls. This went as far as building separation walls and structures in the schools to divide the two streams.
The Sephardi objectors to this situation took their case to the High Court of Justice to voice their opposition to the separation. The High Court ruled against the separation and forced the school to remove the walls and the separation. In response, the Ashkenazi sect decided to withdraw their daughters from the school. Once again, the High Court was called upon to judge this situation, and ruled that it is illegal for the parents to keep their daughters out of school. When the parents continued to ignore the High Court rulings, they were advised that they could be jailed for not sending their daughters to school. After consulting with their Rabbis, they decided that it is preferable to go to jail rather than send their daughters to the school. Eventually on Thursday, 35 fathers were taken to jail for a 2 week period. A crowd of 100,000 gathered to create heroes out of these parents, and to demonstrate against the High Court rulings which, they claim, come out against the Haredi community and violate Jewish law.
The court ruled, quite rightly in my view, that discrimination of this type is not acceptable in any school in Israel. This is a critical stake in the ground by the court, and came from High Court Judge Edmond Levey, who is religiously observant. The Ashkenazi parents claim in their defence, that this is not discrimination but rather a case of being allowed to decide which type of people their daughters mix with in their school environment. It is true that every parent wishes to ensure that their child attends a school which allows them to mix only with "appropriate" other children. "Appropriate" usually refers to others who have similar values, and are seeking similar things from the schooling system. For the Slonim in Immanuel, the level of religiosity of other students in the school is an important factor in determining who is appropriate for their daughters to mix with. If they had opened a private school and financed it from their own funds, they may have the right to determine who will and will not attend the school. Given that this is a state school operated by public funds, certain rules are laid down by the Ministry of Education. One of the rules is that the school will be required to accept all pupils in the catchment area whose parents wish to send them to a state school. The concept of segregating a state school to prevent pupils who are "not appropriate" appears to be almost without precedent.
The attitude of the Slonim towards the state school in Immanuel is unfortunately representative of the general attitude of the Hassidic community in Israel towards the state. On the one hand, they contribute very little to the state. They mostly do not work and, therefore, do not pay taxes or National Insurance contributions. Their children do not serve in the army nor serve the state in an alternative national service framework like all other Israelis are expected to do. They have no qualms about drawing benefits or stipends via their learning institutions which are government funded. And now, they feel that they have the right to dictate who should be entitled to attend the state-funded schools that their children attend. All of this in the name of religion.
It would be true and fair to acknowledge that Judaism has been enjoying one of its greatest periods of study and enlightenment of all time, and this has been driven by the religious community. It is also fair to point out that the secular Israeli community has largely facilitated, funded and secured those who have undertaken the study and development of Jewish texts and Jewish law. It is, therefore, extremely unfortunate that the religious community chooses to accuse the secular community of acting against it in terms which are reserved for only the greatest anti-Semites in history. This comparison serves to desecrate G-d's name in the most unacceptable way.
It is my belief that Judaism does not promote the concept of driving a wedge between Jews of different flavours and colours. On the contrary, the Jewish religion encourages togetherness and tolerance, even if some Jews are not sufficiently observant for others. One can still be a good Jew when sending one's daughters to a school where other children watch TV at home. After all, Jews were forced to compromise in this way for centuries until we even had the luxury of sending our children to Jewish schools. The prime minister expressed the view of millions of Israelis when encouraging the parties to come to a compromise in view of the magnitude of external threats that Israelis and Jews around the world continue to face. We can ill-afford to tolerate in-fighting of this nature when we require our strength and resources for other battles.
The Ashkenazi parents will most likely spend their time in jail, and return to Immanuel to fight the next round of the battle. In their view, anything which is done in the name of G-d (as dictated by their leading Rabbis) is more justified than any other action. It is indeed unfortunate that these Rabbis are the ones who are misleading their flock into a conflict which cannot be justified nor tolerated.
This is a classic case of religion taken too far, and should be opposed in every way possible to preserve sanity and fair play in Israel.
The story stretches back three years when the problems in the school in Immanuel first began. The high school, which is funded by the Ministry of Education, caters to the religious girls of Immanuel. The settlement houses a group of Slonim Hassidim, who are Ashkenazim with their ancestors coming from Europe, in addition to a community of religious Sephardim. The girls of both groups are designated to attend the girls school at the centre of the disagreement. At some point, the Haredim from the Slonim sect decided that the Sephardi families are not sufficiently religious for them, and that they do not wish their daughters to attend the school with the Sephardi girls. The main objections cited were that the families watch TV, have internet at home and adhere to a dress code that is too lax. In response, the Ashkenazi families included 25 Sephardi girls who were sufficiently religious for their standards, then separated their daughters from the remainder of the Sephardi girls. This went as far as building separation walls and structures in the schools to divide the two streams.
The Sephardi objectors to this situation took their case to the High Court of Justice to voice their opposition to the separation. The High Court ruled against the separation and forced the school to remove the walls and the separation. In response, the Ashkenazi sect decided to withdraw their daughters from the school. Once again, the High Court was called upon to judge this situation, and ruled that it is illegal for the parents to keep their daughters out of school. When the parents continued to ignore the High Court rulings, they were advised that they could be jailed for not sending their daughters to school. After consulting with their Rabbis, they decided that it is preferable to go to jail rather than send their daughters to the school. Eventually on Thursday, 35 fathers were taken to jail for a 2 week period. A crowd of 100,000 gathered to create heroes out of these parents, and to demonstrate against the High Court rulings which, they claim, come out against the Haredi community and violate Jewish law.
The court ruled, quite rightly in my view, that discrimination of this type is not acceptable in any school in Israel. This is a critical stake in the ground by the court, and came from High Court Judge Edmond Levey, who is religiously observant. The Ashkenazi parents claim in their defence, that this is not discrimination but rather a case of being allowed to decide which type of people their daughters mix with in their school environment. It is true that every parent wishes to ensure that their child attends a school which allows them to mix only with "appropriate" other children. "Appropriate" usually refers to others who have similar values, and are seeking similar things from the schooling system. For the Slonim in Immanuel, the level of religiosity of other students in the school is an important factor in determining who is appropriate for their daughters to mix with. If they had opened a private school and financed it from their own funds, they may have the right to determine who will and will not attend the school. Given that this is a state school operated by public funds, certain rules are laid down by the Ministry of Education. One of the rules is that the school will be required to accept all pupils in the catchment area whose parents wish to send them to a state school. The concept of segregating a state school to prevent pupils who are "not appropriate" appears to be almost without precedent.
The attitude of the Slonim towards the state school in Immanuel is unfortunately representative of the general attitude of the Hassidic community in Israel towards the state. On the one hand, they contribute very little to the state. They mostly do not work and, therefore, do not pay taxes or National Insurance contributions. Their children do not serve in the army nor serve the state in an alternative national service framework like all other Israelis are expected to do. They have no qualms about drawing benefits or stipends via their learning institutions which are government funded. And now, they feel that they have the right to dictate who should be entitled to attend the state-funded schools that their children attend. All of this in the name of religion.
It would be true and fair to acknowledge that Judaism has been enjoying one of its greatest periods of study and enlightenment of all time, and this has been driven by the religious community. It is also fair to point out that the secular Israeli community has largely facilitated, funded and secured those who have undertaken the study and development of Jewish texts and Jewish law. It is, therefore, extremely unfortunate that the religious community chooses to accuse the secular community of acting against it in terms which are reserved for only the greatest anti-Semites in history. This comparison serves to desecrate G-d's name in the most unacceptable way.
It is my belief that Judaism does not promote the concept of driving a wedge between Jews of different flavours and colours. On the contrary, the Jewish religion encourages togetherness and tolerance, even if some Jews are not sufficiently observant for others. One can still be a good Jew when sending one's daughters to a school where other children watch TV at home. After all, Jews were forced to compromise in this way for centuries until we even had the luxury of sending our children to Jewish schools. The prime minister expressed the view of millions of Israelis when encouraging the parties to come to a compromise in view of the magnitude of external threats that Israelis and Jews around the world continue to face. We can ill-afford to tolerate in-fighting of this nature when we require our strength and resources for other battles.
The Ashkenazi parents will most likely spend their time in jail, and return to Immanuel to fight the next round of the battle. In their view, anything which is done in the name of G-d (as dictated by their leading Rabbis) is more justified than any other action. It is indeed unfortunate that these Rabbis are the ones who are misleading their flock into a conflict which cannot be justified nor tolerated.
This is a classic case of religion taken too far, and should be opposed in every way possible to preserve sanity and fair play in Israel.
Sunday, 13 June 2010
With Friends Like These ..........
The recent Gaza flotilla raid, which saw Israeli security forces killing 9 Turkish activists aboard the Marvi Marmara, has put Israel's relationship with Turkey under the spotlight. The anti-Israeli rhetoric by Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the waves of anti-Israel protests that followed the incident aboard the Turkish ship all seem to ignore the relationship that Turkey and Israel have enjoyed until now. But what is the nature of this relationship that it can collapse at the slightest sign of disagreement?
The Turks have a long-standing relationship with the land of Israel, and with the Jews who have lived here over the years. The Ottomans, the predecessors of the modern-day Turks, ruled over Jerusalem for a period of approximately 400 years stretching from 1517 until Palestine was handed over to the British Mandate in 1917. The period of their rule over Jerusalem was characterised by religious peace and tolerance, and included the reconstruction of much of the wall which surrounds the old city. Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognise the newly-declared State of Israel when it formally entered into diplomatic relations with Israel in March 1949.
Although Turkey is a Muslim country, it has long held a position as a bridge between east and west, and between Muslim and western cultures. Physically, Turkey's position at the intersection between Europe and Asia established Constantinople (now Istanbul) as an important trading city, and a location with a rich mix and diversity of cultures. This, together with the Balkan, Slavic and Greek influence from around its borders means that Turkey is not a "classic" Muslim country like those of the Arabian peninsula and the Arabian Gulf. The rise of Ataturk to the presidency of the first Turkish Republic further diluted the Muslim influence when Ataturk changed the alphabet from Arabic characters to a new Turkish alphabet based on Latin characters, and implemented further changes to reduce the influence of Arabic culture on Turkey. Despite significant success in creating a secular Turkish culture separate from Islamic culture, the Islamic influence on Turkey was never far away. With a population of nearly 70 million, and more than 90% of them Muslims, Turkey represents a significant Islamic centre of gravity outside the Arab world.
Turkey's somewhat schizophrenic personality seems to be strongly influenced by its position as the crossing point in the world. This has created a mentality of traders, of people who know how to look for the next good deal and to take maximum advantage of market conditions. Turkey tried for many years to be accepted for candidacy to the European Union. It was rebuffed on a number of occasions largely, I believe, because of the fear by the Europeans of admitting a country whose population will dwarf many of the existing members, and create a huge economic burden on the EU. The recent Greek experience has proved that this concern was justified. The result of its repeated failed attempts at joining the western alliance has been for the Turks to look east, and towards its Muslim brothers.
Israel's relations with Turkey over the years have had an opportunistic feel about them for both countries. Israel has had the opportunity to supply Turkey with arms, and Israeli tourists have had the opportunity to enjoy inexpensive value-for-money holidays in the south of Turkey. Exports by Israel to Turkey have been in the region of $1.5 billion per annum with approximately $1 billion per annum in the opposite direction. A free trade agreement was signed in 2000 between the two countries, and there was talk of the construction of pipelines for the supply of oil, gas, electricity and water. The economic relations were never underpinned by a real base of friendship and mutual respect. Rather, they were good while the opportunity presented itself. Turkey also attempted to use its bridgehead position between the west and the Muslim world to become involved in peace-making between Israel and its Arab enemies. Turkey's efforts never bore any fruits, and often seemed to be interrupted by Turkey's close links with its Muslim brethren. It seemed inevitable that the conflict of interests between Turkey's Islamic links, and its attempts to exploit the trading opportunities with Israel would eventually raise its head.
The first sign of a real crack came during the Gaza War of 2008. Turkish prime minister Erdogan was one of the most vocal critics of Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza. He warned that Israel's actions would bring it to self-destruction, and invoked Islamic sympathies by declaring that Allah would punish those who transgress the rights of the innocent. At around the same time, the ties between Turkey and Iran were gradually improved. For Turkey, Iran's more than 70 million people represent a significant economic opportunity. For Iran's Ahmadinejad, Turkey's relations with western countries could be exploited to promote his nuclear interests and his hatred of Israel. The moment for Turkey to decide between furthering its Iranian links or continuing ties with Israel was drawing nearer.
