Israel Voice – Analysing Israeli Security

Unilateral Disengagement – Is the last option an option at all?

In 2005, under the leadership of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the State of Israel took the decision to unilaterally disengage from the Gaza Strip, removing all military installations and positions, as well as physically removing the 8,000 settlers who had made the Strip their home. In a heart-wrenching period, in which some of the great divisions of Israeli society were brought into the painful light of day, Israel moved from a position of complete control and great strength to push the Palestinians into assuming responsibility for the territory they claim. It was a bold move, designed to kick-start negotiations and to persuade the Palestinians that the Israeli leadership was prepared to give up land for peace.

Gaza resident being forcefully evacuated

The result of this move is now well known. Within 18 months, the terrorists of Hamas had taken over the Gaza Strip, executing their political opponents, imposing their Islamist agenda and firing thousands of rockets into Southern Israel. The rise of Hamas in Gaza brought around 1.1 million Israelis within range of rockets, and forever changed the nature of the communities that are within the possible kill-zone for the worse. Today, the towns and villages of the South are equipped with bomb shelters where families are forced to cower with their children, as terrorist elements fire indiscriminately into their gardens, homes and schools. Thankfully, the IDF has acted proactively to defend Israeli citizens, both with airstrikes against terrorist infrastructure and the introduction of the Iron Dome defensive measures. This has reduced but far from extinguished the terrorist threat against the South. In the last 10 days, school has been cancelled and families have been forced to spend days on end hiding in their bomb shelters.

Of course, Israel has previously engaged in land operations in the Gaza Strip. From December 2008 to January 2009 Israel reacted to vicious terrorist provocation to bring the South back to a peaceful settlement through an extensive bombing campaign and ground incursion. The resulting victory greatly undermined the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and successfully re-established the concept of deterrence in the minds of the Hamas leadership.

IDF in Gaza, January 2009

Since Operation Cast Lead, skirmishes have continued along the Southern border, leading to the recent unleashing of hundreds of rockets on Israeli cities. After Israel moved to disrupt an active terrorist operation by using a targeted airstrike to kill the mastermind of the plan, Hamas and other terrorist groups unleashed a barrage of rockets (at least 230), aiming for Israeli civilians and population centers. Only a robust air campaign by the IAF has persuaded the terrorists not to seek a full engagement with the Israelis. The response has been restrained and highly effective, and should serve as a model for all Israeli actions in the South.

But what of the major questions and policy that brought about the withdrawal from Gaza? Unilateral disengagement by the Israelis from areas they have no intention of keeping as part of Israel is often held up as the obvious course of action. It is argued by many, including this forum on several occasions, that if the Israelis withdrew completely from large swathes of the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority would have no choice but to assume responsibility for those territories and cease to complain about how the occupation undermines their government. It is time to accept that those of us who have called for such a unilateral disengagement have done so using short-sighted reasoning. It is clearly not the course of action that Israel can take at this point in time.

A few months ago I would have advocated the following moves by the Israeli government so as to secure their citizens, reduce the strain on the IDF, and re-establish their moral authority in the Territories:

1. Immediate disengagement from all ‘outposts’ (settlements with fewer than 1,000 residents). These are largely ideologically extreme youths seeking to expand the State of Israel in an unhelpful and militarily unsustainable way.

2. Active prevention of the establishment of more ‘outposts’.

3. Reduction of IDF positions in non-populated areas, primarily leaving IDF personnel only around the remaining settlements, and key positions along the West Bank of the River Jordan.

4. Dismantling of the very few remaining checkpoints that exist between Palestinian towns, with an increase in security along all checkpoints leading from the Territories into the State of Israel.

5. A review on a case by case basis of all remaining settlements under 10,000 people, and after evaluating their strategic position (particularly proximity to the Green Line / other major settlements), either maintenance of security or disengagement process of 3 – 6 months by which time such settlements must be evacuated.

6. An unambiguous statement that settlements with populations over 10,000 people, settlements found within Gush Etzion, Hebron or within the boundaries of natural growth of existing major settlements, will not be evacuated and steps taken to formally strengthen the ties between them and the rest of Israel.

Today, having considered the potential effect this could have on Israeli security, key revisions are needed.

Points 1, 2 and 4 remain national security imperatives for the State of Israel.

Point 3 while still desirable, might lead to a military power vacuum which could encourage Gaza-style terrorism. Having missiles launched from the West Bank would bring the entirety of Israel within range of missiles. The catastrophic effect of that violence in the South cannot be understated, thus to extend a zone of fear to every Israeli home would be completely unacceptable. Having visited a private home in the South of Israel, and seen the way that a mother has to grab her children and sprint for the bomb-shelter sometimes several times a day, it is clear to this commentator that to subject all Israelis to such a position would constitute nothing less than a moral crime.

It is Points 5 and 6 – which are closely connected – that are now very much in doubt. If Israel took steps to tear down relatively large settlements which I still argue are unsustainable in the long-run right now, it would invite on itself another campaign of violence on the part of the Palestinians. Israel could have no guarantees that groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas would not immediately fill the vacuum and launch rockets from just a few miles from the Knesset building. Israel will not tolerate such a situation, and currently withdrawing from the territories I have described could well provoke such a course of events.

What reasonable person can deny that Israel risks opening itself up to extensive rocket attack if it took the unilateral disengagement steps it previously did in Gaza?

The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action again and again, expecting a different result. Israel has shown that all it gets for unsolicited compromise and withdrawal is violence; this was the case in Gaza, and the outposts dismantled in the West Bank. Israel has enough security threats now without adding another, potentially unlimited territory from which terrorists could operate with impunity and threaten the lives of Israeli families.

No, unilateral disengagement is no longer an acceptable or viable route. Anyone who continues to advocate for it shows a callous disregard for the safety and survival of Israeli citizens, and the State of Israel itself.

