Category Archives: Israel

Government, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States

Israel’s confrontation with Hamas in the West Bank must not be allowed to stoke fanaticism…

MIDDLE EAST

Israel has called-up 40,000 reservists in response to rocket attacks from Gaza and is the latest escalation in an increasingly dangerous confrontation in the Middle East. One may be of the opinion that Israel has shown commendable restraint by responding with targeted strikes against known Hamas missile bases and known operatives. But at least a dozen civilians have been reported dead in Gaza, which in turn has put localised pressure on Hamas to strike back, continuing and escalating the cycle of violence. Air raid sirens have been heard in and around Tel Aviv as Hamas have unleashed its long-range missiles.

A situation similar to that of 2008 – where a popular clamour for the Israeli Defence Force to enter Gaza – is evolving once again. Whilst hard for many Israelis to resist another military incursion, Benjamin Netanyahu and his government should hold back (if at all possible). Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ affords high level protection against the missiles and proved to be highly effective during a similar attack two years ago. Undoubtedly, the provocation being faced by Israelis is enormous: more than 100 rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel, and it is hard to discern any country facing a similar scenario exercising self-discipline and restraint in such circumstances.

However, the flare-up with Hamas can no longer be seen solely within the depressingly familiar context of the long-running Arab-Israeli dispute. With events elsewhere in the region as they are – in Syria, Iraq, tensions on the Sinai Peninsula and, potentially, great scope for both Jordon and Lebanon to be sucked into a wider conflagration – any intensification between Hamas and Israel will give the region as a whole a far more dangerous geopolitical edge. The Islamists of ISIS in their newly declared caliphate along Iraq’s frontier with Jordon want the common enemy of Israel drawn into the wider conflict. What is more, too, is that Hamas’s political hold in Gaza is notably unsettled and precarious, which is why it formulated a pact with Fatah in the West Bank. One reason for Israel’s reluctance to mount a ground operation is that the collapse of Hamas would encourage the rise and emergence of yet more extreme jihadist groups (as has happened in Iraq). Israel’s ratcheting up of the pressure through coordinated air strikes and mass troop mobilisation is intended to force a weakened Hamas to stop the rocket attacks.

It that plan fails, and the IDF deploys into Gaza, events will be much harder to control. Such action would seem certain to ignite trouble in the West Bank, where tensions remain fraught following the murder of a Palestinian boy in an apparent tit-for-tat response to the killing of three Israeli school children. Here, again, the Israelis have acted properly by arresting the suspects and allowing the law to take due process.

Any government’s priority is, of course, the protection of its citizens. But if the government of Israel can achieve that without fomenting and instigating yet more jihadist fanaticism, then surely that must be to Israel’s long-term advantage. Because of its prosperity, military power and international status, Israel has more to lose by intensifying its campaign in Gaza than maybe immediately obvious to its citizens. Certainly, the powerful using brute strength on the weak is never an attractive sight, whatever the level of provocation.

The United States will be in a position to point this out, and it must use its influence to calm tensions in a region that otherwise might escalate into something that will be more difficult to contain. An abiding peace in the region is now as far away as it has ever been, but surely no Israeli will wish to live in a perpetual state of continual conflict.

Infogram:

Map depicting where the missiles are falling in Israel.

Map depicting where the missiles are falling in Israel.

Standard
Government, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Politics, United States

The formation of a Palestinian ‘unity’ government…

ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

The formal announcement earlier this week of a Palestinian unity government, embracing both Fatah and Hamas, curtails any remaining hope of a successful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for some time to come. In truth, the attempts by John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, over the past nine months in brokering a process for peace, was already dead in the water following the rapprochement between the rival factions. The decision of the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to enter into agreement with the Gaza-based terror organisation has simply served to convince doubters that he was never serious or intent enough on delivering a two-state model. The Palestinians have also maintained that alleged Israeli dithering over prisoner releases has been a clear demonstration that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government was simply going through the motions. