Hamas' Cynical Plan

Israel was not created in order to disappear – Israel will endure and flourish.  It is the child of hope and the home of the brave.  It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success.  It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.

            President John F. Kennedy 

This past week, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the U.N. Riyad Mansour spoke of the recent troubles between his state and Israel.  He spoke of Israel breaking the recently agreed upon cease-fire and castigated the Jewish state for the massacre of Palestinians.  Interviewer Charlie Rose asked about the actions of Hamas, breaking the truce with thousands of rockets leading to the Israeli response.  Mr. Mansour, speaking with either shocking naïveté or willful obliviousness, said that Hamas does not represent the Abbas government and therefore, does not represent a violation of the cease-fire.  The U.N. Observer’s verbiage is characteristic of an unbalanced and cynical approach in the worsening climate of the Middle East. 

Since the Oslo Accord in 1993, Israel has been pushed into one agreement after another in which it sacrifices and Palestine does not.  Israel has ceded territory, has agreed to a needed two-state solution and nine years ago, it demolished a slew of Israeli settlements throughout Gaza and the West Bank to secure a possible peace.  It has entered into negotiations with the Abbas government who has shown, at times in the recent crisis, remarkable courage in speaking out against Hamas and those who support the terrorist group.  Yet, Hamas lies just outside the light of diplomacy and refuses to budge.  

Hamas has pursued a policy that calls for the destruction of Israel by inviting its fire and using ordinary Palestinians as shields.  Despite Mr. Mansour’s blithe understanding and acceptance of Hamas, the terrorist group has fired its many rockets out of homes, schools, mosques and areas that would ensure, in the retaliation, what Charles Krauthammer called the telegenic death of hundreds of innocent civilians.  The deaths of innocents televised are callously used as part of a public relations campaign that has won support throughout the world.  Morality does not matter, only the end result.  Hamas fires away at Israel while some throughout the world justify the means used.  I guess terrorism works.  

For all those who chastise and criticize Israel for its actions, it fails to offer an alternative.  Some have suggested at other times that Israel needs to negotiate.  To what end?  To lose more land or invite more rockets?  Other observers have correctly assessed that since Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank ended nearly a decade ago and Palestine has been able to pave its own path, vital economic and political institutions, needed infrastructure and stability has been absent.  Despite the fact that Israel gives the Palestinian state millions of dollars a year in aid and supplies, a periodically well-intentioned Mahmoud Abbas and the powerless Palestinian civilians have been in the grips of Hamas.  The terrorist organization has repeatedly sought to undermine any efforts of peace.  They want the destruction of Israel and if it can’t happen militarily, they will do so by cynically placing its own “constituents” in the line of fire to convince the world that Israel is in the wrong. 

Israel, to its credit, has failed to dove-tail into the culture of death and martyrdom that is being embraced in Gaza.  Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, referring to the words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has come out to say that Israel will not glorify the Jews responsible for the reaction to the death of three Israeli teenagers.  Those who killed that young Palestinian man will not be hailed as heroes, will not have public squares named after them and will not be taught to young Israeli children.  All of which has happened in Palestine.   

It is difficult to say how Palestine and the ordinary citizen will be able to take control again of its future and its faith.  Thankfully, if recent international news coverage holds true, there has been a more even-handed reporting of the recent violence with a hard look being cast upon Hamas.  Israel has little open to them in the way of options.  Hamas is counting on that and hoping that the old formula will work once more.  Perhaps, people are starting to see the position with which Israel has wrestled over the last couple of decades.  If Hamas can be shown for what it is, it might bring the region closer to peace.  Sadly, I don’t expect to see it any time soon.

What Is In a Name?

From an early age, I was aware that not all was as it seemed.  According to my family, I was Jewish but in accordance with most authorities on the subject, I was not.  The problem was my mother – a southern shiksa who married a Jewish Yankee from Baltimore.  Because my mother is not Jewish, rabbinic authorities declare that I’m not either.  For me personally, it is not an issue and I can dismiss the controversy with a Talmudic shrug.  For Israel, it is a larger issue with much wide-ranging implications.    

