Whose Battle is This?

The recent interception of a unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that was launched into Israeli air space from Syria, and the events that followed this interception have brought into the open some serious questions about the threat against Israel along the northern border with Syria and Lebanon.  In particular, it has focused on the number of different players who are involved in the Syrian playing field, and the serious nature of the risk that Israel is forced to defend against from a variety of different sources.

The entry of the UAV into Israeli airspace had been anticipated for some time.  Israeli intelligence had identified the intention to send this from Syria, and it had a welcoming committee by the time it crossed the border into Israel.  Interestingly, it had taken a route from the Tiyas airbase (also known as T-4 airbase) in Syria where it was launched, through Jordanian air space and finally entering Israeli air space not far from Beit Shean in the upper Galilee.  The UAV was shot down after spending a little more than 90 seconds in Israeli air space, and this allowed for closer inspection of the vehicle.  It turns out that the UAV was a fairly substantial and serious piece of equipment.  Some have described the UAV as a drone, although I prefer the term UAV.  Somehow, the word drone implies something small and toy-like.  This is clearly not the case here.  The UAV has been identified as a Saeqeh or Thunderbolt from Iran.  This is a stealth model UAV modelled on the American RQ-170 Sentinel spy UAV, one of which was shot down and captured in Iran in 2011.  The launch of the UAV into Israeli air space was something that was clearly planned for some time before, and the type of vehicle that was used is highly sophisticated and shows serious intent on the part of those operating it.

After intercepting the UAV, Israel immediately carried out its stated policy of retaliating against each violation of her sovereignty and security.  Israeli Air Force F-16 fighters were deployed to launch attacks against 12 Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria.  These included aerial defense batteries, targets at the T-4 air base from which the UAV was launched, and positions of the Iranian military establishment in Syria.  The Israeli fighter jets were fired upon by Syrian forces.  The anti-aircraft fire that was directed against the Israeli aircraft was from a number of Russian air defense systems, including the SA-5, SA-17, SA-6 and SA-3 systems.  It was a Russian missile fired by the Syrian army that latched onto one of the Israeli F-16 jets, and exploded next to it causing irrecoverable damage to the aircraft.  The pilots ejected to safety, but not before sustaining injuries in the blast.  The F-16 crash landed in Israeli territory.

Despite the situation remaining tense but calm since this series of events, it has highlighted the complexity of the security situation that Israel faces, and the number of different players that are involved in the conflict.  The UAV that was initially launched into Israeli air space by the Syrian army was an Iranian-built vehicle employing American technology.  Israel finds itself fighting against American know-how,  Iranian production and financing and Russian weaponry launched by Syrian government forces.  More than this, Iran is now represented in the area near to the border in southern Syria, and Israel is being drawn into a direct conflict with Iranian forces.  This is something that is a relatively new development, as Israel's battles against Iran until now have all been via Iranian proxies in the form of Hezbollah, Hamas and others.

The relationships and conflicts with Syria, Iran and its proxies are clear.  These entities call for the destruction of Israel, and do all that they can to bring this about.  Israel will defend herself against them, and will use every effort to harm the interests and positions that these entities possess, no matter where they are situated in the world.  The threats against Israel from these sources are numerous and constant.  They manifest themselves all around the world - against Israeli embassies, airlines, businessmen, tourists and Jewish centres in any location.  All of this comes in addition to the threat along Israel's borders and even within the borders.  Iran has the intention, not only to destroy the Jewish state, but also to increase its sphere of influence in the Middle East and around the world.  It is promoting its brand of Shia Islam against all other religions, and against Sunni Islam.  Iran certainly has aspirations to be a controlling power in the region and around the world.  As part of this effort, Iran is cooperating with Russia and supporting Syria and other proxies in order to confront, the US, Israel and other regional and western powers.

The relationship with Russia is a little more complex.  Israel has found itself on the receiving end of Russian missiles and weaponry that have, not only shot down an Israeli F-16 fighter, but also threaten Israel's safety and security on a daily basis.  Major Russian weaponry systems are deployed in Iran and Syria, and most of these systems are aimed in a threatening way at Israel.  This is all in spite of the fact that Israel has full diplomatic relations with Russia, and Prime Minister Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin have met numerous times and spoken frequently on the phone in recent times.  Netanyahu's requests of Putin have fallen on deaf ears, and Putin continues to arm and finance organisations and governments that seek the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of Jews.  Putin's interests are driven by increasing Russia's sphere of influence as much as possible, and by financial considerations.  Russia is making good money from the sale of arms and weapons.  Just as with his relationships with the USA and with Turkey, Putin seems to be playing both sides of the divide with Israel.  While Israel would wish to maintain cordial relations with Russia for a number of reasons, the fact that Russia is openly and unashamedly supporting Israel's enemies is clearly a very concerning situation.

What is clear from this situation is that Israel is fighting a survival battle, not only against enemies, but against "friends" as well.  I use the term friends in a loose way to include even those who are not quite so friendly, but with whom Israel has diplomatic ties.  Such as Russia.  In its fight against the Iranian UAV, Israel found itself battling its closest ally, the USA via the technology that Iran had taken to construct the UAV.  This regional war has a strong global element to it.  The strategic importance of maintaining influence over the Middle East seems not to have diminished over the years.

International diplomacy continues to be governed by interests rather than friendships.  This is very true of Israel's international relations.  The wars that Israel is fighting on her borders are highly complex with so many different parties involved.  It almost makes one wonder whose war this really is.  In reality, Israel is fighting wars with parties which come from much further away than those who reside on her borders.  This is a global war, and one which threatens to become broader and much more complex in the future.

Action At Last

The decision by US President Donald Trump to launch an attack in Syria following the recent chemical weapons attack has been widely welcomed by Israelis.  It is also a welcome change from the policy that was pursued by the US during the presidency of Barack Obama.  Finally, the free world has a leader who is prepared to take action rather than utter words.

Last Friday, President Trump really showed what he is made of.  Following the horrendous chemical weapons attack that was carried out earlier last week by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against his own people, Trump took a few days to consider the situation and gather the required evidence before striking in retaliation.  The retaliation was not against a violation of any US interest in particular.  The retaliation was rather against the violation of innocent women and children, and against the unacceptable use of chemical weapons.

Over the past few years, the world became used to the Obama style of doing things.  Obama threatened, but never made good on his threats.  So, it comes as no surprise that Assad gambled on the US not responding to this chemical attack.  After all, previous chemical attacks went unanswered.  In fact, it was the deal that was struck during Obama's presidency in 2013, that enabled this chemical attack.  When Obama discovered the extent of the stockpile of Syria's chemical weapons, he decided to cut Assad some slack and allow him a way to diplomatically and elegantly dispose of them.  The deal struck with Syria by negotiation between the USA and Russia involved the dismantling of no fewer than 12 chemical weapons productions facilities, numerous storage locations, a research and development facility and the destruction of thousands of tons of chemical agents.

But, under the noses of the international supervisors, and with the tacit knowledge of Obama and other members of the international community, Assad succeeded in retaining some of these chemical weapons for himself.  It was one of the worst-kept secrets in the Middle East.  The Israeli intelligence community believed that the Assad government retained a "residual" chemical stockpile of somewhere between several hundred kilograms to several tons of chemical weapons, about 1% of its original stockpile.  Obama's reaction was fairly predictable.  He turned a blind eye.  Last week's Sarin attack by Assad is the public evidence of Obama's failed policy.

In taking action in the way that he did, Trump sent out a number of very important messages.  The first was a very clear message to Assad and his army.  This US president will not tolerate bully-boy tactics being employed against innocent women and children, even if he is still in the honeymoon period of his presidency.  And he will not tolerate the use of illegal chemical weapons, even if his predecessor was prepared to turn a blind eye to this.