The Gaza flotilla incident a couple of weeks ago represented a turning point in Turkey's Middle Eastern allegiance, and showed clearly in which direction Erdogan is taking his country. The largest of the Gaza flotilla vessels, the Marvi Marmara, was a Turkish vessel, was sponsored by Turkish organisations and carried Turkish nationals. These were not ordinary peace-loving Turkish nationals with human rights on their minds. These were Turks who were armed and trained to come and seek confrontation with the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). If this is what they sought, they certainly fulfilled their wishes although it is not clear that they understood how far the IDF soldiers would go to protect themselves and their homeland. The more that is written about those on board the Marvi Marmara, the more it becomes clear that a bloodbath of some sort was almost unavoidable from the moment that this ship set sail from Turkey.
Erdogan has come out in criticism of Israel and its actions. He has ensured that the terrorists were afforded a hero's return to Turkey, and the deceased a hero's funeral. He has succeeded in whipping up anti-Israel fervour in Turkey in a way which is almost unprecedented. He has become the new saviour and hero revered by the Palestinian people and the broader Muslim world. Our new hero has even offered to escort a new flotilla to attempt to break the Gaza blockade with Turkish naval vessels, and with his personal attendance. Although I believe this is not seriously intended and is simply taking advantage of his press limelight, it would certainly be interesting to see where this would take him. Israel would almost certainly regard this as an act of war.
The friendly relations between Israel and Turkey are clearly something of the past. The closer Turkey draws to countries like Iran and Syria, the less economic benefit it is likely to enjoy from its now-shrinking relationship with Israel. This is also likely to harm its relationship with the USA, which has been strengthened in recent years by Turkey's membership of NATO. Turkey has represented an important foothold in the Middle East for the USA and NATO, but it seems unlikely that this relationship can continue in the same way as before in light of recent events. The USA and its allies would have taken careful note of Turkey's vote against sanctions on Iran in the recent UN Security Council vote. Turkey has shown its intentions in no uncertain terms.
The problem for Turkey in taking its current course, is that Iran has not necessarily proved itself to be the most loyal friend to its allies. Like Turkey, it is a master at exploiting relations for short-term opportunistic gain. So when Ahmadinejad (or his successor) decides Turkey's usefulness has run out, Turkey may find itself back in diplomatic no-man's land. For now, though, Turkey seems happy to take this route, and the associated risk. Perhaps Turkey and Iran are well-suited to each other. After all, birds of a feather do seem to flock together.
The Turks have a long-standing relationship with the land of Israel, and with the Jews who have lived here over the years. The Ottomans, the predecessors of the modern-day Turks, ruled over Jerusalem for a period of approximately 400 years stretching from 1517 until Palestine was handed over to the British Mandate in 1917. The period of their rule over Jerusalem was characterised by religious peace and tolerance, and included the reconstruction of much of the wall which surrounds the old city. Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognise the newly-declared State of Israel when it formally entered into diplomatic relations with Israel in March 1949.
Although Turkey is a Muslim country, it has long held a position as a bridge between east and west, and between Muslim and western cultures. Physically, Turkey's position at the intersection between Europe and Asia established Constantinople (now Istanbul) as an important trading city, and a location with a rich mix and diversity of cultures. This, together with the Balkan, Slavic and Greek influence from around its borders means that Turkey is not a "classic" Muslim country like those of the Arabian peninsula and the Arabian Gulf. The rise of Ataturk to the presidency of the first Turkish Republic further diluted the Muslim influence when Ataturk changed the alphabet from Arabic characters to a new Turkish alphabet based on Latin characters, and implemented further changes to reduce the influence of Arabic culture on Turkey. Despite significant success in creating a secular Turkish culture separate from Islamic culture, the Islamic influence on Turkey was never far away. With a population of nearly 70 million, and more than 90% of them Muslims, Turkey represents a significant Islamic centre of gravity outside the Arab world.