Netanyahu is right, and Obama cannot be trusted

The last couple of days has seen the annual AIPAC conference in Washington, and the key (if not only issue on the agenda) was Iran. Over the past few months the rhetoric has stepped up, and the public relations groundwork for a strike against Iran by the Israelis has been prepared. It seems increasingly clear that the Israelis are prepared to publicly declare their intentions regarding bombing Iran, something it has been clear they would do for some time.

PM Netanyahu at AIPAC Conference

The debate now focuses on the role of the Americans in all of this. Will Obama give a green-light to the Israelis, or will he even go so far as to commit US forces to the attack? Is there time to allow US-led sanctions against Iran to cripple the economy and undermine the regime so much that abandoning the nuclear programme peacefully is an option?

The difference between Netanyahu and Obama has always been stark. They agree on almost nothing in terms of politics, whether domestically or internationally. They also see themselves very differently; Netanyahu as a Machiavellian, no-nonsense enforcer, and Obama as the game-changing, thoughtful philosopher. Needless to say this has led to tension between the two of them, which has been played out in a very public way over a variety of issues, particularly settlements.

This split between the two leaders is evident in their disagreement over how to approach the Iranian issue. Obama has urged restraint, seeking engagement with the Iranian regime. In this his plan has failed catastrophically. The Iranians have proceeded apace, burying their nuclear programme deeper and deeper underground, enriching uranium and increasing the chances of nuclear proliferation across the region. Those who misunderstand the nature of the Middle East ignore the fact that a Shia bomb will have to face a Sunni counterpart at their own risk. Obama, as in all things Middle East related, as found himself as the angry yet impotent father figure. Left to languish on the corners of the political decision making, too weak and cowardly to deploy the force and position he has been entrusted with.

President Obama - Weak on Iran

The argument made by the United States to the Israelis seems to have been as follows; the United States does not wish to see a major conflict break out in the Middle East, that would among other things drive up the price of oil, and thus is seeking to bring an end to the Iranian nuclear programme through peaceful means. The second stage of the argument is that the United States is able to take military action against the Iranian project after the Israeli capability will no longer be relevant. With more advanced weapons, more aircraft and bases closer to the action, the Americans could act more decisively and above all later in the day. The thing about this argument is that the Israelis really have to believe the Americans are prepared to act should diplomacy fail. This is where Obama has a problem in particular, and the wider US as a guarantor of Israeli security in general.

Obama has not endeared himself to Israeli hawks, and is not seen as committed to Israeli security by Israeli establishment figures as he might like (interestingly, his popularity among Israelis themselves remains considerably more positive). Thus his promises that he will pull the trigger to end the Iranian programme if needs be are far from credible. Then comes the US in general, that while a good friend to the state of Israel, remains concerned primarily with her own security and interests. The nuclear weapons being built as yet are not aimed at Washington D.C. and New York, and thus the US is naturally less concerned than the Israelis, the Saudis and the Europeans.

Thus we are left with whether or not we believe or agree with the analysis of Netanyahu, that the Iranians represent an existential threat to the State of Israel. Recently a few commentators have come out calling the Iranian regime a ‘rational actor’, suggesting that the threat they would pose to Israel would be minimal. Such statements fly in the face of all evidence. How can a regime that relies on a Supreme Religious Leader or Ayatollah be called rational? How can a regime of terrorist-supporting Islamists be called rational when they direct their mob to storm the British Embassy and burn private property? This is a country where women are stoned for adultery, and the existence of homosexuals is denied. There is nothing rational about the Iranian regime or their supporters.

Repeated statements calling for the wiping of Israel off the map, the removal of a ‘cancerous tumour’ are ignored at the peril of the Israelis. Netanyahu is completely right to say that as the leader of the Jewish state, he cannot permit his people to live in the shadow of annihilation. The Prime Minister of Israel has both the authority and the imperative to act to defend the Jewish people, and failure to do so in the case of Iran would be catastrophic. Today, on this Purim holiday, the Prime Minister should listen to the lessons contained within the Book of Esther. The Persian threat to the Jewish people remains today, and it must be confronted.

The time for action has arrived, and any who still obfuscates, does not really wish to protect the Jewish homeland from destruction.

Auster Challenge 12 – A failed policy from two failed Defence Departments

Arrow Missile Test, Israel, 2006

The announcement of a joint exercise between Israeli and American missile defence systems comes as little surprise, after recent provocative action by the Iranian regime in test-firing medium-range missiles. The United States and Israel have a high-degree of coordination in matters of missile defence, and as Iran and others continue along the road to threatening regional balance and world security, it is certainly in the national security interests of Israel to maintain its symbol of defence in a highly public fashion. That said, operation ‘Austere Challenge 12′ is not necessarily something to be welcomed. Away from the fact that it reminds the world and the Israeli public of the pressing existential threat the State of Israel faces, it is also indicative of two Defence Departments which are desperately out of touch with the realities they are confronted with.

Neither Ehud Barak, Minister of Defence for Israel, nor Leon Panetta, the US Secretary of Defence have shown any kind of imagination in confronting the Iranian nuclear threat, or with any of the other major security threats that Israel is dealing with. Both seem committed to simply managing the situation, rather than taking steps that might proactively improve the security position of Israel. That could have been achieved either by Barak refusing to unite with the Right-wing Administration he now finds himself a part of, or by Panetta playing a more active role in securing the Arab Spring from those who are hostile to the existence of Israel.

Leon Panetta and Ehud Barak

So why is this operation a mistake? One must first consider the objectives of it, whether they will be achieved, and whether that in turn will improve the security situation of the Israelis.

These exercises are being carried out largely to illustrate to the Iranian regime that their largely crude weapons are not a match for the technically superb Israeli defence systems, and with the secondary motives of reassuring the Israeli public, illustrating the strength of the US-Israeli security relationship in an election year and also as a nudge and a wink to Sunni Arab countries in the region who are made just as nervous by a nuclear Iran as Israel is that there is someone in the neighbourhood with the capacity to protect everyone else from the big bully in the Eastern corner.