There are two sides of the much debated topic.  On the Orthodox side of the equation, there are the rabbis of Israel.  When Israel was created, the government bestowed upon the religious authorities the responsibility of all religious matters which included marriage and questions of Jewishness.  The only time the government infringed on this duty was in the parameters for the Right of Return and Israeli citizenship, requiring only one Jewish grandparent of an immigrant (or their spouse).  However, according to the religious authorities, only one of a Jewish mother or one who has passed through traditional conversion can claim to be a “Jew.”  

On the other side of the argument are the liberals who see the question mired in the difficulty of answering, “What is a Jew?”  Outside of Israel, so many Jews (particularly young Jews) are marrying outside the Tribe, lines are blurring at a dizzying rate.  There is even a growing number of Jews who feel a belief in God is not necessary to be a Jew.  Additionally, there are the problems that arise from such a narrow view of “Jewishness” as seen in the Jewish Ethiopian immigrant controversy in Israel in the 1980s and their Hebraic bona fides.  Compounded with the omnipresent uncertainty of Eastern European/Russian Jews who grew up with no religious knowledge under an atheistic regime and the question grows more convoluted. 

Both sides raise troubling consequences to the other’s position.  The Jewish race, not to mention the faith, has survived largely through a measure of self-preservation and agreed-upon identity.  In the face of historic animosity, they have persevered through a measure of isolationism.  The more vague the traditional concepts of identity become, the greater the threat of the word “Jew” not meaning anything.  Particularly offensive to Israeli rabbis is the concept of a secular Jew without religious conviction.  However, a growing number are in that category or have switched religious affiliation altogether.   For a people who have endured immeasurable oppression, the loss of this identity is traumatic.   

From a modernist point of view, the narrower the term “Jew” is defined, the more likely the faith will die out as prospective converts consider other options.  Ethiopian and Russian Jews do not consider themselves any less so but, in Israel, endure constant suspicions to the contrary.  It is tough enough to convert to a faith in a world that increasingly disrespects such standards.  One can accept such criticism but to have it come from within?  Israeli rabbis have frequently blamed American and other western rabbis for watering down the standards but the reality for these leaders is quite different.  The level of pluralism in western societies make adherence to Israeli standards suicidal.

There is a story of an atheist who tells a rabbi he does not believe in God.  The rabbi responds, “What makes you think God cares?”  I don’t think the question of “Jewishness” can be settled on the basis of religion.  It is an ethnicity and, like God, the belief in the Almighty should not be of primary concern.  However, the rabbis have a great deal vested in maintaining the power to determine this and though liberals in the Knesset are trying to push their agenda, it will take some time.  The Diaspora has broadened the concept of who is and who is not a Jew and there is little point in re-arguing the issue.  One thing is for sure – a protracted argument does no one any good and certainly, is not advantageous for Israel.  I would think it has enough on its plate. 

Beginning of the Reckoning?

Last weekend, European and American leaders, in negotiations with Iranian representatives in Geneva, Switzerland, struck a six-month deal to limit the enrichment of uranium.  It is hoped that this agreement is the first step towards slowing Iran’s search for a nuclear weapon.  However, as a historian, I hope this is not the Munich Agreement of our times.  At its core is a trust (or hope) that Iran will fulfill its obligations as it sincerely presented them at the negotiation table.  Despite this, there is a fear that the western European leaders and President Obama do not end up looking like the appeasers – a group of leaders who hoped, against history, that the promises slipping from the mouths of tyrants do not end up costing us dearly in the end. 

It is often said that the current elected leader of Iran, President Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate.  Keep in mind that in a country like Iran, “moderate” does not translate to a western definition.  If indeed he is not the promise that many westerners desperately hope he is, the question must be asked about the motivation of Iran.  Iran, like most dictatorial regimes, only agrees to that which costs them nothing to do so.  Consider the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Act.  Throughout the Harding/Coolidge administrations, there was a concerted attempt to take war off the table and help bring more belligerent countries in line with some fifty-four countries signing along.  This measure was joined by earlier efforts such as the Washington Conference (1921-2) and the various naval power agreements to limit tools of war.  However, such pie-in-the-sky idealism, further advanced by the impotent League of Nations, only assuaged people’s concern temporarily.  None of the agreements or the organization prevented the carnage ahead.   