Turkey's somewhat schizophrenic personality seems to be strongly influenced by its position as the crossing point in the world. This has created a mentality of traders, of people who know how to look for the next good deal and to take maximum advantage of market conditions. Turkey tried for many years to be accepted for candidacy to the European Union. It was rebuffed on a number of occasions largely, I believe, because of the fear by the Europeans of admitting a country whose population will dwarf many of the existing members, and create a huge economic burden on the EU. The recent Greek experience has proved that this concern was justified. The result of its repeated failed attempts at joining the western alliance has been for the Turks to look east, and towards its Muslim brothers.
Israel's relations with Turkey over the years have had an opportunistic feel about them for both countries. Israel has had the opportunity to supply Turkey with arms, and Israeli tourists have had the opportunity to enjoy inexpensive value-for-money holidays in the south of Turkey. Exports by Israel to Turkey have been in the region of $1.5 billion per annum with approximately $1 billion per annum in the opposite direction. A free trade agreement was signed in 2000 between the two countries, and there was talk of the construction of pipelines for the supply of oil, gas, electricity and water. The economic relations were never underpinned by a real base of friendship and mutual respect. Rather, they were good while the opportunity presented itself. Turkey also attempted to use its bridgehead position between the west and the Muslim world to become involved in peace-making between Israel and its Arab enemies. Turkey's efforts never bore any fruits, and often seemed to be interrupted by Turkey's close links with its Muslim brethren. It seemed inevitable that the conflict of interests between Turkey's Islamic links, and its attempts to exploit the trading opportunities with Israel would eventually raise its head.
The first sign of a real crack came during the Gaza War of 2008. Turkish prime minister Erdogan was one of the most vocal critics of Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza. He warned that Israel's actions would bring it to self-destruction, and invoked Islamic sympathies by declaring that Allah would punish those who transgress the rights of the innocent. At around the same time, the ties between Turkey and Iran were gradually improved. For Turkey, Iran's more than 70 million people represent a significant economic opportunity. For Iran's Ahmadinejad, Turkey's relations with western countries could be exploited to promote his nuclear interests and his hatred of Israel. The moment for Turkey to decide between furthering its Iranian links or continuing ties with Israel was drawing nearer.
The Gaza flotilla incident a couple of weeks ago represented a turning point in Turkey's Middle Eastern allegiance, and showed clearly in which direction Erdogan is taking his country. The largest of the Gaza flotilla vessels, the Marvi Marmara, was a Turkish vessel, was sponsored by Turkish organisations and carried Turkish nationals. These were not ordinary peace-loving Turkish nationals with human rights on their minds. These were Turks who were armed and trained to come and seek confrontation with the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). If this is what they sought, they certainly fulfilled their wishes although it is not clear that they understood how far the IDF soldiers would go to protect themselves and their homeland. The more that is written about those on board the Marvi Marmara, the more it becomes clear that a bloodbath of some sort was almost unavoidable from the moment that this ship set sail from Turkey.
Erdogan has come out in criticism of Israel and its actions. He has ensured that the terrorists were afforded a hero's return to Turkey, and the deceased a hero's funeral. He has succeeded in whipping up anti-Israel fervour in Turkey in a way which is almost unprecedented. He has become the new saviour and hero revered by the Palestinian people and the broader Muslim world. Our new hero has even offered to escort a new flotilla to attempt to break the Gaza blockade with Turkish naval vessels, and with his personal attendance. Although I believe this is not seriously intended and is simply taking advantage of his press limelight, it would certainly be interesting to see where this would take him. Israel would almost certainly regard this as an act of war.
The friendly relations between Israel and Turkey are clearly something of the past. The closer Turkey draws to countries like Iran and Syria, the less economic benefit it is likely to enjoy from its now-shrinking relationship with Israel. This is also likely to harm its relationship with the USA, which has been strengthened in recent years by Turkey's membership of NATO. Turkey has represented an important foothold in the Middle East for the USA and NATO, but it seems unlikely that this relationship can continue in the same way as before in light of recent events. The USA and its allies would have taken careful note of Turkey's vote against sanctions on Iran in the recent UN Security Council vote. Turkey has shown its intentions in no uncertain terms.