The second message was sent to Russian President Vladimir Putin.  He has been Assad's patron for a number of years.  Initially, this support was in the form of supplying weapons and vetoing resolutions against Assad at the UN Security Council.  While this support has continued, it has also escalated to include Russian boots on the ground in Syria and Russian warplanes in Syrian air space.  Even though Trump was determined to forge a closer link with Putin when he first entered office, the message to Putin is that everything has changed.  Even Russian support, and the possibility of damaging US relations with Russia will not prevent Trump from taking action against Assad.

The third message was sent to other rogue nations of the world, including Iran and North Korea.  In a similar way to how the deal with Syria was struck, Obama also struck a deal with Iran.  This deal involved nuclear weapons rather than Syria's chemical weapons.  The stakes were much higher, but the lack of backbone on Obama's part was exactly the same.  He decided to strike the deal with Iran despite the obvious signs that Iran was pulling the wool over the eyes of the countries signing the deal.  Despite Obama's attempts to placate Israel and other detractors of the agreement, its blaring shortcomings were obvious to anybody with a mediocre understanding of the situation.  Trump, however, sends a completely different message.  He has started his time in office by questioning the logic of the deal with Iran.  And the attack against the Syrian forces sends an even stronger message that Trump will not tolerate any deception or aggression on the part of Iran, and also North Korea.

For the Israeli government, the intervention is welcome.  Israel is typically a country for whom actions speak louder than words, even if the actions are frequently very quietly done.  It is inconceivable that the Jewish state could idly watch from the sidelines when chemicals are being used to kill innocent women and children.  The memory of the world standing idly by and watching during the Holocaust is still too fresh in our minds.  It is a great dilemma about how to respond to a situation like the chemical attack in Syria.  On the one hand, Israel would wish to respond with force to the use of chemical weapons.  Doing so would, however, seemingly play into Syria's hands, and immediately embroil Israel in the war in Syria.  Given the history of the two countries and the way in which friendships line up, this could potentially involve Iran, Syria and the USA very quickly indeed.  This would escalate to a regional conflict, and perhaps even result in a conflict that goes beyond the regional borders.

Trump's strong message shows decisive leadership, and finally a willingness to confront rogue states head-on.  This is welcome.  While debates and condemnations at the UN and other forums may have their place, action on the ground sends a much stronger and more serious message.   And his action also saved Israel from, once again, having to respond in a way that will not result in a war involving multiple countries.

We watch with bated breath to see how things develop with Iran.

Another Refugee Crisis

The latest refugee crisis has succeeded in stirring the emotions of many around the world.  The same is true for those  in Israel and Jews around the world.   The sight of the men, women and children moving across land and sea in unrelenting conditions to escape the disaster that has fallen upon them as a result of a civil war of human making, can only bring out the most heartfelt sympathies in anybody who has seen the pictures on TV and social media.  Some are calling this the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War.

The emotions of the Jewish community are particularly affected, because it was precisely this type of disaster that befell our ancestors 75 short years ago.  It will never be forgotten that, as a result of the world failing to mobilise to accept refugees who were running from the disaster of war and genocide in Europe, and failing to act to stop those who were carrying out the genocide, 6 million of our people were systematically annihilated.  Jewish sympathy is no less than that of others around the world, despite the fact that many of the refugees come from countries that seek the destruction of the State of Israel, and the death of the Jews.

Israel has already provided a great deal of assistance to victims of the Syrian war over the past few years, despite the fact that Syria has no diplomatic relations with Israel and despite the fact that Syria has formally been at war with Israel for the past 67 years with the intention of wiping Israel off the map.  Thousands of victims of the Syrian civil war have streamed across the border from Syria into Israel seeking medical and humanitarian assistance.  The IDF has provided first aid assistance to many of these victims via mobile medical units along the Syrian border, and supplied them with humanitarian aid.  Irrespective of which side of the conflict they have come from.  Hundreds of others have been admitted to Israeli hospitals for medical treatment, some undergoing complex life-saving surgery to nurse them back to health.  All of these services have been provided courtesy of the Israeli tax-payer, and nobody has been denied humanitarian assistance on the grounds of opposing political or religious views, or any other grounds.  This humanitarian work has been undertaken without fanfare, desire for recognition or international headlines.

But now, the the floodgates to Europe have finally opened.  Instead of seeking medical attention across the Israeli border, the eyes of the war victims have stretched further afield.  Thousands of refugees are swarming across the Mediterranean to seek shelter in the calmer waters of Europe.  European leaders have been caught somewhat off guard at the suddenness of the developing situation.  Some leaders mumble phrases about the Shengen Agreement and the Dublin Regulation, which are designed to secure and protect the borders of European countries.  Despite their mumblings, they seem to have no real clue as to how the provisions of these agreements can possibly be applied under the current circumstances.  Some countries seem resigned to accept the refugees that turn up on their borders, while others are doing all that they can to re-route their flood of humanity or pass them on to other neighbouring countries to get rid of their problem.  The humanitarian nature of the citizens of many European countries is demanding that their leaders relax provisions in order to accept a share of responsibility for rehousing the refugees, while others are concerned about what this may mean in the longer term for the makeup, nature and culture of their country.

Without detracting from the immediate humanitarian disaster that needs a short-term solution, European and world leaders can be justified in asking a few searching questions as longer-term solutions will need to be considered once the refugees have been clothed, fed, treated and housed in the near-term.  Some of the questions, to which I have not found answers yet, are the following:

1. What happened that the refugee problem has suddenly arisen at this time?  The Syrian civil war and the conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan have been ongoing for some time already.  Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands have been killed, and many more injured and displaced.  Why did these refugees not run and seek shelter in Europe some time ago?  What was the real trigger to the sudden flight that we see now?  Is this related in any way to the more public involvement of ISIS, and the realisation of what an ISIS caliphate will mean to them?
2. How many of the refugees are really economic migrants?  In recent years, there has been a distinction drawn between those who seek asylum as refugees, and those who do so in order to improve their economic situation.  Many countries try to do their best to make this distinction clearer, in order to provide required assistance to refugees while rejecting economic migrants who do not qualify for naturalisation.  The migrants naturally do all that they can to confuse those trying to separate the refugees from the economic migrants, in order to secure themselves the best possible chance of being accepted to a new country and a new life.  It is clear that many of the current wave of refugees are escaping war-torn countries and situations in which it is impossible to survive.  Amongst them, however, are more than a few who are truly economic migrants and who are merely jumping on the bandwagon to take advantage of a situation.
3. Where are their Arab brethren in assisting the refugees?  All of the refugees in the current crisis are Arabs.  Some are Christian Arabs, but the vast majority are Moslem Arabs.  Most of them are Sunni Moslems, who made up some 74% of the Syrian population prior to the civil war.  With countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates being majority Sunni Moslem, there is surely enough money and space to accommodate the  refugees within the Sunni Arab world quite easily?  And yet, there seems to be a thundering silence from the Arab world at a time when their brethren are desperate for help.
4. Is this a ploy to gain a greater Muslim foothold in Europe?  The words of Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, cannot be ignored entirely.  He said that Europeans risk becoming a minority on their own continent.  This is an interesting concept, particularly when there is no such thing as a "European" nationality.  The European continent has historically been split, divided and conflicted by many different interests, nationalities and religious strains.  In the face of a threat to the continued existence of these nationalities in their current form, however, a European nation has suddenly and unexpectedly arisen.  There are those who contend that this refugee crisis is a conspiracy on the part of Muslim leaders to allow Muslims to infiltrate in Europe in a manner greater than has been the case until now.   There is much evidence of the effects of the Islamisation of Europe.  Muslims have made attempts to set up enclaves of Sharia law in the UK and France (in addition to what they achieved in some African countries).  The sight of British and French-born Muslims leaving their homes to join the ranks of ISIS has shocked many.
5. What is the role of ISIS in the crisis?  An ISIS announcement in the midst of the building refugee crisis in Europe said that hundreds of ISIS activists are scattered amongst the refugees claiming asylum in Europe.  It is difficult not to notice the disproportionate number of young men among the refugees.  While the announcement by ISIS may simply be opportunistic rather than an action that was pre-planned, it is something that cannot be completely ignored.