Iran is well aware that Israel’s defences far exceed the technical capacity of most of its arsenal, and it is for that exact reason that the Islamic Republic is so desperately chasing the Bomb. Should they succeed, they would finally have the weapon that could destroy Israel just because it is so small. Due to the enormous blast of a nuclear device, prevailing winds and once again the tiny nature of the State of Israel, the detonation of a nuclear weapon in the Eastern Mediterranean might well be enough to cause enormous destruction and result in massive loss of life within Israel, without actually firing into Israeli territory. These missiles may be able to take out laser-guided weapons, but the bomb can be delivered in a much less precise yet far more deadly way. These drills do little to persuade the Iranians that Israel can stop them once they have the bomb. That in turn will only heighten their motivation to continue.

The Israeli public may be reassured ever so slightly, and it may give a small boost to Obama’s support among voters for whom Israel’s security is a major concern, but one could make the argument that neither of those things is really in the security interests of the State itself. Israel needs its public to recognise the threat it faces and to be willing to support measures to head off those threats, while a President who feels the need to express his support for Israel is more helpful than one who feels he has already done enough.

Meanwhile, across the Sunni Arab world there is already an understanding and an acceptance that only Israel can stop Iran, so this backhanded offer of protection is unlikely to entice any very surprising allies out of the woodwork.

The true reason these drills are a failure is because they do not take steps to guarantee a solution to the Iranian security crisis; they fail to end it. This step is a way of managing it, not confronting it. The reality is that Israel and the US should not be pointing these missiles into the sky to take down would-be genocidal attacks by Iran, but rather be targeting the sites of the Iranian weapons themselves.

The American and Israeli Defence Departments seem increasingly to have lost their way under failed leadership, concentrating on budgets and whether or not women are allowed to sing in front of men rather than how to end the greatest (and still growing) threat to Israeli security around today. It is high time they woke up.

Israeli settlements: A national security imperative

As someone who debates the Arab-Israeli conflict on a very regular basis, I deal with a lot of the same issues again and again. As with any subject, you get better at explaining some points than others. My strength is without doubt the national security concerns of Israel, centering around disproportionate criticism of Israeli security measures. There are areas of real disagreement between me and Government policy of the State of Israel, and on settlements there is some daylight between the position of Israel and my position.

That said, those who do not see the settlements as part of the national security argument I focus on, have deeply misunderstood the nature of the national security threat Israel faces.

UN Partition Plan 1947

Not all the settlements that have been built beyond the 1967 Armistice Lines have been created for ideological or economic reasons, although many have been. While religious and nationalist understanding of ‘Eretz Israel’ has certainly motivated some of the settlers, the majority who live around Jerusalem do so because it is the only place they can afford. The most densely populated areas which fall beyond the 1967 Lines are greater Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Gush Etzion. They also represent the single most significant strategic military position should Israel be forced to revert to the old armistice positions. The settlements there act as a strategic buffer against a possibly devastating Arab invasion of Israel, by securing enough territory for the State of Israel that it is actually possible to defend the country from being split in two.

The Israelis have every good reason to be fearful of an Arab invasion, having experienced the attempts at aggression by their Arab neighbours again and again since their declaration of independence in 1948. Israel cannot allow itself to be the victim of yet another invasion, and along the borders demanded by UN Resolution 242 the Israelis would be at the mercy of an Arab surprise attack that could split the country in two within minutes. With lines of communications cut, and the close quarters nature of the battle at hand making unconventional weapons obsolete, the State of Israel would be in a perilous position.

If the international community really means anything when it expresses concern for the security concerns of the Israelis, it must recognise that being surrounded by groups and states who have repeatedly attacked you without provocation when the heart of your country is only 10 miles wide is a legitimate security concern.

Protester outside Israeli Settlement Outpost, West Bank

In contrast, there are other settlements whose existence in fact make Israel less safe. The outposts that exist on hilltops particularly in the Northern West Bank are remote and far removed from the rest of the State of Israel. They require guarding by the IDF in positions that might otherwise be withdrawn from. They cause increased friction with the Palestinian population, and are the site of violence and confrontation that is then beamed across the world via the news networks. In the event of another full scale war between Israel and her Arab neighbours, the outposts would be a strategic liability. Israel would be duty-bound to defend her citizens, and as a result would have to hold territory which would otherwise not be needed. This in turn would place a greater strain on the IDF and potentially undermine its capacity to respond to other threats in other areas.

While I have a degree of ideological sympathy for the motivation behind those who start these outposts, the reality is they are unsustainable and do grave damage to the security position of the State. The fact that the Israeli Government allows major telecommunication companies and water supplies to be extended to some of these outposts undermines their commitment to abide by decisions made by the Israeli Supreme Court that these outposts be removed. It is high time that the security-focused Likud party took the responsible action and began the large scale dismantling of these trailer parks.

Only once the unnecessary and potentially damaging outposts have been removed, can a more coherent and successful argument be made for the more developed and justifiable settlements. Until then these outposts do not only damage Israel’s security, but her credibility too.

Rockets from Lebanon, a weak cover for the Syrian regime

An old threat began to rear its ugly head last night, as Northern Israel found itself under attack from terrorists operating in Southern Lebanon. Four Katyusha rockets were fired into the Galilee, thankfully only causing minor damage and no injuries. After security analysis, the IDF has not ordered civilians to head for bomb shelters and it is hoped that this represents only a flash in the pan rather than the beginning of  a wider conflict along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Crater from Katyusha rocket fired last night, 28/11/2011

Israel as always responded with direct and robust action, firing artillery on the origins of the rockets. The rockets were fired from open areas and the terrorists had already dispersed, thus the Israeli response was more a symbolic illustration of Israeli defence policy; when provoked Israel will respond against the positions and groups which attacked it – nothing more and nothing less.

