What Can We Conclude from the European Elections?

I have observed over the time of the existence of the European Parliament, that the results of European Parliament elections in the European member countries, frequently do not mirror the results of elections in those countries for their local parliaments.  This has provided much food for thought about why this happens.  Is it that the European issues are so substantially different from local national issues that people could choose to vote for entirely different parties?  Could it be that the electorate feels that they can make a statement via their vote for the European Parliament that has little consequence for their everyday lives?

The European Parliament election held a couple of weeks ago is a classic example.  Most of the votes that were cast in the UK went to the UK Independence Party, a party that secured no seats in the last UK parliamentary elections.  David Cameron's Conservative Party was demoted to third place in the European election.   In France, Marine Le Pen's National Front secured the highest number of votes in the European elections, while holding only 2 out of 577 seats in the French National Assembly.  President Francois Hollande's Socialist Party received only the third highest number of votes.  While this is not necessarily the trend in all European countries, it is sufficiently noticeable in a few countries to attract attention and warrant further analysis.

From a Jewish perspective, the most worrying aspect of the results of this European election, is the extent to which right-wing parties attracted support.  Many of these right-wing parties have strong neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic elements to them, something which is commonly known and unashamedly made public.  The reason that these nationalist parties are gaining in support is twofold.  Firstly, many Europeans feel the influx of foreigners to Europe over the past few years, such that immigrants from the Middle East and the Far East are creating an entirely different atmosphere than was previously the case in Europe.  It has also created a security threat in Europe that is unprecedented in recent times.  We all know the realities that we face when travelling by air.  We also know that these security threats are not caused by native-born Europeans (even though some of the terrorists do carry European legitimate passports).  A vote for the nationalists is seen as a vote to oppose the hijacking of Europe, as it has been taking place in recent years.

Of much greater concern, however, is the strength of anti-Semitic feeling evident in Europe, which is drawing people to vote for right-wing parties that promote openly anti-Semitic platforms.  The two right-wing platforms have a link.  The Muslims, who have recently made Europe their home and who threaten the security of the free world, frequently claim to be acting in opposition to Israel.  For many Europeans, the security threat that hangs over Europe and the western world is all Israel's fault.  Many believe that, if Israel was prepared to capitulate to the demands of the Palestinians, all of the world's problems could be resolved.  This gives further fuel to the anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist feelings that are on the increase across the continent.  Anti-Semitic attacks are on the increase across the continent, as has been evident in France and more recently in Belgium.  Jewish communities in Europe, that for many years existed without threat or concern, are now under siege.

Ironically, it is precisely this anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that is creating the pressure on Israel to capitulate to the demands and threats of the Palestinians.  If the US administration is prepared to accept a Palestinian unity government that is comprised of an organisation that calls for Israel's destruction and is on official list of terror organisations in the USA, it is easy to see why European anti-Semitic organisations are finding much support and strength.  It is also easy to see why the Muslim community in Europe is gaining in power and strength in their local anti-Semitic activities, and in their anti-Israel activities.  The influence of these organisations should not be underestimated.  As much as Israel will always act independently to protect her safety and her security, Israel needs also to be accepted in the international community in order to ensure that she has a market for the delivery of the amazing array of goods and services that are produced in Israel.  This is a critical leg of Israel's economy to ensure a positive balance of payments.

The open nature of the support for right-wing parties in Europe is of real concern.  It gives greater power to the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel agendas that these organisations are pursuing.  It also reinforces the mistaken notion that Israel is the cause of the lack of security in Europe.  For now, this support is mostly manifesting itself in the European Parliament elections.  The greater danger is that these organisations may also enjoy greater support in the national elections of these countries.  The Israeli government should be planning for this to happen.

How the Palestinian Unity Deal Could Help Israel

On the face of it, the agreement between the rival Palestinian factions to form a unity government is bad news for Israel.  In response, Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately cancelled any possibility of talking about peace talks, and all prospects of reaching any sort of agreement with the Palestinians seem to be lost for the foreseeable future.  The Israeli government has vowed never to hold discussions with Hamas.  The fact that Hamas is effectively being drawn in as part of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the unity government, means that talks with the PA cannot be contemplated.  Hamas could break out of their stronghold in the Gaza Strip, and become much more influential in the West Bank via their participation in the unity government.  This may allow for the expansion of their terror activities into the West Bank, and could provide a new launching pad for the rocket fire that has been prevalent from Gaza over the past few years.  The signs are, however, not all as grim as the above-mentioned picture depicts.  The link-up between Hamas and Fatah could, ironically, bring some benefits to Israel.