The question arises as to whether Europe has learned the lesson of wars and refugees to extend a helping hand (in some cases) to the current refugees?  Or has the Internet and social media forced their hand due to public demand, such that they have no choice but to help the refugees?  Never before has a refugee crisis of this magnitude been such a social media sensation.  It is reported that many of the Syrian refugees are buying SIM cards in their new European host countries even before buying food, to ensure that their predicament can be on Facebook as soon as possible.  This has certainly proven itself to be a powerful tool in their hands.  Previous crises of this magnitude have not enjoyed the same level of European and western response before.  We can only think back to the crises during the Holocaust and those in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, to name but a few, where the response was much less enthusiastic and resulted in the deaths of millions of victims.

War is never a pleasant event, and our generation seems to experience more than its fair share of conflict.  It is pleasing that there are countries who are prepared to come to the short-term aid of the refugees.  But does this present a longer-term problem for these countries?  These are questions that only time can answer.

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.

The Importance of Preemptive Strikes

Israel's recent double strike on Syrian weapons storage facilities has, once again, raised the issue of the validity of preemptive strikes.  Israel has used this tactic on more than a number of previous occasions, has already struck Syria already a few times this year.  There are those who go as far as attributing Israel's continued existence to the fact that she has been prepared to go out and defend herself even before the attack materialises.

The issue of preemptive strikes as a defense mechanism to counter a potential threat has a number of inherent problems attached to it, particularly when this encroaches on the sovereign territory of another country.  Firstly, there is always the question as to whether the perceived threat is real and credible.  We saw the consequences of a bad call on the perceived threat when it was revealed that intelligence information was incorrect prior to the Second Gulf War.  This dogged both Tony Blair and George W. Bush until the end of their respective tenures, and continues to dog them in their personal capacities to this day.  Secondly, there is the question as to whether one sovereign country has the right to attack another sovereign country in defense of itself even where the threat is sure.  It could easily be argued that there is an element of hypocrisy in this concept.  Does it make a difference if the perceived threat is not an immediate one, but rather a perceived future threat?  This is the case with Israel's strikes in Syria last week, where the rationale for the strike was that Hezbollah may use these arms against Israel at an undetermined time in the future.  There are no firm answers to these questions, and the international community has historically judged such deeds on the basis of the parties involved, rather than the act.  On this occasion, Israel succeeded in capitalising on the negative views currently held by the international community towards Syria and Hezbollah, and escaped with little or no censure by the international community - something quite rare for Israeli attacks.  But this has not always been the case in the past.

Israel, a small island located in a sea of aggressive and hateful enemies, has been forced to employ the tactic of preemptive strikes in order to survive.  Some of Israel's most famous and important victories - most notably that in the Six Day War - were achieved by surprising the enemy before they were able to inflict damage.  The Egyptian air force was destroyed while on the ground in 1967.  This surely paved the way for the famous Israeli victory.  Israel was roundly criticised for sending its air force aeroplanes to destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor site in Iraq in 1981.  It was only many years later in 2005 that President Clinton finally acknowledged for the first time that the strike on Osirak by Israel was a "really good thing".  Similarly, the strike on the Syrian nuclear facility that was carried out by Israel in 2007, attracted criticism from Mohamed ElBaradei, then head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Imagine if the civil war in Syria being waged at this time involved the added concern of nuclear weapons.  With the benefit of hindsight, the Israeli strike in 2007 has potentially saved massive consequences.

These historical experiences also put a context to the ongoing standoff with Iran concerning the development of its own nuclear facilities.  A preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be much more difficult, and would have far greater consequences than the ones carried out against Iraq and Syria.  Both of the previous attacks solicited no military response at all.  This miraculous escape, after catching each of these countries off guard, is highly unlikely in the Iranian context.  It is almost assured that any attempt to carry out a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities would include a substantial response.  It is for this reason that Israel has tried using different tactics against Iran, including mounting a concerted campaign to assassinate key personnel employed in the Iranian nuclear industry and using cyber warfare to destroy software and hardware in use by the Iranian nuclear facilities.  Until now, these tactics have served to slow the processes down at best, and have not been effective in halting Iran's march towards becoming a nuclear power.  Israel is still considering a game-changing strike that will kill off Iran's nuclear push once and for all.  The threat posed by a retaliation to such a strike is surely much lower than the threat presented by a nuclear Iran.  Despite this fact, the threat presented by retaliation is substantial.

While not completely invincible, Israel's military and intelligence establishments have proven themselves over and over again.  Mistakes have certainly been made, but reports of potential threats which are reported by these organisations are always taken seriously by the Israeli government.  This is based on its amazing track record of getting things right more often than getting them wrong, and managing to sniff out information in a seemingly impossible way.  The way that the Israeli organisations work seems somehow to be different and more effective than similar intelligence agencies elsewhere in the world.  A potential threat to Israel which is reported by Israeli intelligence will almost certainly be taken seriously.  Equally, the Israeli intelligence community is well aware of the importance of the advice that they offer, and the consequences of giving bad advice or making mistakes.

It seems highly unlikely that Israel will reverse its tactic of preemptive strikes against enemies in the near future.  This tactic which has proved very effective in the past, and critical to Israel's survival. Despite the fact that a great deal of Israel's focus is on defense rather than attack, as evidenced by new developments such as the Iron Dome, the tactic of attack is often the best form of defense.  Despite this fact, we all wish to believe that this will always be used sparingly and very cautiously.  Ultimately, however, it is one of the ways that Israel will be able to maintain any superiority over its enemy neighbours around the Middle East.  If attacks and threats against Israel persist, Israel will be forced to employ measures to protect herself.  These measures include preemptive tactics to prevent the possibility of attacks taking place, and to prevent loss of innocent lives.  Extreme circumstances demand extreme measures.  It would be difficult to argue that Israel is not living under extreme circumstances.

Israel Providing a Service to the World

The world has been observing the events in Syria, particularly over the period of the civil war that has raged there for the past two years.  Syria has long presented a threat to the international community because of two main factors.  The first factor is its substantial arsenal of conventional, biological and chemical weapons which President Bashar al-Assad appears to have no reluctance to use.  The second factor is its close links to Iran in the sponsorship of international terror.  During the course of the civil war, the threat has escalated even further with numerous international terror groups using the instability created by the war to take up camp in Syria.  This increases the possibility that dangerous weapons could fall into renegade terror groups around the world.  The world has been observing these events from a safe distance without taking any action at all to prevent the strengthening of international terror.

Israel's proximity to Syria, and the fact that a border is shared by the two countries, has always meant that all that happens in Syria is of significant interest to the Israeli security services.  Syria has been an enemy of the State of Israel from the moment Israel came into existence in 1948, a situation that has not changed until the present day.  The period during which the civil war has been fought in Syria is no exception, and has added further instability to the region due to the lack of predictability as to how the Syrian authorities and the rebels may direct their forces towards Israel.  A few isolated missiles have already landed in Israeli territory from Syria, but these have been regarded having crossed the border in error rather than having been deliberately directed towards Israel.  The truth is that the Syrian forces and their rebel enemies are too busy fighting against each other to spend much time worrying about launching an attack against Israel.  While this presents a source of comfort for Israel on one hand, it also presents a real threat on the other hand.

The war has led to the general opening up of Syria's arms and ammunitions depots for the Syrian army to use against the rebels.  Some reports suggest that it has even made use of chemical weapons in this war.  The opening of missile storage facilities means that these arms and missiles are also more easily available to other renegade groups who may wish to snatch them from the Syrians.  This has resulted in the Syrians trying to move some of their most strategic missiles to be under the care of its allies and friends, most notably Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. 