The Northern border has been very quiet for a long period, with no rocket fired into Israel since 2009 and very little before that since the Israeli operation in Southern Lebanon which reestablished the principle of deterrence with Hezbollah. It has been claimed that these rockets did not in fact come from Hezbollah, but rather an Al-Qaeda affiliate (read Sunni terrorist group) called the Sheikh Abdullah Azzam Brigade. Who carried out this attack is significant for several reasons:

1) It will give the IDF a better idea as to who they should be retaliating against.

2) The motivation for such an attack can be identified much better if the Israelis know who carried it out.

3) It gives observers some idea of how well armed groups other than Hezbollah are in Southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah rally in Beirut

So who is it who carried out these attacks? Is it Hezbollah in an attempt to provoke the Israelis into a wider conflict, which might in turn distract the Arab street from the butcher of Syria? Or is it a Sunni terrorist group trying to provoke Israel into attacking Hezbollah, so as to further weaken it just as it faces its biggest crisis with the apparently impending loss of the Syrian regime that pays the bills?

From looking at the behaviour of Hezbollah over the past few months, one gets the impression that this is not their work, or at least not the work of their executive leadership. Hezbollah have had chances time and time and time again to help their arms dealer al-Assad in Damascus but have simply refused to engage Israel in a wider conflict for the purposes of distraction. That isn’t because they see him as expendable; Hezbollah fighters have been used by Assad himself to kill the protesters who threaten his regime, but rather the group does not feel it can sustain another extended engagement with the Israelis. The cost to their terrorist infrastructure is too great, their fall in public opinion among Lebanese too pronounced. While this attack might be rank-and-file Hezbollah members taking things into their own hands, it seems unlikely that this is coming from the leadership.

The possibility this is coming from Sunni terrorist organisations is a concerning one, above all because what it says about the extent to which different groups have armed effectively across Lebanon. As previously stated, the motivation for a Sunni group to strike now is to do things (a) weaken Hezbollah through the Israeli response at a time when the group is already in difficulties (b) present themselves as an alternative resistance movement to alleged Israeli injustices.

Considering the stranglehold Hezbollah have on both the political and military situation in Lebanon, reason (b) must be a very distant second to (a) in this case. It seems that Sunni groups are taking this opportunity to try and cajole Hezbollah into confronting Israel, at a time when it finds rearming difficult and operational command challenging. Hezbollah relies hugely on the Syrian regime, and while that regime is more concerned with preventing its own destruction than continuing the fight against the Israelis, Hezbollah is unable to act effectively. It is the perfect time to force an enemy into armed conflict; when he is ill-prepared and has no means to rectify that in the short term.

Caught literally in the cross-fire of this dangerous game of ‘No, he did it!’ are the Israeli civilians of Northern Israel, who find themselves once again fearing for their property and for their lives as rockets are fired into their homes and communities. The IDF must respond, but with restraint and careful deliberation. The collapse of Hezbollah as an effective fighting force can be achieved without a shot being fired – or at least not from Israeli guns – if the situation in Syria resolves itself in favour of a new Government. That is not to say that a new Government would be supportive of Israel, but they are unlikely to be as supportive of Hezbollah considering the role the terrorist group has had in shooting unarmed protesters across the country.

Israel must bide her time, and let the fractured terrorist groups in the North fight it out among themselves.

It’s my life and it’s now or never…

It is always a strange day when you find yourself agreeing with Sarah Palin. Usually it leaves you feeling deeply uncomfortable. At least the areas where her and I agree I can be sure that she only says what she does because of political advice, not her own capacity to reason.

Sarah Palin in Israel, May 2011

During the 2008 campaign for the presidency, Palin managed to humiliate herself time and time again when giving interviews regarding all areas of public policy. Chief among these was her incredible ignorance regarding matters of foreign affairs. She did however offer one sound-bite to the pro-Israeli voters that has stuck with me ever since. Responding to whether or not she would support an Israeli military strike against Iran to prevent them facing a nuclear threat, Palin responded that she would not second guess the Israeli decision as they themselves would be responsible for their own security. What is really incredible about the interview, is that Katie Couric (the interviewer) actually suggests that the United States should actually have some kind of veto over the defence decisions of another sovereign state.

Now we all understand that the United States and Israel share a close relationship on security matters and the Israelis are often asked to temper their military activities by the US in an effort to stop the situation in the Middle East from spinning out of control. Does that mean however that the United States gets to have a representative in the Israeli Cabinet? ‘Fraid not.

Uncle Sam dropping off military aid to Israel

Over the dinner table, or in the lecture halls and journalist coffee rooms across the free world, many arguments are made for and against attacks by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities. Some of the arguments that are advanced are simply risible. Chief amongst these is that Israel would be acting contrary to the will of the international community, and her chief ally in the US. As usual, Israel is held to a standard that no other country holds itself to. Britain, America and over 40 other countries committed themselves to the ‘coalition of the willing’ to invade Iraq in 2003, while Turkey supports an illegitimate and illegal occupation in ‘Turkish’ Cyprus, and India continues to deny the people of Kashmir their rightful democratic voice. Finally and most obviously, Iran is allowed to flaunt her international obligations and arm itself with deadly weapons while the most it gets from international bodies in terms of punishment is a stern letter of concern.

The leaders of the United States however like to think that they should have a degree of control over Israeli decision making. The reality is that no amount of dollars, pound sterling or shekels buys you what the Israeli government have; democratic legitimacy. It is the right of the Israeli government to take the steps it deems necessary to protect itself from a very real existential threat to its very existence, some Hawaii-born, Illinois-raised, American President does not have the right to tell those living in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem whether they are at risk or not.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak

The truth which defines the argument made here that the Israeli government is the one with the legitimate authority to protect its citizens is that it is itself undermined by the nature of the current government. Kadima is not involved in the decision making process, while Israelis are condemned to rely on Ehud Barak in the critical position of Defence Minister. This serial flip-flopping, weak and dishonest man is not capable of operating a coherent policy regarding the Iranian threat.