The problem for Turkey in taking its current course, is that Iran has not necessarily proved itself to be the most loyal friend to its allies. Like Turkey, it is a master at exploiting relations for short-term opportunistic gain. So when Ahmadinejad (or his successor) decides Turkey's usefulness has run out, Turkey may find itself back in diplomatic no-man's land. For now, though, Turkey seems happy to take this route, and the associated risk. Perhaps Turkey and Iran are well-suited to each other. After all, birds of a feather do seem to flock together.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
The Flotilla Fiasco
The events surrounding the fiasco of the so-called Gaza Flotilla over the past few days have captured headlines around the world. I join with all those who have expressed their regrets and condolences to the families of those who died in the incident. It is never good when people die unnecessarily, even if they are people who are enemies and have come to our land with the intention of destabilising our country and threatening our citizens.
I refer to the incident as a fiasco, not because I believe that the Israeli navy did the wrong thing by confronting the ships and preventing them from entering Gaza. On the contrary, I fully support the efforts made by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), and the navy in particular, to enforce the blockade on Gaza. The fiasco that I refer to is the violence that was initiated by some of the activists on board one of the flotilla ships, the Marvi Marmara, and the decision by IDF commanders to continue to drop commando troops onto the ship despite the fact that it was obvious that they were being launched into the middle of a lynch mob.
The Gaza blockade was implemented after the end of the Gaza War in 2009 with the objective of preventing weapons and military hardware from being brought into the Gaza Strip. This was in response to the ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza which were an attempt to endanger citizens of Israel. Although the blockade has not succeeded in completely halting the hostilities from Gaza, there can be no doubt that the rocket attacks have been significantly reduced in recent times. If a government is not taking every possible step to secure the safety of its citizens in their homes, the government is not fulfilling its obligations to those citizens. It is for this reason that the Israeli government has no choice but to implement a blockade on Gaza to protect the citizens of Israel.
The Gaza flotilla was a classic situation of lose-lose for Israel. From a public relations perspective, the outcome for Israel was always going to be negative, regardless of whether the ships landed on the Gaza shore or not. Hamas was well aware of this situation when they predicted that the situation would be a victory for them, whatever the outcome. The flotilla organisers came with the specific intention of confronting and embarrassing Israel and the IDF, and they succeeded in capturing the attention of the foreign media who were all on hand to report on the confrontation with the Israeli authorities when it took place. The images broadcast around the world were those which are the most sought after by terror organisations - those of "innocent" civilians fighting uniformed soldiers of an organised army. The truth is that that the "innocent" civilians are frequently not so innocent, and are simply members of a terror army who dress in civilian clothing and use civilian homes as bases for their attacks in an attempt to trick the public into giving them their sympathy. The Gaza flotilla was no different, with strong evidence of a civilian army having been on the ships. The extent of the preparation for a violent clash, the number of arms found on the ship and the violent response received by the Israeli boarding party all indicate the presence of a paramilitary force that came searching for a fight. There are also strong indications of Iranian involvement in terms of funding and supply of arms on the ships.
Despite Israel's meticulous preparations for the arrival of the flotilla, there was a failing on the part of the IDF. The extent of the violence that awaited the IDF soldiers became clear from an early stage. The tactic of dropping soldiers onto the decks from rappel lines, one at a time, seems to have been fatally flawed, and placed the individual soldiers into a position where they had no choice but to open fire to save their own lives. The boarding party was well trained to take over command of a naval vessel, but seems to have been poorly trained in controlling large crowds. On this occasion, the crowd control skills were badly needed, and sorely lacking. I don't feel that the crowd reaction was easy to predict ahead of time, so it is tough to suggest that the IDF should have known that these skills would have been required. The only criticism that I feel can validly be directed at the IDF forces, is the fact that they continued to allow soldiers to drop onto the deck when it became clear that the lives of the soldiers would be endangered by doing so. Some quick reactions and change of tactics may have changed the outcome of the incident.