These movements undoubtedly lie behind recent reports coming from Syria that a convoy of weapons was attacked while in transit from Syria to Lebanon.  Israel has been accused of the attack, even though there is no formal word from the Israeli government or army on the matter.  Another attack was also reported, nearer to Damascus, at around the same time.  Syrian TV reported that Israeli jets attacked an army facility, widely rumoured to be a research centre involved in the production of chemical and biological weapons.  Once again, the Israelis have remained silent on the matter.  Even though there is no official word on whether Israel was involved in either or both of these incidents, the pinpoint accuracy with which they were carried out does bear the hallmark of operations that Israel could have been involved in.  Hints have come out of the US government to confirm this, and remarks made by Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak also seem to support Israel's involvement.

While these attacks were clearly carried out in the interests of Israel's own safety, she is doing the world a huge service in the process.  The threat presented by the axis of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, and their links to other terror organisations, is one that is not solely directed towards Israel.  The Bulgarian government confirmed that the attack against Israeli tourists in Burgas on the Black Sea in the summer of 2012, was carried out by Hezbollah.  In addition to the 5 Israelis who were killed in the attack in Bulgaria, there was also a Bulgarian tour guide who was a casualty.  The Bulgarian economy was also affected as a result of the decision made by tourists to stay away from the area while international terror organisations were operating there.  Attacks on targets in the US, Far East and across Europe which have escalated over the past 10 or 15 years, show clearly that terror that was once aimed solely at Israel or limited to the Middle East, has now become a global threat.  Any activities carried out by Israel against these terror organisations, even if it is solely in the pursuit of securing her own safety, represents a huge favour to the wider international community.

The unfortunate part of this is that Israel seldom, if ever, receives help, support and assistance in these activities.  At best, Israel may receive a "green light" in the form of an agreement not to resist or oppose the attack.  More likely, Israel is subject to international condemnation in the international press, and in bodies like the UN.  An example of this is the reaction that was received to Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility back in 1981.  Israel was roundly condemned by the international community, and resolutions were passed by the UN Security Council and by the UN General Assembly criticising Israel's actions.  It took until 2005 for US President Bill Clinton to finally admit in public that " I think, in retrospect, that it was a really good thing".  Clearly, the path of the Gulf Wars in Iraq would have looked completely different had Israel not been bold enough to carry out this attack.  A similar assessment could be made of Israel's attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007.  Even though the world condemnation was not quite as vociferous on this occasion, there was no other country lining up to challenge Syria's development of nuclear weapons, or to help Israel in destroying it.  As the Syrian civil war continues, a heavy sigh of relief is being breathed by the world that there is no nuclear option available to the Syrian government.

As in the past, Israel's strikes on the weapons convoy being sent to Hezbollah and the Syrian weapons research centre comes as a gift to the free world.  This is a further service provided by the Israeli military, which seems at times to be the only force in the world that is ready to do the impossible.  This impossible is frequently done on its own steam, and in the face of international condemnation.  Although Israel is not necessarily seeking thanks and recognition for these efforts, many of which place the lives of our young soldiers on the line, it would be a welcome change to receive some support for these audacious actions. 

Even if this is not forthcoming, I feel good to live in a country that is prepared to take the tough decisions to do the dirty work to secure the safety of its citizens, and has young men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line in the interests of executing it.  This is a source of immense pride, and source of great comfort to me.  It is a pity that the rest of the world gets a free ride in the process.

Summer Security Assessment

It may be my imagination, but it seems to me that the security situation in Israel somehow seems to heat up when the weather gets hotter.  Many of the wars that Israel has had to fight in recent times have taken place during the summer months.  Somehow, as soon as the summer is in full glow, the security threats appear to escalate.  I was doing a mental assessment of Israel's current security situation.  The truth of the matter is that the situation is not brilliant.  If I was the chief of general staff or head of the national security council, this is the type of assessment I would be making at this time.

The southern border with Egypt is probably facing its least secure time since the signing of the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979.  A number of attacks have been made on Israel from the Sinai Peninsula, and we know that the Egyptian police force has been unwilling to secure this area, in the way that they did during the Mubarak years.  This has resulted in the Sinai becoming like the Wild West.  Arms shipments are crossing the Sinai towards Gaza in massive convoys, and with alarming frequency.  Most of these arms come from the "terrorist godfather" Iran, while others are coming from the stock of munitions that was looted from Libya when Gaddafi was overthrown.  The freedom with which these convoys are reaching Gaza via Egyptian territory is concerning.

More than this, a number of recent attacks have been launched into Israel from Sinai.  For the first time ever, Israel's southern resort of Eilat has joined the list of Israeli cities that are susceptible to a terror attack.  The attacks are not necessarily being carried out by militants themselves, because they have succeeded in recruiting Bedouins in the Sinai to act as their proxy in the battle against Israel.  Suddenly, they are the ones launching rockets into Israeli territory on behalf of their Gaza benefactors.  The Israeli government has moved to reinforce security along the Sinai border, and is constructing a security barrier fence along the length of the border.  This only takes care of part of the problem of the lawlessness in the Sinai, and then only to a certain extent.  It will be impossible to completely eradicate the threat of missiles being launched from Sinai into Israel, or the threat of infiltrations along this border.  The security barrier and increased security activity will go a long way towards achieving this, but it will be impossible to do away with it completely.  The lack of law and order in the Sinai also means that the gas pipeline that travels through this area, and carries urgently needed natural gas from Egypt to Israel, will continue to be under constant attack.  It has already been exploded 13 times in the past year.  This gas is critical to Israel's economy, at least until gas begins to flow from Israel's own gas fields in the next year or two.

The ongoing political turmoil in Egypt does not add anything to the safety of the southern border.  There is a part of me that says that it would probably be better to have the Muslim Brotherhood candidate installed as president of Egypt, rather than the current situation where there is no president at all.  Social unrest is building along with the lack of trust in the interim military rulers to hand power over to the elected candidate.  Social unrest is a highly destabilising force which Israel would prefer to avoid at all costs.

The situation along the Syrian border is also very concerning.  Assad continues his crackdown on opposition forces, in spite of the fact that there is practically no way for him to emerge from this uprising in control of Syria.  His forces continue to murder and maim militants and civilians alike in the lead-up to his deposal.  There is no indication what sort of regime will eventually replace Assad when the time comes for him to leave office.  The lack of stability that this situation creates for Israel stretches far beyond the Syrian border.  Hezbollah has already been observed looting missiles from the Syrian arms stores.  Some of these missiles have the capability to reach Tel Aviv.  They have been relocated onto the Lebanese side of the border, something that does nothing to help Israel's security in this area.  If Hezbollah is taking missiles, it is not impossible that weapons and missiles are falling into the hands of other anti-Israel groups.  This adds to the lack of stability in the area, and in the wider region.

The instability along the Gazan border also continues.  More than 100 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel last week.  Fortunately, most of them fell harmlessly into open areas causing no injury or damage.  There were a few, however, that did damage to buildings and caused injury to individuals.  It will not take long before one rocket hits its target causing risk to life and limb.  This concern is even greater now that schoolchildren have begun their summer vacation, and will no longer spend a significant part of their day in the more protected environs of the school buildings.  The IDF and its Iron Dome batteries are doing a great job to protect those in harm's way.  This will, however, not be enough under the current circumstances and the rocket fire must be stopped as soon as possible.

Judging by the above, the overall security assessment is pretty grim.  Threats abound from all sides, and this is not to mention the continuous challenges of policing the borders to the Palestinian Authority areas in the West Bank, and keeping Jerusalem secure.  We can also not forget the ongoing threats posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program, and the way in which Turkey has become hostile to Israel in recent times.  In addition, the growing social protest movement in Israel has been strengthened, and is set for another summer of demonstrations against rising costs and economic hardships being suffered by so many.