In recent interviews Barak has suggested that within a year the cost of actively ending the Iranian weapons program will be too costly. Such comments are accompanied by mutterings about how such things should not be discussed publicly. That is Barak for you, a man who is terrified by public discussion or accountability, so much so that he would rather abandon the Labour party than face questions from his own Members of Knesset.

Israel needs to act against Iran, but right now it is my contention that this coalition of desperados is not capable of legitimately taking the action it needs to take. Each Government needs a purpose, even if it is a coalition. The current coalition in the UK is based on a perceived belief that there is a need to reduce the deficit despite partisan differences, and whatever disagreements one might have it is a coherent reason for going into government together. The current coalition in Israel is a coalition of the non-Kadima parties. Beyond that there is no coherent reason why the Labour party (as they were at the start of the coalition) and Yisrael Beiteinu could work together. The current government is now tripping over itself, with various ministers not even talking to one another, and opposing parties of the same government having their MKs introducing bills to the Knesset designed to just provoke the other side. It is election season in all but name and it is high time Netanyahu bit the bullet.

If Israel is to be able to legitimately take the decisions it needs to take to defend itself from the Iranian threat, then it must start by holding elections immediately. Only a new democratic mandate will allow Israeli society to unite behind the action that is needed, and avoid an attack on Iran being seen as a crazy right-wing piece of madness. Furthermore, it might just end Barak’s political career, which would be worth it in and of itself.

In the words of Bon Jovi, ‘It’s my life, and it’s now or never’. Israel may act alone to defend herself, but she must have the correct democratic basis to do so. Elections can bring a new government which is able to defend Israel with the weight of moral authority behind it. Now or never chaverim, now or never.

Two possibilities: Either is sobering for Iran and the international community

Smoke billowing from military base in Iran on Saturday after massive explosion

As many of you will have seen over the past few days, a massive explosion rocked a base of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran on Saturday. The RG, a semi-autonomous military/political entity is known to operate some of Iran’s most technically advanced weapons systems, and the explanation for the explosion as so far been that it was some kind of accident resulting in 17 deaths and 15 further casualties.

The explosion was massive. It was heard 45km away in Tehran, and was mistaken by many civilians in the surrounding area as a minor earthquake. The base itself it is alleged is the home to some of Iran’s most advanced and deadly weaponry, and certainly it is possible that it was materials organic to the base which caused the initial blast and extended fire. That said, fingers have started to be pointed towards Israel, always unofficially but by both Iranian and Western sources.

So an accident or an Israeli act of sabotage? Let us consider both possibilities and the implications of both.

If this was an accident, what does it tell us about the force readiness and professionalism of the Iranian military and paramilitary forces? If they are not capable of moving munitions around a secure base without causing a catastrophic accident, what does it tell us about their training and diligence?

We can speculate as to the circumstances under which these munitions were being moved if we accept the accident line of thought. Perhaps rogue elements were attempting to remove missiles or high explosives to sell or provide to terrorist groups. In their rush to avoid being caught they failed to take the proper security precautions and caused some of the weapons they were removing to detonate. Let’s say for a minute it really was just a case of negligence or incompetence, which is in itself perfectly possible.

Russian Army truck tries to take a shortcut

Anyone can understand how in the military mistakes happen. The materials and equipment is complex and requires careful attention to operate correctly, and even highly trained personnel might become the victim of human error. The seriousness of such accidents is defined to a large extent by the nature of what is being handled when a mistake occurs. While we are again and again told how safe nuclear technology is, one cannot help but wonder if it is not possible for a nuclear weapon, or at least highly radioactive material to be so mishandled as to cause a leak. The accident at this Iranian base on Saturday claimed around 25 casualties. Imagine if the accident had taken place with a nuclear/radioactive/radiological device? How many times would we have to multiply the death toll by? 1,000, 10,000? It is a terrifying prospect.

Computer Worm used to sabotage Iranian nuclear program

The other possibility which will not be acknowledged publicly by either side is that Israeli security forces, perhaps working with European/American partners, carried out an attack on the base through sabotage or bomb placement. Israel has shown time and time again its willingness to take measures to protect itself from the possibility of attack by a nuclear-armed Iran, and this explosion which not only destroyed Iranian missile-related infrastructure but also killed a commander in the Revolutionary Guard responsible for that program is almost too convenient to not have been orchestrated by the Mossad or other agencies.

Now you might be wondering why Iran would miss an opportunity to illustrate the supposed war-like nature of Israel through what they would no doubt suggest is an unprovoked attack. Well if Iran was attacked by Israel, it would be required to respond. If it admits publicly that the Israeli security forces were able to penetrate so deep into the Islamic Republic and carry out an attack within a military base, the demand by the Iranian people for a military response will be enormous. Iran does not have the capacity to engage Israel in a war, and would suffer enormous losses if it did so on the basis of public opinion. Any response by Iran would be met with forceful defene by the Israelis, plunging us into a potential regional conflict.

Much better for Iran just to swallow the embarrassment of saying that its military personnel are incapable of moving their own missiles from a to b without something blowing up.

Either of these avenues, and from my understanding of the situation the sabotage seems much more likely, presents challenges to the international community. If this was really an accident, then how can the world allow a country unable to look after conventional weapons safely to gain unconventional weapons which are even more difficult to take care of and have a far more deadly cost for mishandling. If on the other hand this was a preemptive move by the Israelis, then what might the consequences be for a wider regional conflict? And how far must the Iranian program be if the Israelis are resorting to this kind of military engagement?

Finally, the Iranian leadership, though not prone to reason or logic, may well reflect on the dangers of its current weaponising road. If you can’t keep what you have safe, what you are building is even more complicated, and you face the threat of foreign attack, maybe it would be better to concentrate on securing what you do have? Just a thought.