The hope for better things, with no history or facts to support such aspirations, brought us to the infamous Munich Agreement, where the Allies, desperate to avoid war, gave away Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.  Czechoslovakia was not present at those meetings, and today, countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, very concerned by an Iran with nuclear weapons, are equally minimized and now equally anxious.  To put it succinctly, many people are concerned because they don’t trust the governments that formed the agreement.  The Saudis do not trust the Iranians to carry out their obligations and they do not trust the Obama administration or the Europeans to punish Iran should the Islamic Republic fail to uphold its end.  For Saudi Arabia, who fears a Shi’a nuclear power, and the Israelis, who fear anyone nearby with a nuclear weapon, a rather untenable situation has developed.  Despite the words of assurances by various European and American leaders, the general sense is that it is doomed to fail because the aggressor lacks the interest and the appeasers lack the intestinal fortitude for a fight.  

Herein lies the problem of all of the major conflicts that have wreaked havoc in the 20^th century.  The League of Nations was destroyed because it failed to act against Italian aggression in Albania and Ethiopia and when Japan invaded its neighbors.  U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt felt that by not joining the Spanish civil war, the fight between fascists and republicans would not grow but it did when Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini helped.  The Allies partially created the carnage of World War II because they failed to check Hitler’s rise to power.  What will be said 40 years from now?  Will European leaders and President Obama further epitomize the folly of trusting untrustworthy dictatorships?  History seems to suggest that the treaty struck in Geneva will be an unmitigated disaster through either Iranian action or pre-emptive strikes by Saudi Arabia or Israel.   

From the outside, it is easy to make judgments and none of us are privy to all the factors that went into the construction of that treaty.  I can only use the examples of leaders past to understand what happens when you try to buy compliance with concessions.  One good side of the treaty is that it lasts only six months and perhaps, with a clearer vision, world leaders might take another approach.  I’d just hate to think the future of relations in the Middle East (and its stability) is dependent upon the cooperation of a country like Iran.  Let us hope our leaders have learned from history instead of just repeating it. 

When a Red Line Isn’t

Il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace (We must have audacity, and again audacity, and every day audacity).
            Georges Danton, French revolutionary

Earlier this year, President Obama spoke with uncharacteristic frankness and unequivocally laid out the nature of possible American involvement in Syria.  Meanwhile, the world watched.  Would the Syrians be so daring as to unleash chemical weapons with such an explicit threat laid down by the president of the United States?  Meanwhile, Israel laid out its own red line, along the same criterion as the president.  Should the Syrian government use chemical weapons on its own people, it would respond.  Both the U.S. and Israel declared a “red line” drawn and should it be crossed, it promised military action.  The response has been telling. 

By April of this year, stories leaked that the besieged Syrian government had possibly done just that.  Once there was sufficient evidence of the chemical attack, President Obama equivocated by suggesting that his “red line” was not analogous to military action.  Israel, upon its “red line” being crossed, sent jets into Syria and bombed some of its research facilities for chemical weapons.  As Geddy Lee of the band Rush once said, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”  Both say something revealing.  From an international perspective, which lies beyond the partisan posturing within which American politicians often wallow, the message is that Israel is decisive and to be taken seriously and the U.S. is not. 

Throughout U.S. history, there have been warnings that stem from dithering presidents – Franklin Roosevelt in Spain, John F. Kennedy in Cuba, Jimmy Carter in Iran, to name a few.  Therefore, President Obama finds himself at a crossroads that demand action.  The rhetorical gymnastics the Obama administration has done in explaining its inaction to the American press and public is not perceived the same way to international brutes and savages.  Bashar al-Assad and his government, while beleaguered on many levels by rebels, fundamentalists and now Israel, is not concerned with the United States. 

What does this mean for the United States?  If we proclaim to hold some sort of international mandate and authority to act in defense of the defenseless around the world, we must first put ourselves in a position to be taken seriously.  The more we fail to act on our principles, the more decayed we become.  The more we concern ourselves with the perception of our country and our goals, the more we will miss opportunities to do something right. 