As a result of the agreement to form a unity government, Hamas will effectively be drawn into the PA.  In a number of countries around the world, including the USA, Hamas has been outlawed as a terror organisation.  If Hamas is part of the PA, US law will prevent the US government from dealing with the PA and from making financial donations to the PA.  It is well known that the PA has relied heavily upon financial donations made by countries around the world, including the USA.  The unity government is likely to result in less financial donations coming forward  to the Palestinians in general, as a result of Hamas's involvement in the PA.

By linking up with Hamas, an organised which has a much lower level of respect in the international community, Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah organisation can be seen to be showing its true colours.  Abbas has been trying for many years to gain greater international recognition.  Just recently, he made application to a number of UN bodies and international treaties, for the Palestinians to be admitted as full members.  This has caused a stir especially considering that the Palestinians are not an independent state, something that is generally required for admission to these bodies and treaties.  The UN Secretary General will be the one who will have to decide in the case of most of the applications, whether or not to admit the Palestinians as full members.  His decision may be swayed against admitting them, if he will be required to deal with Hamas officials as part of the PA.  This may also reduce the  standing of PA President Mahmoud in the international community, when it is considered that he finds it politically acceptable to link up with a terror organisation as his partner in government.

A new Palestinian unity government with Hamas may also buy time for Prime Minister Netanyahu.  There was a strong view that US Secretary of State John Kerry laid the blame for the failure of the peace talks with Netanyahu.  Now that the Abbas has thrown his lot in with Hamas, the international community may have a lower expectation of Netanyahu in forcing him to be more accommodating in talks with the PA.

The fact that Hamas has decided to come to an arrangement with Fatah and the PA is telling.  Hamas has consistently opposed the idea of negotiating with Israel, and has been highly critical of Mahmoud Abbas for doing so. and for being prepared to recognise Israel's right to exist  Indeed, this has been one of the reasons that Hamas has used for not agreeing to a unity government on previous occasions.  The fact that Hamas has gone back on its principles may be an indication of the weak situation that Hamas finds itself in at the current time.  The friendship that Hamas had with Egypt has evaporated with the overthrow of President Morsi.  Hamas is clearly on the lookout for friends and supporters, and its agreement to enter into a pact with Fatah is a sign of real weakness.

The advantages that the Palestinian unity government (if indeed it ever gets off the ground) will bring to Israel will be short-lived.  There are already signs that US Secretary of State John Kerry is prepared to pander to the unity government, despite Hamas being a terror organisation under US law.  It is clear that the international community will continue to provide support to what is perceived as the underdog, even if this is a terrorist underdog.  Any advantages, however, that  Israel can derive from this situation, even in the short-term, will be welcome.

Palestinian Confusion?

An Israeli newspaper has reported that Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, has said that he is considering dismantling the Palestinian Authority.  This was the body that was set up under the Oslo Accords to govern the Palestinians and their affairs in the West Bank and Gaza.  The Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority lost control of Gaza in 2007 when Hamas seized control there.  They have, however, continued to rule over the West Bank, and has been the body officially tasked with negotiating a peace agreement with Israel.  Having been a governing authority for the past 20 years, what would prompt Mahmoud Abbas to take the seemingly extreme step to dismantle it?

I interpret the threat by Mahmoud Abbas to be simply another tactic to attempt to weaken Israel's standing in the international community, and to create embarrassment and difficulty for Israel.  I cannot imagine that a leader that is determined to lead his people to an independent existence in peace and security, would behave in this way.  It is difficult for me to understand how dismantling the Palestinian Authority would serve the purpose of the Palestinian people in their publicly-stated quest to be counted amongst the legitimate nations of the world.