Many countries would be plunged into depression and despair by the security and economic challenges faced by Israeli people.  And yet, this is certainly not the feeling in Israel.  People are gearing up for the long hot summer as usual.  Families are preparing for their summer vacations, high school students are getting summer jobs and tourists are gracing us with their presence in ever-increasing numbers.  Roaming around the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, it is easy to think that you are in a country that has not a care in the world.  The overall mood is good, and people are going about their daily lives with a very positive outlook.  I am not sure if this is people trying to kid themselves into a false sense of security, or whether it is the sign of Israelis continuing to build their country against all the odds. just as they have done for the past 64 years.  One thing is clear to all Israel's enemies, near and far.  It will take a great deal more than this to break the spirit of the average Israeli, and of our peoplel and our nation.  We are built of stronger stuff, and this comes out loudly and clearly in days like these when there is so much to be concerned about, and seemingly not much to smile about.  The smiles continue to grace our faces, and our optimism never seems to wane.  This is the enormous strength of Israel and her people.

Wishing everybody a happy and safe summer.

A Peek Into The Future

Over the past few weeks, we have been occupied with looking back.  We celebrated the exodus from Egypt and the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea.  We stood in silence to commemorate the 6 million killed at the hands of the Nazis, and we stood in silence to commemorate the 23,000 who have given their lives for the modern State of Israel.  We celebrated 64 years of independence of the State of Israel, and considered the remarkable and miraculous events that allowed us to reach this point in time.  Come to think about it, Jews seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time looking back and commemorating the past.  I decided to pause for a moment, and try to imagine what things could look like in 50 years' time.  Not only to imagine this, but perhaps also to dream about how things could be.  I have tried to dream about a world where my children are grandparents, and to try to put Israel into that context.

I think that there is one major piece of the puzzle which is missing in current-day Israel, and which most Israelis yearn for in the future.  This is the missing peace and, with it, the recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state among the nations.  A state of peace and security would bring so many advantages to the State of Israel, and could change the nature of this small country in a most dramatic way.  Most importantly, it would save hundreds, if not thousands of lives a year.  Not only the lives of soldiers would be saved, but also the lives of innocent women and children would be spared if we could create a situation where Qassam and Grad missiles are not being fired into civilian neighbourhoods, and where suicide bombers are not trying to detonate their explosives in crowded restaurants, coffee shops and buses.  It would also spare valuable government money that could be spent on education and infrastructure instead of the acquisition of military hardware and ammunition.  A state of peace would also free up our most valuable resource, the 18 to 21 year-olds, who would be free to make their contribution to Israel's economy rather than be forced to serve in the military to protect their country from constant attack.

A peace arrangement would also create a completely different dynamic with Israel's neighbours.  I can imagine a situation where Israeli citizens could spend their holidays in Beirut, which is only a few hours' drive from the central part of Israel.  Perhaps Syrian tourists would be a major source of foreign revenue for Israel's hotels and restaurants.  I can dream about Israeli irrigation technology being used to make deserts in Jordan and Syria green.

In my dream world, there is harmony and co-existence between religious and secular communities.  Somehow, the religious will find a way to make their contribution to Israeli society, as a result of which the secular communities are able to respect the religious communities and their way of life.  This, in turn, paves the way for understanding and exchange of ideas between the two communities.

In my imaginary world, members of the Knesset are there to serve the wider community rather than primarily their own interests.  While being paid a reasonable salary, they will do all that they can to save the country unnecessary expense.  Their conduct on the floor of the Knesset will be exemplary, and send a positive message to the younger generation about the way in which people should conduct themselves in public.

In the new and improved Israel, customer service will be of primary importance when dealing with companies and shops, and hotel, restaurant and coffee shop staff will give the utmost respect to their patrons.  This is a world where drivers will give way to other drivers wishing to enter into the flow of traffic, and hooters will only be sounded when danger exists on the road.  Cellphones will be silenced in elevators and other public places, and people will not resort to screaming at others in order to get their own way.

I guess that my wish list can go on forever, but it is important to dream in order to somehow improve our society.  It is critical for us to be able to continuously develop and progress with the next generation, who seem to be hungrier for information and technology than ever before.

When I think about it, the "negative" things mentioned above also have their positive sides.  There is no doubt that our young men and women who are forced to serve in the military, learn skills and behaviours which help them in the future.  The responsibility of protecting Israel's borders, and survival skills that they learn with this are great tools in their future lives.  The tenacity and attitude of never giving up are certainly traits that are instilled in our children during their military service.  In Israeli living, sometimes even shouting at people represents a form of communication that is preferable to not talking at all.  The madness of Israeli society forces people to adapt themselves in ways which lends itself to the survival of a people and a nation.  Perhaps a more orderly society would have less survival skills.

When I come to think about things, I would certainly be happier for my family to live our lives in peace and security.  I would also be happier to have greater understanding and respect between different parts of Israeli society.  This would, however,  undoubtedly come at a price which I am unable to identify or quantify now.  Perhaps this price would be too high for me?  Maybe it is better to give thanks for what we have, and to do all we can to protect it.  This must be part of the logic of spending so much time looking back.  We are really able to value and appreciate what we have now.  This is more than our grandparents could have dreamt of when they had their dreams.  Am Yisrael Chai.

Sometimes, It's Better the Devil You Know .....

The civil war in Syria is already a year old.  The "Arab Spring" started in 2011, and we are already in the Spring of 2012.  If we believe those in the know, the Syrian civil war could last for another 6 to 12 months before any sort of final solution is reached.  For Israel, it is critical to try to predict what the final solution could look like, in order to make relevant security arrangements for the new reality that she will inevitably have to face.

The security situation with Syria has experienced its ups and downs over the past 64 years.  Israel has been at war with Syria 3 times since 1948, and has also been involved in numerous border incidents and skirmishes over the years.  Despite the fact that Israel has not had an official war with Syria since 1973, Syria has continued to represent a significant threat to Israel.  This threat has come, not only from the border that Israel shares with Syria, but also from the huge financial, military and political support that Syria has provided to terrorist organisations which are working to destroy the State of Israel by any means.  Despite these constant threats, it would be fair to say that the border with Syria has been relatively stable and quiet since the guns went silent after the Yom Kippur War in 1973.  The fact that Israel has never been on the losing side of a war with Syria may have something to do with this, and Israel has certainly benefited from this relative calm.  A new reality in Syria could potentially be much worse than this.

It is believed that the minority Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad (and similarly that of his father Hafez al-Assad before him) has given a great deal of thought to the possibility that the majority may rise up against its minority tribe.  The Sunni Muslims are the great majority of the Syrian population comprising nearly 75% of the population, and the Alawites are a minority tribe falling under the umbrella of the arch-rival Shia group.  For the ruling family, this has always represented a significant threat to their rule, and to their general safety.  This threat was regarded as so significant, that detailed contingency plans were drawn up for the moment when Assad and his Alawite followers may be driven from power in Damascus.  These contingency plans are now the focus of attention, as it seems as if the moment for them to be activated is nearing.  It is rumoured that the plans involve the Alawites setting up some sort of independent homeland in the area of their stronghold in the Alawite Mountains, near to the Syrian towns of Homs and Tartous.  It is further rumoured that this new homeland would immediately seek international allies and recognition.  As ironic as it seems, Israel is one of the countries that have been identified for possible friendship with the Alawite nation when all of this transpires.  Suddenly, the new Alawite homeland and the State of Israel will have a common enemy in the form of Sunni-ruled Syria.  Such a relationship would, however, be complicated by the natural grouping of the Alawites alongside Iran, a fellow Shia majority country.

When contemplating the possibility of the above events taking place, it is clear that leaving Syria to the Sunnis following the flight of the Alawites to the mountains represents a huge threat to Israel.  Any situation that does not involve a formal handover of power in a controlled and organised fashion is a major threat on Israel's border.  This is particularly true when considering the quantity of arms and ammunition that Syria possesses.  It is also very likely that a Sunni-controlled Syria will forge much closer links with their Sunni compatriots in Hamas.  This is a further threat that Israel is forced to give serious thought to.  Shia-controlled Hezbollah may find themselves side-lined in this shift of power, but that organisation will continue to enjoy strong support and backing from their fellow Shias in Iran.