The multi-headed leadership of the Palestinian people

The Palestinian people have various different representatives, both official and unofficial. Unfortunately, very few of them are people you would want to have to deal with, varying from the genocidal terrorist group Hamas, to the Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Abbas and all sorts in between. Over the past few days we have heard the two different takes on the current situation from the main leaders, unfortunately neither inspires confidence.

Mahmoud Abbas

In the case of Abbas, when speaking about Israeli-US efforts to undermine the push for statehood in the United Nations, he had this impressive analysis to offer; ‘We will continue and we don’t care about anyone’. In the week that his diplomatic stunt gained its first potential public relations victory, by having Palestine granted membership of UNESCO, rather than focus purely on that and not allow the conversation to shift, Abbas illustrates why his Government is in need of, among a very many other things, public relations schooling.

What Abbas meant to say was that despite Israeli pressure against the Palestinian bid for statehood, he as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people would continue to soldier on and secure the blessings of freedom that will come from a hollow gesture in the General Assembly of the United Nations. As President of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas once had a high degree of control over the Palestinian proto-government, and the diplomatic/political endeavours that surround the peace process. With the rise of Hamas however, this has increasingly stopped being the case. With the stunt at the United Nations continuing to run aground in the face of American opposition and European indifference, Abbas is more and more being relegated to the dusty corridors of his offices in Ramallah. Unable to make any kind of interesting statements, and considered naive at best and recalcitrant at worst by his Western partners, Abbas is left to try to make the news and persuade the Palestinian people that he has both the strength and legitimacy to continue to lead them.

In contrast to Abbas we have the brash, anti-Semitic and violent Ismail Haniyeh, ‘Prime Minister’ of Hamas and the man in charge in the Gaza Strip. Although a nasty piece of work, and considerably more hateful than Abbas, it should be said that Haniyeh tends to be slightly more honest about his intentions.

Ismail Haniyeh

‘The real feast will be on the day Jerusalem and Al-Aksa are liberated’.

Considering that his intentions are quite as unpleasant as they are, one might wish he kept his thoughts  to himself. Furthermore, one should say that Haniyeh and his band of terrorist thugs will be waiting past the end of time for Jerusalem to ever again fall into Arab hands.

Why the switch from Palestinian to Arab in the previous sentence? Because Jerusalem has never been under Palestinian control, government or authority. It was a part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the British Empire/British Mandate, then a part of Jordan (illegally), which only gave up its claim to the city in the 1980s, long after Israel had taken control and annexed it. It is so important to remember the historical facts, rather than the distortions which the Palestinian propaganda machine spews out on a daily basis.

The split which exists between Abbas and Haniyeh, between the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas terror regime in Gaza is yet another reason why the claim for statehood in the United Nations is so ridiculous. No political authority exists which has control over the territory or recognition to accept the awarding of statehood. Most Muslim countries have official missions in Gaza, although non-permanent. They deal with Haniyeh and the terrorists as they do with Abbas. Completely undermining the concept of a single Palestinian leadership respected across the Territories. All of these difficulties surrounding Palestinian leadership are a precursor to the great turmoil which is coming; the fall of Abbas.

President Abbas, who is 76 years old, runs a corrupt and inept administration, which only manages to make progress through the tireless work of Prime Minister Fayyad. Abbas once seen as a bastion of moderation in the face of radicals who sought to throw the region once again into war, is now frail and apparently incapable or unwilling to work with the Israelis to facilitate peace talks. He has irritated President Obama and others who hoped to avoid the embarrassment and circus of the UN debacle in favour of a real negotiated offer. One gets the impression that if Abbas were to make one of his painfully common threats to resign it may not be greeted with quite the number of usual protestations from world leaders.

The old saying that you either ‘die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain’ is particularly relevant in this case. What should be a concern to everyone is who comes after Abbas? Haniyeh has a large amount of support, and the guns to go with it. In the event of Abbas dying suddenly, a civil war of sorts could ensue in the Territories. Without IDF intervention Hamas would of course keep control of the Gaza Strip, and could make a play of it in the West Bank. Imagine the propaganda victory for them when it takes Israeli security forces to stop a Hamas take-over in that area. Whichever Fatah member who stepped forward to govern the West Bank would be tarred as a collaborator – someone willing to turn the Israeli guns on his own people just to take power. His legitimacy would be zero from day one.

When the time comes Israel would do well to think carefully and act with purpose in facilitating the rise of another moderate, but right now, perhaps the only thing Abbas can do right before he goes, is make sure the guy coming in the door after him is more – not less – likely to make peace than he was.

The virtue of a proportional response 

Many of those who are interested in world politics, and the US political system in particular will know the reference being made to the TV series ‘The West Wing’ in this post. In the episode in question, after a US plane is shot down over Southern Lebanon, President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) asks what the virtue of a ‘proportional response’ is, and toys with the idea of intentionally over-reacting so as to discourage further attacks. He eventually is talked down by his aides, and settles for a predictable and relatively hollow response of destroying military targets which are already ready for the attack.

Jed Bartlet - President in 'The West Wing'

One shouldn’t take much from TV programmess, although in this case The West Wing is one of the better researched, and the episode does raise some interesting questions. These questions are all the more important in the face of the increasingly difficult situation in southern Israel.

Over the past few weeks, since the Shalit deal, rather than see a thaw in relations there has been increased tension. This has not been limited to the South, with attempted attacks in Gush Etzion, as well as threats in Jerusalem. That said, the areas directly surrounding the Gaza Strip have suffered as always more than most. Rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel, resulting in the death of a civilian and other minor casualties. Israel has responded with renewed airstrikes that have killed several militants with no reported civilian casualties. Once again the IAF has given an excellent demonstration of both the power and sophistication of the Israeli military shield.

IAF Takeoff

Israel does not only strike the locations from which missiles are fired, but is increasingly using early warning systems, intelligence and drone surveillance to hit positions from which mortars are being set up. Hitting before the shell or missile is fired of course reduces the risk to Israeli civilians, but the IAF is so far not able to know about every attack before it is launched. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their fellow terrorists operate often at night, using buildings or markets as partial cover. It is highly impressive that Israel is able to hit as many cells as it does before they strike.