Some might perceive an action by the Americans as threatening a widening of the conflict but I believe that to be entirely in the hands of the Assad regime.  Take the Israeli action for example.  What can Syria do?  They have suggested, as reported by al-Jazeera, that the Israeli military is in cahoots with Islamic fundamentalists but I can’t imagine there will be much traction from such an accusation.  They cannot fire upon the Israeli military or into Israel for fear of widening the conflict.  They cannot handle the rebels in their own country, much less the most sophisticated military force in the Middle East.   

It is quite possible that there is intelligence that is preventing the president from acting as he said he would months ago.  Unfortunately, either the Obama administration erred when they set the red line or they erred in deciding not to uphold such an ultimatum.  Either way, the administration is in a dangerous spot.  The war-weary people of Syria needed help a long time ago but inaction then does not justify inaction now.  We must do the good work to help the ordinary Syrians before the Assad military regime completely obliterates them.  One might think we are hated now – how is the situation served better by refusing to help those in need?

The Threat of the Hermit Kingdom

Toward the end of World War II, Adolf Hitler had quite obviously gone mad.  It was a process that began years ago.  Some of his generals remarked that he was moving around units on a large map that no longer existed.  He was screaming out orders to destroy enemy units and resources but no longer had the manpower to do so.  Generals were afraid to tell him otherwise and merely affirmed his orders and left.  Since those last days of that horrible war, a singular man controlled the northern part of the Korean peninsula – Kim Il-sung.  Today, his grandson, Kim Jung-un, has continued the tradition of global provocateur that has further isolated a nuclear pariah. 

Over his time as sole dictator and quasi-deity, the father of what would later be termed the “hermit kingdom” worked as an agitator.  As an extension of the Cold War maneuvering, Il-sung enjoyed the protection of Russia and China and therefore, his reckless behavior culminating with the Korean War was supported and his image at home reinforced.  His regime was also responsible for, conservatively, over one million killings.  His death in 1994 brought to power his son, Kim Jung-il.  While his time in control of North Korea contained gestures towards its southern neighbor and even talk of re-unification, it was difficult to take these overtures seriously.  As party secretary prior to 1994, South Korea blamed him for ordering a bombing in Rangoon, Myanmar and the downing of Korean Air Flight 858 in 1987.  Now, his son is playing a dangerous game with nuclear weapons.  His nearby enemies (namely South Korea and Japan) are nervous, as are his “friends” (namely China).   

On one level, there is no evidence that North Korea has the technology to strike the United States.  However, the U.S. has long standing alliances with South Korea and Japan and because of this relationship, we are obliged to help in the event of a North Korean attack.  The president has wisely ordered various maneuverings in South Korea using stealth bombers and it is assumed that enhanced missile shields are forthcoming.  All of these are defensive and reactionary in nature.  There will be a time when the president will be forced to consider a pre-emptive strike upon intelligence that North Korea is prepared to do something.  If Jung-un appears to be ready to act upon his countless threats, the U.S. will need to decide if it should truncate the threat potential.  Japan’s military is defensive in nature and not equipped for a pre-emptive strike.  South Korea possesses a large military with plenty of weapons to destroy its northern neighbor but history has not shown that it is willing to take chances.   

It is uncertain what explains this recent round of saber-rattling.  Perhaps it was Dennis Rodman’s fault.  However, Pyongyang has made a habit of this over the last couple of decades – threaten nuclear war or missile attack, pleas from the West asking him to relax and donate supplies and food to make the point, North Korea backs off…for a while.  What generally helps the United States and a president decide how to address a crisis is an underlying trust that the opposite leader will not do certain things.  Those types of assumptions are dangerously played with regards to North Korea.  Israel, faced with a similar threat, took the initiative to destroy nuclear power plants in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.  Israel is not in a position to allow for diplomacy to run its course – its existence lies upon the blade of the sword.  If Japan or South Korea is not willing to do it, it would be a safer option for the U.S. to strike first than to respond.   