The possible new look in Syria set out above represents a major threat to the balance of power and stability in the Middle East.  Despite the fact that the Arab-Israeli conflict has continued unabated for more than 65 years, there has been an element of stability within the regional conflict.  The relative quiet along the Syrian border has been part of that relative stability.  Perhaps it is for this reason that the Israeli government has not been vociferous in speaking out on the events taking place in Syria.  It may be that the Israeli government has no real interest to see the end of Assad's regime too quickly.  Sometimes, its better the devil you know ................

Going Through the Motions

The most recent round of peace talks held between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been declared a failure by the Palestinians,  Even though the talks were held at a low level, involving only negotiating representatives from each side, there always somehow seems a little more hope when a dialogue is taking place.  In hindsight, it seems quite clear that there was never really any prospect that this round of talks would go anywhere.  For the Palestinians, it was always a case of simply going through the motions to get safely to the next trigger point.

Following the unsuccessful attempts by the Palestinians to gain recognition from the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the summer of 2011, the Palestinians had promised the Quartet that they would give another round of talks a chance until the 26th January 2012.  Having promised this, the Palestinians had no way of escaping from the commitment.  Despite the fact that a total of 5 meetings were held in the current round between the parties in a very short period of time, all of which took place under the sponsorship of the Jordanian government in Amman, it became clear very early in the process that there was little intent on the part of the Palestinians to make this round work.  Having seemingly exhausted its alternatives by making little progress at the UN, however, the question arises as to why the Palestinians were trying to torpedo these talks?  With few alternatives to allow them to make progress towards their objective, it would appear that talks seem to be the best alternative for Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority.

In order to better understand why the Palestinians sabotaged the latest talks, it is important to the sub-plots that are going on behind the scenes, and which are having more of an influence on the actions by President Abbas and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.  The first issue to address concerns the PA's alternatives at the UN.  Even though the UN Security Council and General Assembly seemingly had little interest in promoting the cause of the Palestinians at their meetings last year, the UN is quite a disparate organisation with many different tentacles that are often disconnected from each other.  This was demonstrated when, soon after the failure at the General Assembly, the Palestinians did manage to win support for full membership to the UN cultural organisation UNESCO in October 2011.  Although this was a poor consolation prize for main objective, it did demonstrate to the Palestinians that they could use a slower and indirect approach in order to work their way into the UN organisation.  This includes the possibility of making use of the UN-sponsored International Court of Justice to charge Israelis with crimes against humanity arising from events in the recent Gaza War, Operation Cast Lead.  The Palestinians have repeatedly threatened to make use of this avenue in their battle against Israel.  Even if charges that they may bring through this court are ultimately dismissed, such actions could tie individual Israelis and the Israeli government up in legal proceedings for many years.  By bringing the latest round of peace talks with Israel to an end, the prospect of stepping up actions through these UN organisations is placed firmly back on the table, and exactly where the Palestinians wish it to be.

The second sub-plot concerns the evolution of the relationship between Fatah and Hamas.  The Palestinian Authority is controlled by Fatah, and with Mahmoud Abbas already serving his 8th year of a 4-year term, there is a great deal of pressure for elections to be held.  Fatah is clearly reluctant to call elections when there is a real prospect of them being routed, even in their perceived stronghold of the West Bank.  Many of these issues were taken care of, when a deal was signed between Hamas and Fatah to create a unity government for the Palestinian Authority.  This deal is a typical attempt to extend the longevity of politicians on both sides of the divide, by denying the electorate the right to express its will through the ballot box.  With Hamas being absolutely opposed to holding any negotiations with Israel at all, the establishment of the unity government was put on hold while the latest talks were held.  Now, with the talks dead and buried, the blockage has been removed.  For Fatah, entering into a closer relationship with Hamas may allow it to share in some of the popular support that Hamas continues to enjoy following recent prisoner exchange deal.  It may also extend the political lives of some of the bigger names.

A further sub-plot in play concerns the ongoing events in the Arab World, and the events which have resulted from the "Arab Spring".  Mahmoud Abbas has announced that he will be taking the issue of the failed talks with the Israelis to the Arab League, to get direction as to what should happen next.  With the Arab League occupied with events in Syria, Abbas may have a created a smokescreen under which to operate.  Interestingly, the effects of the Arab Spring also seem to have created something of a split within Hamas, which may yet have an impact on the Palestinian Authority via the inclusion of Hamas in the unity government activities.  The leadership that was formerly based in Damascus (reports suggest that Khaled Meshal and his team have fled the Syrian capital) feel that non-violent protest against Israel may be effective as a "Palestinian Spring", after having seen the impact of the popular uprising in Syria and Egypt first-hand.  The Gaza leadership is quite clear that it has no intention of adopting a new non-violent approach against Israel, and this issue may yet cause further internal conflict within the Palestinian camp.

The way in which the Palestinians went through the motions in the recent peace talks seemed a little more transparent than usual.  Despite the fact that the talks were primarily addressing the issues of borders and security, an Israeli official was prevented from fully presenting Israel's position on borders to the Amman meeting.  An Israeli document setting out 21 points of principles needed to reach a peace agreement was not considered, and was then dismissed as being "just an outline".  These attempts to dismiss Israel's honest efforts in the talks seem clearly designed to sabotage the talks.  In the press, Israel's border proposals have been labelled as "preventing a Palestinian state from being established", and have been blamed for the breakdown of the talks.

In spite of the obvious reasons for the breakdown, the stale mate somehow seems still to have produced a slight edge for the Palestinian side.  The breakdown of the talks has been presented by the international community by saying that the Palestinians have at least fulfilled their commitment to continue to try until the pre-agreed date of 26th January.  Having tried and failed, all bets are off the table, but the rewards due to the Palestinians are triggered.  European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton even had the audacity to call upon Israel to deliver "confidence-building concessions" to encourage the talks to continue.  We have already learned that this means delivering confidence to the international community, and concessions to the Palestinians.  The Palestinian side seems not to be expected to deliver confidence nor the concessions.  The international community would be better off understanding that any such concessions on Israel's part, would amount to rewards to the Palestinians for bad behaviour.

It seems clear to me that a lasting peace will only be possible via a negotiated settlement.  This was also recognised by Fatah strongman Marwan Barghouti, who remains in an Israeli jail serving five life sentences for murder of Israeli citizens.  He made a rare court appearance during the last week, and managed to send out a message indicating that he believes in a negotiated settlement based on the 1967 borders.  The precise terms of the negotiated settlement remain a large outstanding issue, but it is interesting that the person believed to be the instigator of both the first and second intifadas is talking about a negotiated settlement at all.  The problem right now, is that there appear to be few Palestinians who believe that this is the correct route to take, and who are prepared to make the painful concessions necessary to bring this to reality.  Until this happens, the Palestinians will be going through the motions, and the cycle of violence will continue.

The Best and Worst of 2011

As we welcome 2012, it gives the opportunity to reflect on the best and worst parts of 2011.  In Israel, 2011 was an eventful year, including a number of interesting and challenging events.  For some, it was a year that they would prefer to forget.  Despite many negative aspects to the year, I think that Israelis will regard 2011 as having been a year that was more positive than negative.  Here are the main reasons why I think that this was the case.

The best story coming out of 2011 was the release of captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.  It is not only the fact that Gilad was returned safely to the arms of his family that makes this story good.  The fact that the Israeli government was finally able to agree and execute this deal sends some amazingly strong and positive statements to all Israelis.  For me, this is a classic story where the right thing finally triumphed.  Like all good stories, this has a negative side to it as well.  I really cannot blame all of those who opposed the deal due to the "price" that had to be paid in terms of the number of Palestinian prisoners who were released, even those who have murdered Israelis.  I also know how paranoid the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is about the possibility of soldiers being kidnapped in the future, and the measures that have been put in place to try to avoid this at any price.  I feel that working to avoid future kidnappings is a better reaction than leaving Gilad in captivity under the conditions that he was held.  This was, by far, the highlight of the year in my view.