So once again Israel is left in the tit-for-tat scenario, where for every rocket fired Israel hits back, and the cycle of violence continues. It should be recorded, that these missiles and mortars are being fired despite the fact Israel is intending to release several hundred more Palestinian terrorists in the coming months as part of the Gilad Shalit prison exchange deal. Rumours have begun to circulate about whether or not the Netanyahu Government will follow through with the release of the prisoners it still has in the event of continued, sustained attacks from the Gaza Strip. While it would be tempting not to release these men, considering the behaviour of their colleagues-in-terror during their captivity, the reality is Israel will almost certainly release them. Israel needs even its enemies to understand that when it makes a deal it abides by it, and failing to do so in this case would likely provoke further, more spectacular attacks.

Ashkelon, 29/10/2011

What comes next? On more than one occasion after repeated provocations by terrorists, Israel has carried out ground offensives to destroy military infrastructure, disarm and kill terrorists and secure its borders. This took place most recently in Gaza 2008-9 and Lebanon in 2006. While Israel was heavily criticised in both cases by arm-chair military critics in Europe, the Arab world and elsewhere, in both cases the operations resulted in considerably less or even no threat from those borders for extended periods. The Northern border has effectively remained silent since the Israeli action in Southern Lebanon in 2006. My mentioning of those two examples is not to suggest that either could be seen as disproportionate. In both cases Israel acted with great restraint to limit itself to particular military objectives. Both offensives were carried out only after extensive and unacceptable provocation on the part of the terrorists Hezbollah and Hamas. The thing that is so important to remember however, is the necessity/desire dichotomy. What counts as a war of necessity, and which is one that Israel can choose to fight?

That both of these campaigns were ones of self-defence is clear, but that does not necessarily mean they had to be fought when they did. Rather, in both cases, after repeated provocation by terrorist attacks and kidnappings, Israel reached the end of its patience and decided to put an end to the immediate threat through a major military action. This tipping point was decided on – that is to say that it was not because at that point either Hamas or Hezbollah had gained some strategic advantage that Israel had to remove to survive, but rather they had crossed the line from terrible, blood-sucking irritant to full blown actor in a conflict. It says a lot about what Israelis have to live with in their daily lives that occasional mortar fire and rockets is considered only an irritation.

Funeral of latest Israeli victim of Palestinian terror

The question that hangs over Israelis today however, is why should they put up with it anymore? What does Israel gain from just hitting the rocket team that killed their civilian? Retribution yes, and a minor blow to the operational capacity of terrorist groups, but what else? These questions have been abused by some to suggest Israel should simply not retaliate. It is argued that while Israel does not achieve that much in terms of strategic advantage by responding, Hamas and the other terrorist groups have a potential propaganda victory if the Israelis inadvertently hit a civilian.

It is clear to anyone with even the most superficial understanding of military strategy that these attacks require a military response, to deter further attacks and to protect Israeli civilians. That is how a war works. The question that comes next is whether or not Israel should seriously consider an enormous operation designed to destroy the complete operational capacity of Hamas/Islamic Jihad/both. In terms of what might be called a disproportionate response, Israel has three options.

(1) Instead of hitting simply the target from which Hamas or another terrorist group has just fired a weapon, you hit every single known terrorist location in the Gaza Strip with simultaneous air strikes and cruise missile attacks.

(2) An extended military incursion into the Gaza Strip, not dissimilar to Operation Cast Lead, where Israeli ground troops supported by the IAF enter the Strip, detain terrorists, eliminate resistance and destroy enemy military infrastructure.

(3) A full military deployment to the Gaza Strip again, setting up check points, carrying out patrols and driving Hamas underground once more.

Israeli home destroyed during the unilateral disengagement from Gaza, 2005

Each of these courses of action has major obstacles. Option (1), of hitting every terrorist site in Gaza every time there was an attack would without doubt result in large civilian casualties. Many of the terrorist bases double as homes or schools as well, and the attack would result in an unacceptable amount of collateral damage, not just in lives but also bricks and mortar. Furthermore, it would undermine the ability of Israel to strike after another attack.

Option (3), a full military occupation of Gaza is also flawed, but for a different reason. Israel has experience of being an occupying force in Gaza, during the years that IDF troops were deployed to stop terrorists from attacking the Israeli settlements in the Strip. Now that those settlements have been evacuated, Israel would effectively be there just for the sake of it. The soldiers deployed would face enormous hostility not just from peaceful civilians, but likely suicide bombings and guerrilla warfare. The suffering of civilians would be huge, as would the risks to IDF assets and personnel. Eventually, Israel would have to withdraw for the simple reason that Gaza has already been let go from a future Israeli state. The eventual withdrawal, no matter when it came and under what circumstances would be seen as a massive PR victory for the terrorists.

This leaves only option (2), a ground incursion similar to Operation Cast Lead designed to undermine and defeat the terrorist elements who threaten the citizens of Israel with their rockets and mortars. An engagement of this kind would again risk international condemnation and the possibility of casualties among IDF troops, but would have the advantage of being declared as a temporary, defensive engagement, and so would not be subject to the same criticism as a capture and hold mission such as option (3). While there can be little doubt that there would be accidental civilian deaths, as well as extensive damage to Gazan infrastructure, it is also highly likely that the IDF would be able to make significant progress in undermining terrorist activity in the Strip.

In the event that the current difficulties in the South do not end, it seems clear that the only choice Israel has is to once again teach Hamas the lesson they so richly deserve. Restraint on the part of the Israelis seems to be taken purely as weakness, and does not encourage any kind of softening of the Gazan position. As a result of the reckless endangerment illustrated by the terrorist attacks while a prisoner exchange is still being carried out, Israel and her military commanders should give serious thought as to whether or not it is time to once again take steps to secure Israeli citizens by not just deterring attacks, but thoroughly and with deliberate steps act in a preventative manner.