Prime minister Netanyahu came onto TV following the incident to justify the IDF's actions in preventing the flotilla from entering Gaza. He also emphasized that the same action would be taken in the future, if there are further attempts to break the Gaza blockade. On this issue, Israel seems to be fairly isolated in the international community with a great deal of pressure being exerted on Israel to lift the blockade on Gaza. Naturally, it is easy for the international community to make such a call when it is not their citizens who would be endangered by such a move. The truth, however, is that opening Gaza would also allow Iran to establish more of a foothold in the territory, thereby bringing many European countries into firing range and risking the safety of their citizens. It is not clear that European countries realise this, or take the increasing threat posed by Iran and its cowboy president seriously. While this situation persists, Israel may be forced to act alone and fly in the face of international opinion. This would not be the first time that Israel will act against the opinion of the world, but it does not make it easier each time we are forced to behave in this way.
The critical reaction of the world seems to be in sharp contrast to the reaction to Iran's behaviour in recent years. It seems to be OK for the president of a country like Iran to stand up on every opportunity, and in every international forum and call for the destruction and the end of Israel. The muted responses to these actions, and to the increasing nuclear threat posed by a loose cannon like Iran seem to show significant bias, especially when compared to the treatment meted out to Israel after the Gaza flotilla incident.
All the while that Hamas continues to pose a military threat to Israel, the Gaza blockade should remain in place. Every action on the part of Hamas to reduce the threat to Israel and its citizens will undoubtedly be met with an easing of the Israeli blockade on the strip. Although it is clear that the situation in Gaza is not good, the desperation is called into question in light of the fact that Hamas decided to return all the goods that were brought in by the Gaza flotilla, and which were shipped to the Gaza Strip from Ashdod by Israel.
The arrival of the Rachel Corrie off the coast of Gaza on Saturday was a real lesson in what could have been with the Gaza flotilla, instead of the unnecessary violence and loss of life. The peace activists on board the ship made their protest against the Gaza blockade clear, and illustrated their point. When it came time, however, for the Israeli navy to take action, there was no resistance and no violence. The ship, together with its cargo, was peacefully routed into Ashdod harbour where the passengers and the cargo will be taken care of. This sent a message of real peaceful demonstration, honest intention to help the citizens of Gaza, and not an attempt to look for a confrontation with the IDF or the creation of martyrs.
Despite some recognition of the global Islamic threat by the international community, it seems as though the full extent of this threat is still not understood. Because of this, Israel is frequently forced to stand alone in confronting the Islamic threat that attempts to destroy her. The Gaza flotilla is a classic example of this. It is astonishing that the international community can be tricked into believing that the activists on board were all civilian, peace-loving humanitarians. The tactic by the terrorists to present themselves as civilians while fighting like an army is already well-known. It is now time for the international community to recognise it for what it is.
I refer to the incident as a fiasco, not because I believe that the Israeli navy did the wrong thing by confronting the ships and preventing them from entering Gaza. On the contrary, I fully support the efforts made by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), and the navy in particular, to enforce the blockade on Gaza. The fiasco that I refer to is the violence that was initiated by some of the activists on board one of the flotilla ships, the Marvi Marmara, and the decision by IDF commanders to continue to drop commando troops onto the ship despite the fact that it was obvious that they were being launched into the middle of a lynch mob.
The Gaza blockade was implemented after the end of the Gaza War in 2009 with the objective of preventing weapons and military hardware from being brought into the Gaza Strip. This was in response to the ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza which were an attempt to endanger citizens of Israel. Although the blockade has not succeeded in completely halting the hostilities from Gaza, there can be no doubt that the rocket attacks have been significantly reduced in recent times. If a government is not taking every possible step to secure the safety of its citizens in their homes, the government is not fulfilling its obligations to those citizens. It is for this reason that the Israeli government has no choice but to implement a blockade on Gaza to protect the citizens of Israel.
The Gaza flotilla was a classic situation of lose-lose for Israel. From a public relations perspective, the outcome for Israel was always going to be negative, regardless of whether the ships landed on the Gaza shore or not. Hamas was well aware of this situation when they predicted that the situation would be a victory for them, whatever the outcome. The flotilla organisers came with the specific intention of confronting and embarrassing Israel and the IDF, and they succeeded in capturing the attention of the foreign media who were all on hand to report on the confrontation with the Israeli authorities when it took place. The images broadcast around the world were those which are the most sought after by terror organisations - those of "innocent" civilians fighting uniformed soldiers of an organised army. The truth is that that the "innocent" civilians are frequently not so innocent, and are simply members of a terror army who dress in civilian clothing and use civilian homes as bases for their attacks in an attempt to trick the public into giving them their sympathy. The Gaza flotilla was no different, with strong evidence of a civilian army having been on the ships. The extent of the preparation for a violent clash, the number of arms found on the ship and the violent response received by the Israeli boarding party all indicate the presence of a paramilitary force that came searching for a fight. There are also strong indications of Iranian involvement in terms of funding and supply of arms on the ships.