Another good story of 2011 was that of the social protests.  Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to demonstrate against lack of social justice, and of the dramatic increases in the cost of living without commensurate increases in earnings.  This was a great story for a number of reasons.  It was good to see the Israeli public having the time and energy to devote to social issues, and behaving in a manner that most "normal" countries behave.  In the 63 years since Israel's independence, most of the time has been spent worrying about an existential threat.  Wars have been fought, terror attacks overcome and many people have been left dead and injured.  This allows little time or energy to give even a fleeting thought to daily social issues.  The fact that hundreds of thousands of Israelis were able to come out into the street to protest social issues gives some indication that the existential threat is not quite at the same level as it has been in the past.  It also shows what Israelis really care about, and shows the real democracy that exists in Israel.  On all of these levels, the protests were extremely encouraging.  These good points, however, should not cause us to lose sight of the core issue of these protests - the economic inequality and hardships that many people are suffering.  Unfortunately, the government has not responded sufficiently to the message of the protest marches, and this issue is likely to plague us for some time yet.

A further good story for 2011 was the extent to which the economy succeeded in holding up during the year.  Even though this seems to be at odds with the message brought by the social protest movement, more Israelis were in employment during 2011 than at any other time in Israel's history.  In addition, while economies around the world were floundering and suffering all types of economic problems, Israel somehow managed to keep its economy on track.  This does not mean that the year translated into a boom year for Israel.  It does, however, continue the theme of displaying a real underlying strength to Israel's economy that was shown during 2008 when the credit crunch hit many economies so hard.  Once again in 2011, Israel's economy has performed admirably.  Along with the good things, come some very difficult questions.  Why are so many Israelis struggling financially when the economy is at almost full employment?  This is clearly something that needs to be addressed as part of the social equality agenda.

The major regional story this year was the unfolding of the Arab Spring in countries in the Middle East and North Africa.  The way in which the Arab Spring has swept through the region could never have been predicted.  Even though this is great news for democracy in the Middle East, it has created an instability that is proving to be negative for Israel, and many countries in the western world.  While the free world has an obligation to support the move towards democracy in principle, there is a real problem about whether these countries are really ready to embrace democracy.  In many respects, stability in the Arab world is more important than democracy.  As things seem at the moment, the two don't seem to be able to live side by side.  The change of regime in Egypt is particularly concerning, with the increasing popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The protest movement in Syria also promises some dramatic changes to regional politics, and they are not necessarily all going to be positive.

The second major regional story surrounds Iran's development of nuclear weapons.  2011 can be characterised as a year of confirmation and inaction where this is concerned.  The international community were presented with irrefutable evidence of Iran's development of nuclear missiles.  Even the International Atomic Energy Agency were forced to accept that Israel's representations about Iran's nuclear program have been correct all along.  Having had this fact confirmed, the best that the international community could muster up, were a few ineffectual sanctions.  It has become clear that Iran is not only setting out to threaten Israel.  The events over the past few days in the Straits of Hormuz are a clear challenge to the US.  The military exercise on this occasion closed the straights for only a short period of time.  The next time could be for longer, precipitating a potential military conflict with the USA.

Despite the fact that 2011 was a hugely eventful year, it seems only to have set the scene for what awaits us in 2012.  Israel's social justice movement is likely to be more vociferous, particularly if the economy suffers more than it did in 2011.  The government will need to be prepared to commit to spend more money on social issues, and to see these promises through.  This is an issue that is no less imporant than Israel's security challenges.

The Arab Spring will come to a head in Syria.  It seems as though the Sunni Muslims, who represent over 70% of the population, are likely to gain the ascendancy after having been ruled by the minority Alawites for many years.  The Spring could yet spread to other countries in the region, and this could present a greater threat to Israel as more of her neighbours became destabilised by these events. 

I expect that 2012 will also see the Iranian nuclear issue come to a head, as Iran continues to intimidate and provoke Israel, the USA and other western countries.  All of this adds up to 2012 looking to be a tough year.

In between the pessimistic expectations are a few rays of light.  Even though I expect a great deal of instability during 2012, it is my hope that this will then bring a period of greater stability as is often the case.  I also hope that the unfolding Arab Spring can create a new, more compromising, reality with the Palestinians to allow moves towards a genuine peace based on mutual recognition and respect.

It is my hope and prayer that 2012 holds only great things for all of you.  Happy new year!!

Assad Keeps Fighting, But Cannot Survive

The uprising in Syria has continued unabated for the past 8 months.  Despite the fact that thousands of people have already been killed in the process, the uprising shows no signs of being quelled by the strong-arm tactics adopted by President Bashar al-Assad.  Despite Assad fighting the civilian uprising using all military options available to him, he cannot survive this challenge to his leadership.  In the interests of preventing further loss of life, Bashar should accept the inevitable as soon as possible and leave office.

The Syrian uprising has progressed in a substantially different way to the uprisings that took place in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya.  The biggest difference in Syria is the fact that the regime has managed to survive for as long as 8 months, despite constant protests by the opposition and Syrian civilians over this time.  We all know that the long-ruling and well-established governments of Gadaffi, Mubarak and others were unable to survive the attacks that they came under for more than a few months.  So what is it about Assad and Syria that has allowed him to survive for this period of time, despite having already killed more than 3,000 civilians (according to the UN) in his attempt to put down the uprising?

Despite the fact that the uprisings in other countries in the region proved to be the catalyst for the demonstrations in Syria, Assad has benefited from the fact other countries have been suffering unrest.  This has diverted the attention of the world and the international media elsewhere, while he tries to take care of his own back yard.  So far, he has managed to escape the fates that Mubarak and Gadaffi suffered when the world's leaders and media were focused on the events in these countries.  While there have been a few reports and international condemnation of events in Syria, these have not been anywhere as directed as those that were directed at Mubarak and Gadaffi before the demise of these two leaders.  In Assad's case, there are indications that this is about to change over the coming weeks and months now that Syria has been brought into target by the international community.

In the case particularly of Libya, oil had much to do with the decision by NATO to take an active part in Libya's uprising.   There can be no doubt that Gadaffi would probably still have been in power, if it was not for the role played by NATO war planes.  Even though oil exploration and export is an important part of the Syrian economy accounting for as much as 25% of the government's income, Syrian oil only makes up about 0.5% of the world's oil production.  As such, the world has not looked upon Syria with the same concern for its stability as it did when chaos ensued in Libya.  It also means that NATO has no interest in getting involved in Syria.  It enjoys little strategic relevance to the world, either in terms of its location or in terms of its production of oil.  The only possible point of strategic relevance relating to Syria is its ongoing dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights.  It is clear that the world would wish for this issue to be resolved in order to reduce the threat of a war between Syria and Israel which would, undoubtedly, drag other countries in the region into conflict.

Perhaps the most important reason why the world has not come down more harshly on Syria until now, relates to its connections with Iran.  Despite not sharing a common border, Syria and Iran have forged extremely close links over the past few years.  Ahmadinejad's Iran has proved to be the "catching net" for those countries seeking international links, but which have been rejected by countries in the west.  As one of the world's major sponsors of terror, Iran has cast its influence far and wide.  It has also stood up to huge criticism by the international community over its nuclear program, thereby showing itself as a leader of the renegade countries which oppose the influence of the USA and other western powers.  In this respect, Iran has shown itself to be quite an attractive ally for Turkey, Syria and other countries that are struggling to gain acceptance into international circles.  The world has realised that any action against Syria, effectively equates to action against Iran.