The first leader of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, was outed as a fraud who did little to further the cause of the two-state solution as envisaged by the Oslo Accords.  Instead, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he encouraged the intifadas against Israel, organised and financed suicide bombings and other terrorist atrocities committed against Israeli civilians, and negotiated with Israeli leaders in bad faith while being feted as an international leader around the world.  He was also personally pocketing billions of dollars of aid money donated by the international community, which was intended to assist the building of a Palestinian state and help the Palestinian people.  While Mahmoud Abbas does not quite have the same notorious track record, his true intentions as the current leader of the Palestinian Authority and people has not been made clear.  Is he a leader in the mould of Yasser Arafat, whose primary intentions were to destroy Israel and to build a personal empire for himself, or are his intentions more honourable in wishing to build a viable state and nation for his people?  It is true that there has been no intifada under Abbas's watch (despite numerous threats to launch one), and that the level of terror activities has been lower.  We have also not observed negotiations with Israel in good faith to create a long-term peace for the two-state solution.

For those people who promote Abbas as a genuine leader who would be prepared to live side-by-side in peace with Israel under the right conditions, it seems to be difficult to explain why he would take any steps towards dismantling the Palestinian Authority.  While this governing body has not achieved all that was hoped for it when the Oslo Accords were signed 20 years ago, it has undoubtedly achieved a much greater level of independence for the Palestinian people.  If the leaders had pursued this model more honestly, much more may have been achieved.  If, at 79 years of age, Abbas feels he is tired and no longer has the energy and drive to continue to lead this effort, he should stand aside and allow the younger generation to take it forward.  Surely dismantling the model would do more harm than good for the independence of the Palestinian people?

For those who promote Abbas as a true heir of the legacy left to him by Arafat, the act of dismantling the Palestinian Authority is entirely consistent with other attempts to destroy Israel.  In 1948, when the State of Israel was established, Israel's enemies thought that the brute force of the Arab armies would be enough to destroy a Jewish state without any real army.  When it was proved to them that this tactic was not working and would not work, they changed their tactic to waging a "people's" war.  This involved training soldiers to operate under the cover of private civilians, and from civilian areas.  They fired missiles from the living rooms of homes that housed women and children, often using them as human shields, and initiated two intifadas.  While these tactics tested Israel's determination to adhere to moral warfare to the maximum, it has not succeded in testing Israel's determination to exist and to build a state.  When this was shown to be inaffective, a new tactic was employed.  This is to use pressure exerted by the international community and by international bodies to beat Israel into submission and destruction.  The actions at the United Nations in recent years, and particularly in recent months, show clear evidence of this.

The threat to dismantle the Palestinian Authority is entirely consistent with the latest tactic adopted.  By declaring that the Palestinian Authority as an "occupied government", the Palestinians can annul the Oslo Accords.  This would effectively return the rule over the Palestinians in the West Bank to the responsibility of the Israeli government.  Such a move would open a whole new opportunity for the Palestinians to bring their resistance directly to the Israeli government, and to present Israel as a pariah state in the international community.

By building a powerful military machine to defend her existence, Israel has created an unfavourable situation for herself in the international community.  The international community prefers to favour the underdog, and Israel's formidable army means that she is not regarded as such by the international community.  The balance of sympathy has shifted to the Palestinians, in spite of the acts of terror carried out by them, and in spite of the clear links that the leadership has to these acts of terror.  The idea of creating further embarrassment and discomfort for Israel, by forcing the Israeli government to rule directly over the Palestinians in the West Bank, is likely to enhance the situation enjoyed by the Palestinians in the international community.

It is unfortunate that the Palestinians have worked harder to discredit Israel than they have to build their own nation and state.  If they had devoted as much time and energy to positive efforts of building a state as they had to destroying Israel it is highly unlikely that they would be considering the possibility of returning rule to Israel at this time.  While some may regard this tactic as being somewhat inconsistent and confused, what they are trying to achieve seems quite clear to me.

Carrying the Blame for the Breakdown of the Peace Talks

I am not too bothered that Israel has been blamed for the breakdown of the peace talks with the Palestinians.  I don't believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu will be overly concerned about this either.  Despite US Secretary of State John Kerry's denials that he is blaming Israel for the breakdown of the talks, he is quoted as saying that the peace talks broke down because Israel was not prepared to release the final group of 26 Palestinian prisoners.  When referring to the unilateral action taken by the Palestinian Authority to apply to 15 international organisations and treaties for membership, Kerry said that this is a response to the breakdown of the talks.  Maybe he did not mention the specific words that Israel is to blame, but his references seem quite clear where he is laying the responsibility.