Despite Israel's meticulous preparations for the arrival of the flotilla, there was a failing on the part of the IDF. The extent of the violence that awaited the IDF soldiers became clear from an early stage. The tactic of dropping soldiers onto the decks from rappel lines, one at a time, seems to have been fatally flawed, and placed the individual soldiers into a position where they had no choice but to open fire to save their own lives. The boarding party was well trained to take over command of a naval vessel, but seems to have been poorly trained in controlling large crowds. On this occasion, the crowd control skills were badly needed, and sorely lacking. I don't feel that the crowd reaction was easy to predict ahead of time, so it is tough to suggest that the IDF should have known that these skills would have been required. The only criticism that I feel can validly be directed at the IDF forces, is the fact that they continued to allow soldiers to drop onto the deck when it became clear that the lives of the soldiers would be endangered by doing so. Some quick reactions and change of tactics may have changed the outcome of the incident.
Prime minister Netanyahu came onto TV following the incident to justify the IDF's actions in preventing the flotilla from entering Gaza. He also emphasized that the same action would be taken in the future, if there are further attempts to break the Gaza blockade. On this issue, Israel seems to be fairly isolated in the international community with a great deal of pressure being exerted on Israel to lift the blockade on Gaza. Naturally, it is easy for the international community to make such a call when it is not their citizens who would be endangered by such a move. The truth, however, is that opening Gaza would also allow Iran to establish more of a foothold in the territory, thereby bringing many European countries into firing range and risking the safety of their citizens. It is not clear that European countries realise this, or take the increasing threat posed by Iran and its cowboy president seriously. While this situation persists, Israel may be forced to act alone and fly in the face of international opinion. This would not be the first time that Israel will act against the opinion of the world, but it does not make it easier each time we are forced to behave in this way.
The critical reaction of the world seems to be in sharp contrast to the reaction to Iran's behaviour in recent years. It seems to be OK for the president of a country like Iran to stand up on every opportunity, and in every international forum and call for the destruction and the end of Israel. The muted responses to these actions, and to the increasing nuclear threat posed by a loose cannon like Iran seem to show significant bias, especially when compared to the treatment meted out to Israel after the Gaza flotilla incident.
All the while that Hamas continues to pose a military threat to Israel, the Gaza blockade should remain in place. Every action on the part of Hamas to reduce the threat to Israel and its citizens will undoubtedly be met with an easing of the Israeli blockade on the strip. Although it is clear that the situation in Gaza is not good, the desperation is called into question in light of the fact that Hamas decided to return all the goods that were brought in by the Gaza flotilla, and which were shipped to the Gaza Strip from Ashdod by Israel.
The arrival of the Rachel Corrie off the coast of Gaza on Saturday was a real lesson in what could have been with the Gaza flotilla, instead of the unnecessary violence and loss of life. The peace activists on board the ship made their protest against the Gaza blockade clear, and illustrated their point. When it came time, however, for the Israeli navy to take action, there was no resistance and no violence. The ship, together with its cargo, was peacefully routed into Ashdod harbour where the passengers and the cargo will be taken care of. This sent a message of real peaceful demonstration, honest intention to help the citizens of Gaza, and not an attempt to look for a confrontation with the IDF or the creation of martyrs.
Despite some recognition of the global Islamic threat by the international community, it seems as though the full extent of this threat is still not understood. Because of this, Israel is frequently forced to stand alone in confronting the Islamic threat that attempts to destroy her. The Gaza flotilla is a classic example of this. It is astonishing that the international community can be tricked into believing that the activists on board were all civilian, peace-loving humanitarians. The tactic by the terrorists to present themselves as civilians while fighting like an army is already well-known. It is now time for the international community to recognise it for what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)