On the basis of the close links between Syria and Iran, it is difficult to separate action against Iran's nuclear program from action against Syria's extreme crackdown against protestors.  There is a view that says that the world, by escalating Iran on its nuclear program, is trying to divert Ahmadinejad's attention away from Syria in order to allow the world to take a separate position on this.  There seems to be an attempt to divide and rule.  The Arab League has taken a bold and significant stand against Syria over the past week, by suspending it from the organisation, and threatening to take further diplomatic actions against Syria if Assad does not pull his military forces out of civilian areas and halt the violence.  Although there is no love lost between the Arab League and Iran, the Arab League has taken its time in adopting this stand against Syria in view of the fact that it clearly represents taking a stand against Iran at the same time.

Despite Assad's closeness with Ahmadinejad, he will not be able to survive this uprising against his leadership.  He is destined to go the same route as Gadaffi, Mubarak and other casualties of the Arab Spring.  The question is whether he has learned any lessons from those that have fallen before him.  By hanging on to power longer than he should have, Gadaffi issued a death sentence for himself.  When his demise came, the hatred against him was such that he was never going to survive being captured by the opposition forces.  If Assad is sensible, he still has the opportunity to remove himself from power, thereby saving his life and that of his young family.  Continuing to direct his military forces to kill more civilians will make this outcome less likely, and will endanger his life further at that moment when he is driven from power.

Israel is watching carefully to see where events in Syria will lead.  The fall of Assad's regime will surely weaken Ahmadinejad's influence in the region.  Equally, any action taken against Iran's nuclear program will weaken Syria.  Assad has warned that any action taken by the international community against Syria will cause an earthquake in the region.  He knows that this is likely to drag Iran into a broader war in the Middle East, and the international community knows this too.

Ahmadinejad, it seems, is the big winner in all of this.  Leaders like Assad are running to him like little puppies in order to gain his acceptance and support.  He is standing up to the international community with his continued defiance of their calls against his nuclear program, and by continuing to fund international terrorism.  His name is on everyone's lips in the international press, and at organisations like the UN and the IAEA.  He is the modern-day version of Stalin that all seem to fear.  Even Ahmadinejad, however, cannot save Assad's head.  Assad will need to decide whether he is prepared to jump, or whether he is waiting to be pushed.  The latter option will not be without its consequences for him and his family.  Either way, Assad's eventual downfall can only be good for the region and the world by weakening Iran's influence.

The "Arab Spring" Sweeps Through Syria

The "Arab Spring", the name given to the uprisings which are taking place in many countries around the Arab world, has reached Syria in earnest. Despite the fact that Syria's President Bashar al-Assad indicated that he thought that the uprisings would not reach his country, I wrote more than two months ago that Syria was a clear candidate for the political unrest that started in Tunisia and Egypt, and which has swept through Arab countries in North Africa and the Middle East like a fire out of control.

Reports being smuggled out of Syria suggest that more than 100 Syrians have been killed by Assad's security forces over the weekend, the largest number in Syria since the start of the uprising. It seems that the situation in Syria has finally escaped from Assad's control, and he is being forced in the same direction as other countries before him. The uprisings have already claimed the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. Gaddafi's situation in Libya is looking extremely precarious and one wonders what prospects Assad may have of overcoming this rebellion and retaining power. His chances of success are not looking good if the results in other countries are anything to go by.

Even though Syria has its own idiosyncrasies which makes it slightly different from the other countries whose leaders have been forced out of power, there is one common thread running through the region. Like the other countries that have been part of the "Arab Spring" so far, Syria has a dictatorial leader who has been in power for many years without having been elected in a free and fair election. It is this point, combined with the dreams and aspirations of his citizens fuelled by the Internet and international media, which is causing citizens of Syria and other countries to rise up against their leaders. Ironically, it is also access to the Internet that is bringing their plight to the attention of the rest of the world. The flow of information and pictures over the Internet is what is really providing the fuel to the fires which have been lit on the streets of the Arab capitals.

When Bashar al-Assad took the reins of power in Damascus following the death of his father, there was real optimism that things in Syria were on the verge of a major change. Bashar is an ophthalmologist who undertook some of his training in London. He is married to Asma who was born and bred in the UK. He was regarded as more worldly, and with a better understanding of western ideals than those who went before him. When assuming the presidency of Syria in 2000, he promised reform and new opportunities for his people. He expressed the wish to upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure to give Syrians greater access to the Internet and, with it, greater participation in the activities of the international world. Unfortunately, his promises remain unfulfilled and Syria remains largely the same country that he inherited in 2000.

The current uprising in Syria brings back memories of the uprising against Hafez al-Assad in 1982. On that occasion, it was the Muslim Brotherhood which mobilised tens of thousands of people to protest against Assad in the city of Hama. By use of murderous force, Assad was able to quell the uprising and retain power in Syria for both himself and his son. In Hama, however, there were no cellular phones and no YouTube video clips documenting the behaviour of the security forces for the world to see. In that sense, Bashar is forced to confront an entirely different reality. He has tried to block information leaking out to the world by closing the country's borders and limiting access for journalists. He has also tried to block Internet access by citizens of Syria to prevent them from leaking out details of the crackdown by the feared Assad security apparatus. The global village has, however, become too small and Assad has been unable to block information leaking out of Syria's uprising. One small hole in the dike has been enough to allow a flood of information to reach the outside world about what is really happening in Syria.

Despite Assad's substantial attempts to block the flow of information and images out of Syria, he has also recognised the futility of this exercise. He has requested of the security forces not to kill more than 20 people a day in their attempts to put down the uprising. This cynical order has been ignored, particularly in recent days. An equally ironic step has been Assad's announcement that he is lifting the state of emergency that has remained in force in Syria for approximately 50 years. The announcement has, however, been accompanied by behaviour on the part of the security forces which completely ignores the fact that, formally, the state of emergency is no longer in place. This state of emergency is one of the main symbols of oppression against which the people are protesting. The irony of this state of emergency is that Assad has been forced to lift it just when he really requires its provisions to control the protest movement.

In a perverse way, Syria's lack of oil reserves may ultimately save the Assad regime. Although the world is looking on with horror at the way in which Assad's security forces are trying to put down the protests, it seems highly unlikely that the world will intervene in any way. Not only are the military forces of the free world stretched to their limits with ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya, there seems little incentive for the world to become involved in Syria. This fact may give Assad a free hand to emulate the actions of his father in Hama almost 30 years ago to also squash this dramatic challenge to his power. In spite of the images reaching our TV and computer screens from Damascus and other Syrian cities, it seems as though Bashar will be allowed to do almost whatever he likes. The only remaining question is to what lengths Bashar will be prepared to go to defend his realm.

For Israel, the unrest in Syria creates mixed emotions. On the one hand, while Assad is fighting to stay in power, he has little time to devote to support the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah. This represents something of a relief for Israel. In addition, it is clear that the threat from Syria on Israel's northern border is lower than at other times, which comes as a welcome relief to the Israeli military establishment. While Assad's government is under threat and the possibility exists that Assad may be deposed, Israeli intelligence is trying to create scenarios as to what may happen if Assad is forced out of office. This is always a difficult situation to predict. While the period of Assad's rule has presented a real threat to Israel, directly from Syria and via Syria's proxy armies in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas, there is the possibility that Assad's replacement may even be worse. It is also unclear whether a change of government will bring the possibility of peace talks nearer, or further away. Sometimes, it is better the devil you know than you don't know.

It seems quite likely that the "Arab Spring" will extend into an "Arab Summer". Countries like Jordan, the Gulf States, Iran and even Saudi Arabia are not immune from the current wave of uprisings, and may find themselves next on the list. As the protests reach nearer to the heart of the major oil-producing countries causing further increases in international oil prices, countries in the west will be forced to take more of an active interest. If the current crisis in the Arab world cannot be brought under control in the near future and have a further negative effect on the economies of western countries, we may see the impact of the "Arab Spring" depose western leaders such as Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Merkel and others via a ballot box revolution.