There are a few reasons why I am unconcerned about the inappropriate attribution of blame.  Firstly, we have witnessed over the years that the stigma that may be associated with blame of this type, does not necessarily stick for too long.  We saw the openly hostile and dissenting attitude displayed by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David, where he rejected any form of compromise agreement out of hand.  He later managed to turn this situation around in a such a way, that it was difficult to believe that he had torpedoed the talks.  He succeeded in convincing the subsequent American administrations that he was genuinely seeking peace, despite having shown in no uncertain terms that this was not his intention.  All was quickly forgotten.  We are currently witnessing this form of political amnesia with the events in Crimea.  It was only a few weeks ago that the US, NATO and other western countries were up in arms over Russia's invasion of Crimea.  Now, despite ongoing criticism of Russia's belligerent behaviour on the Ukrainian eastern border, the world seems to have completely forgotten Crimea.  The Russian invasion is a fait accompli.

It is my view that Prime Minister Netanyahu acted exactly correctly in refusing to release the final group of prisoners.  If this means that Israel has to carry the blame, then so be it.  I think that Netanyahu was correct to embark upon the path to try to seek out a peace arrangement with the Palestinians, despite all indications that this was likely to be a futile exercises.  I think that he was correct to split the prisoner release into 4 separate stages, even though I question whether he was correct to agree the unilateral release of prisoners without any tangible equivalent steps on the part of the Palestinians.  Having insisted upon splitting the prisoner release into 4 stages, the prime minister was obliged to consider at each stage whether proceeding with that stage was in the best interests of Israel and her people.  All things considered, I would already have stopped things at the third stage.  The fact that he stood up to the international community and refused to release the fourth group, however, restored some of my confidence in him.

The prime minister has the obligation, on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, to seek out any possible way to peace that he can find.  In that sense, when John Kerry showed serious intention of finding a way to peace despite the conditions and circumstances not looking quite right, Netanyahu took the gamble.  He even agreed to the highly controversial step of releasing prisoners with blood on their hands, something that not everybody concurred with.  He went the extra mile to show intent and goodwill, in the interests of granting the gift of peace to our children and grandchildren.  The mistake in taking this step, was that the US interlocutors somehow did not value this step in the same way as Israel did.  For the country that has detained prisoners without trial in Guantanamo Bay for years, it seems strange that this demand was taken so for granted by the US.  I feel sure that the US would never have agreed to a similar step, perhaps not even in the pursuit of the elusive peace that we seek.  The decision for Israel to release prisoners who have been tried and found guilty of murder and terror acts, is not an easy one.  When it became clear that the peace talks were not progressing in a positive direction, Netanyahu did the right thing by cutting his losses.

History will yet judge Netanyahu's decision in entering into the peace talks, in releasing 78 prisoners, in insisting that he maintains some control over the process by continuing to approve construction in the West Bank, and in refusing to release the final group of 26.  It will also judge his attitude towards the substance of the talks, as well as judging the actions taken by the Palestinians.  I believe that trying and failing, is better than not trying at all.  This is especially true when it comes to matters of strategic national interest such as the peace talks.  I trust that history will judge him accurately, and not concur with the Kerry version of laying the blame.

Chag Pesach sameach.

Recognising Israel as a Jewish State

In the context of the on-again off-again peace discussions between Israel and the Palestinians, one of the most public issues of disagreement surrounds the insistence by Israel that the Palestinians recognise Israel as Jewish state, and the Jewish homeland.  Is this a valid demand, or is Prime Minister Netanyahu simply using this demand as an excuse to create a roadblock in the process?  What advantage would such a recognition bring to Israel, and to its relationship with a future Palestinian state?

There seems to be much public disagreement over this demand, with most Israelis supporting the prime minister's insistence that our neighbours (and those around the world) be prepared to publicly acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.  But how justified is Israel to demand that the international community should recognise it as a Jewish state.  Most countries around the world are happy to be simply recognised as a country by their name, with some adding the nature of the country's government to its name such as kingdom or republic.  Despite the opposition voiced by the Palestinians, there is a precedent for countries adding the predominant religion to their names as in "The Islamic Republic of Iran" or "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan".  Even though the international community has not always liked the activities of these Islamic republics, there has never been a question about recognising them as Islamic republics.  So why should there be any problem with recognising Israel as a Jewish state, even without adding this to its name?