China has lost control of its younger, demented communist brother and even it and Russia have supported increased sanctions by the United Nations.  However, the combination of North Korea’s dangerous abilities and the unknown factor of the newly appointed Kim Jung-un is a bad combination.  North Korea is more dangerous than even a country like Iran.  Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is countered by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.  Where Iran has that religious check on secular power, North Korea’s cult of personality combines the political with the religious.  The hold that this type of government has on its people is dangerous and only increases the volatility and danger of a country. 

The Gathering of Storm Clouds

There are a series of events that are transpiring that could quickly destabilize various regions around the world.  In the past, the United States played a large and influential role in settling situations and calming fears – allowing for “cooler heads to prevail.”  In the past, the United States displayed a leadership that could convince otherwise truculent world leaders to compromise or stand down.  Critics of American foreign policy denounced the overbearing and bullying democracy.  President Obama feels that the U.S. has inappropriately and insensitively projected itself on world affairs in the past and promised not to follow that same path.  Activists around the world applauded the declaration.  Yet, in the Middle East and the Far East, things are quickly deteriorating and it begs the question if a stronger president could not have stemmed the tide. 

A while back, I worried that Syria was turning into a Rwanda.  Today, the international community has allowed a government to butcher its own people on a massive scale.  In the absence of international action or leadership, organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have moved in to help the rebels.  However, the bloodshed continues and the government remains unrepentant even as its structure crumbles around them.  A new envoy, Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, now has the unenviable task of convincing a government who has ignored international pressure for over a year to put aside its aggression on its own people with little tangible outside help from the Americans and Europeans. 

To the southwest, Israeli leaders have given up hope of the international community rendering aid and are in the process of considering, if reports are to be believed, a strategic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Israel has, unfortunately, needed to take this path before when it attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nascent nuclear reactor in 1981.  Recent reports on Iran’s nuclear capabilities suggest it is further along than anyone thought.  Not only does such developments threaten Israel but it is reasonable to suggest that predominantly Sunni Muslim countries are also at risk – not to mention western Europe and other U.S. allies.  While many international activists chastise Israel and despair of its “militaristic” tendencies, Israel might be forced to do what years of diplomacy have failed to accomplish. 

On a group of Japanese controlled islands, a bit of opera is playing out between the Japanese government and activists from China. The Senkaku islands are the center of a debate as to who controls the area. When the Japanese Coast Guard detained and questioned the activists, Beijing issued a strong condemnation as anti-Japanese protests erupted through the country. At stake for these islands south of Okinawa and just north of Taiwan are a litany of gas fields and a heavily traveled commercial shipping lane. China declares ancient rights to the islands but Japan has controlled them since the late 1800s.  To what extent China would be willing to fight over the islands is uncertain but two obdurate, tradition-rich and stubborn countries at odds is a point of concern.  Unfortunately, no one outside the region seems to notice.
 
Any one of these incidents can, by themselves, create the kind of foreign policy headache that risks the lives of tens of thousands. A strong and influential hand has traditionally been sought out from the United States but at present, it appears to be absent. As time goes by, the European Union grows increasingly pre-occupied with holding its economic structure in place. The Arab League has proven, to date, to be as ineffective and toothless as the organization it was patterned after – the United Nations. The world community releases one paper condemnation and outrage after another but things continue to deteriorate.

The president is pre-occupied by the coming election as any president would but Mr. Obama also needs to understand that he cannot focus solely on November. The boldness he displayed in ending the Osama bin Laden threat is required once more but he seems reluctant to enter the fray. If this is what we can expect from the president with an additional four years, perhaps we should take a longer look at Mr. Romney. Sadly though, if talk is to be believed, some of the situations could collapse long before the November election.

The Showdown at the United Nations

There is movement in the United Nations to unilaterally grant statehood to Palestine without the territory accepting or respecting the right of Israel to exist. In a statement, former British prime minister, Tony Blair, stated that the process for statehood has been extremely slow, virtually non-existent lately and ultimately, not productive. Therefore, this is the best course of action. Mr. Blair has further encouraged Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to present his application for statehood to the United Nations today. By all accounts, that will happen.

This is not just an argument against Palestinian statehood for the sake of arguing. The Montevideo Conference of 1933 laid out quite clearly what constituted a state, such as a defined territory and a government – some of which the Palestinians do not meet. However, my biggest concern is for Israel.

In 1979, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat signed the Camp David Accords in part to help guarantee some type of security for Israel, who had been on constant guard and under frequent attack since their independence in 1948. Since that time, the Israeli state has fought constantly for their right to exist and the agreement in 1977 was the first step towards normalizing relations with an Arab neighbor who foresaw the fruitless and expensive road towards perpetual war. Since that historic agreement, Israel has dealt with a new, less defined enemy that will not be satisfied until the Jewish state is driven into the sea.

In the years following the Camp David Accords, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have entered into one agreement after another and ultimately, it has failed because of the PA's inability to control the individual and organized terrorists from launching frequent attacks upon their neighbor. Time after time, the guarantee of Israeli security has compelled the Palestinian government to back away from promises. Throughout it all, an influential U.S. and its allies have said that Israeli security must be guaranteed before a Palestinian state can be established. These latest moves would undermine all of that and put a weakened Israel once more under the threat of its Arab neighbors. In short, such a unilateral move is a prelude to war.

As I said, my concern lies with Israel. President Obama seems increasingly incapable of projecting an American presence on the situation, overturning decades of influence. Worse yet, Arab countries are talking more provocatively about their long-hated neighbor. It is only a matter of time before this situation grows untenable. Mr. Abbas’ application for statehood is not destined for quick passage. In the interim, let’s hope that other countries are intelligent enough to avoid the abyss.

Israel's Perplexing Problem

Israel is one of the more interesting and controversial countries in the world. Those who pay attention to the news seldom are neutral over Israel. However, Israel represents an exception to traditional American and world thinking. Traditionally, we favor the underdog, the country or person with everything against it. This makes the case of Israel even more intriguing. There seems to be a growing voice in world politics against the country that stands on its own, surrounded by countries that want to drive it into the sea. Seldom has such a country been characterized as the bully but the tiny country that stands at the precipice of destruction is seen by some as just that. The reason is an idea that no sane individual would agree with – terrorism is a justifiable tactic.

Every country in the world has the right to protect its borders but Israel does not. Constantly, organizations and activists attempt to violate Israeli waters and enter Palestine illegally at a time when Israel is constantly worried about missile attacks from the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians are getting their missiles some way and only Israel would be criticized for attempting to stop the attacks on their own citizens.

Every country has the right to protect the integrity and security of its country but Israel does not. The proposed boundaries by President Obama in recent months suggest boundaries that would be untenable but Palestinians and its international allies would appreciate such considerations. Not only would a Palestinian state be created, for the first time in history, but Israel would be so weakened and so vulnerable, it makes the possible elimination of the country easier.

Every country has the right to expect friendship from “friends” but Israel does not. The United States, Israel’s most ardent supporter since its creation in 1948, is no longer showing the type of backing that it traditionally has taken as its responsibility. It partly explains the unprecedented scolding by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu towards President Obama during a joint photo session during the Israeli leader’s last visit.

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer made the point that whenever the past presidents attempted to get Israel to the peace tables, they did so by suggesting Israel must make steps towards peace. However, the results led to no steps towards peace by the Palestinians. To add insult to outrage, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is attempting to do an end run around American requirements for statehood by going directly to the United Nations. The deck is stacked against the Israelis. A recent political cartoon titled “World’s favorite sport” showed a circle of feet surrounding a soccer ball with the words Israel emblazoned across it.

Over the last couple of decades, the Palestinians have been making their case with terrorist attacks in the form of missiles and suicide bombers. The universal chorus has always ringed out that terrorism cannot be allowed to dictate policy for it engenders more terrorism. In the case of Israel and the suffering it has incurred at the hands of such tactics, others are turning a blind eye.

The traditional phrase uttered at the conclusion of a Passover Seder is, “Next year in Jerusalem.” As Israel continues to make concessions and the Palestinians continue to ally itself with the Hamas terrorist group and fire rockets into Israel, that aspiration may no longer be possible.