Gilad is free. Israel is hostage.

Gilad Shalit, saluting PM Netanyahu after his release

Gilad Shalit gained his freedom today. For the first time since 2006, the Shalit family will be able to sit down as a united family this evening and give thanks that their son has been returned to them. None of us can really understand the pain they went through, and the joy they will now feel. It is an affirming moment in the life of Israeli society when something like this happens. As someone who started a letter campaign in the UK, who proudly owns a ‘Gilad is alive!’ t-shirt and visited the tent outside the office of the Prime Minister in Israel and met members of Gilad’s family, I am extremely moved to see the boy return home.

From what we can gather so far Gilad is healthy, and although he has been suffering from some nausea since leaving captivity it does not seem to be too serious. He is back within the borders of the State of Israel. He will be back in Mitzpe Hila (his hometown) tonight.

Gilad Shalit giving an interview to Egyptian television

On his way through Egypt (where the prisoner swap took place), Gilad gave an interview to Egyptian TV, the line I want to focus on is this; ‘I hope this deal will lead to peace between Palestinians and Israelis and that it will support cooperation between both sides’. While many of us celebrate today, there are those for whom today is painful, and a reminder of some of the flaws within the State of Israel.

1,027 Palestinian terrorists have been handed over for the return of Gilad Shalit. Some of the most sadistic, cruel and fanatical terrorists have been given their freedom over the past few days or will be exchanged at the beginning of next month. This is not the first time that Israel has handed over convicted murderers for soldiers, or more usually for dead soldiers. One cannot feel tonight that while Israel might be seen as more humane for making this deal, it is difficult to see how she is safer.

Palestinians in Gaza celebrating the release of terrorists

While Israel welcomes back a young man who at the age of 19 was serving his country in a defensive capacity, the Palestinians are today welcoming back terrorists and killers of civilians. Needless to say these people will be given a heroes welcome in Gaza City and in the West Bank. An enormous public relations boost for the terrorist Hamas, and the biggest encouragement possible for more kidnappings of Israeli soldiers.

Israel has made a catastrophic error of judgement by making this deal. By doing so, it has continued in a tradition that has gone on too long of undermining its security and legitimacy by being held to ransom over individual soldiers.

By handing over Gilad, the Netanyahu government has signaled that if you use horrendous enough means, and have enough patience, the Government will cave on almost every single one of your demands. Of course it has been said that Israel refused to release certain key personnel which Hamas demanded; including expert bomb makers. That is a hollow victory. Hamas was well aware that those men would not be released for Gilad, so by asking for them they forced Israel to compromise on other murderers who should not be released. What does the Israeli government and the IDF think will happen next week? Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups will do everything they can to capture another Israeli soldier. Once again his family will be paraded on television for the whole world to see. The Israeli government may at first receive public support for a no nonsense approach to the kidnapping but the opinion of the public will turn and the government will cave just as Netanyahu has done with Gilad. How many more murderers will have to be released? How many people will have to be delivered back home after maiming and killing Israeli civilians?

Gilad arrives in Mitzpe Hila

Time and time again I have heard people justify this decision by Netanyahu and his Government by saying as many as 70% of Israelis supported the deal, or that the Shalit family had suffered long enough, or even that Israeli families would refuse to send their children to the army if Gilad was not returned. Each of these arguments is weaker than the last.

Public support for a decision does not make it a good idea. The majority of Israelis who know of the Gilad Shalit case (and that is pretty much everyone) have a purely emotional response to the situation. I respect and understand that, but it is clearly not a basis on which to make decisions pertaining to national security. The same can be said of the very real suffering of the Shalit family. In their position there can be no doubt that anybody would demand the release of their child. No price would seem too high to pay to have them safe and sound and back at home. While everyone in Israel feels great sympathy for the suffering of the Shalit family, in the grand scheme of things, what is the suffering of one family against a sense of deterrence for an entire country? If the pain of the Shalit family is ended by the release of Gilad, can we take their relief and put it on the border with Gaza as a defensive shield? Of course not. It betrays a society that is yet to recognise that the situation it finds itself in does not allow for the level of compassion it wishes to express. It is both the most admirable and most frustrating part of Israeli society.

Israeli families continue to send their children to the military. Certainly the level of exemptions is too high, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Gilad was given back. Parents would feel comfortable knowing that their son or daughter would be returned to them, but I simply do not accept that failing to return Gilad to his family would have ended IDF recruitment, or that doing so will sufficiently boost it to have made it worth it.

A mother of a terror victim petitions the Israeli Supreme Court to block the prisoner swap

What message does this deal send to the families of those who were killed by the acts of terror carried out by the terrorists being set free? What greater insult could there be? Some of the families have shown incredible compassion and grace that surpasses understanding in supporting the deal, wanting to see the Shalit family united in a way that they never will be. Such a position is admirable. But what is Israel saying as a society? That the Shalit family and their suffering is of greater importance than the suffering of those who have given in blood and family members for the State of Israel. The majority of those killed by these prisoners were not soldiers, they were civilians. Blown up for going to a restaurant, or taking the bus. That was their crime. Their killers are bused home to be greeted by jubilant crowds.

Israeli Supreme Court

The final question that should be put to those who supported this exchange is this; what does it tell us about Israel as a modern society? A modern, established society with a true concept of democracy and the rule of law cannot suspend the law because one of its citizens has been kidnapped. It is a sign of a still immature democracy that Israel is prepared to put aside the findings of hundreds of courts on the guilt of these people and simply pardon them in return for one man. It is inconsistent, it is unreasonable and it is a mockery of the concept of the Israeli judiciary.

Gilad Shalit had to be released. Gilad Shalit deserved to return home. I have been a passionate supporter of his release for a long time, and have written on that before. What it seems impossible to support is the manner in which he has been released. Gilad is free, but Israel is now the hostage.