The nature of Israel as a Jewish state has been a public matter since even before the State of Israel was established.  The Balfour Declaration, in which the British government ackowledged in 1917 that it viewed "with favour the establishment of Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people", was only one of many public statements made about the nature of Israel as a Jewish state.  Of course, the "Palestine" referred to by Balfour is modern-day Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and even includes Jordan.  UN General Assembly Resolution 181 was passed in November 1947, and includes reference in Part I A3 to independent Arab and Jewish states coming into existence in the area formerly known as Palestine.  Israel's Declaration of Independence was unequivocal in declaring Israel as the Jewish state  when it says, "... declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as The State of Israel".  It could not be much clearer.  So, what drives the Palestinians need to deny this, and what gives them the right to change a decades-old reality?

The Palestinians have never admitted publicly why they wish to deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, but I speculate that it is connected to the issue of the return of the refugees.  This is a highly controversial matter that continues to be one of the points for discussion in the peace talks.  During the War of Independence in 1948, approximately 700,000 Arab residents of the nascent State of Israel fled their homes.  This was despite the invitation by the new Jewish government of the state for them to remain in their homes, and take up citizenship of the new state.  Those who chose to stay have enjoyed a relatively comfortable existence as citizens of Israel, with all democratic rights that flow from that.  Those who fled, on advice from the Arab leadership, were advised that they would have the opportunity to return triumphantly to reclaim their properties and to reclaim all the land which is the State of Israel.  That triumphant moment never came, and the refugees remain cooped up in refugee camps in countries on Israel's borders to this day.  Of the original generation of refugees, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 still remain.  The descendants of the refugees now number around 5 million.  They have been kept in these camps as a form of pressure on Israel and the international community to allow the refugees to return to their original homes.  With 5 million people now part of the discussion, there is clearly no prospect that Israel will admit them as citizens of the State of Israel.  There is a discussion, however, about how this problem will be resolved such that these people will be given permanent homes and citizenship.  It is likely to be a combination of some moving to the West Bank, with others being naturalised in the countries in which they currently live, and in which most of them were born.  The connection between this issue and the issue of recognising Israel as a Jewish state, is that the act of recognising Israel as a Jewish state effectively means that the Palestinians will give up on any claim to move refugees of any significant number into Israel itself to return to the  homes in which they once lived.  The Palestinian leadership does not seem to be ready for this yet.

There are those who ask why Israel continues to insist that the Palestinians formally recognise the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, when this same requirement did not form any part of the peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt.  I believe that the answer to this is that the Jordanians and the Egyptians never doubted this.  The reason why they were at war with Israel is because it is a Jewish state, and the reason that they were finally prepared to reach a peace agreement with Israel was because they were prepared to accept this fact.  The recognition of the Jewish nature of Israel was the fundamental basis of the peace agreements.  The agreement with the Palestinians is much more complex, and is based on many other substantial points that are yet to be agreed.  The reason why Prime Minister Netanyahu is making a big issue out of recognising Israel as a Jewish state, is exactly because the Palestinians deny it.  I believe that most citizens of Israel would support the position that he takes.

When countries are founded and nations created, there is usually a common bond that connects the people in that country.  The common thread that connects Israelis who have come from all four corners of the earth over the past 66 years, is the fact that they are Jewish.  The majority of the citizens in Israel identify themselves as Jewish, and there is no way of denying this.  This is the will of most of the citizens, and any national agreement entered into with a party that denies this fact will not have the support of the citizens of Israel.   Now that this issue has such a high public profile, with the Palestinians continuing to be ambiguous about their recognition of Israel's Jewish character, many citizens of Israel would demand that the Palestinians unequivocally acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state before any agreement is signed.

The issue of recognising Israel as a Jewish state has been brought to the forefront of the peace talks.  The reason for this is really not clear, as the Palestinians have not explained why they object to this recognition.  For Israelis, the fact that they are objecting is cause for concern, and reason to insist that no peace deal can be signed without it.  This is surely the most basic requirement for any neighbour of Israel which wishes to respect Israel's existence according to the will of the majority of her citizens.

Hiatus

Afer taking a break from writing blogs for a few months, I will be posting a new blog soon.

I have recharged my batteries, and am ready to share some more of my views on the ever-interesting situation in Israel and the Middle East.  Even though I have not written for a while, the material continues to accumulate and  I am not short of interesting topics to write about.  I have some quite definite views to express about the recent events.  Stay tuned to hear more.

Thanks to my readers for continuing to check in, and for being patient during my period of hibernation.

Watch this space for more .....

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.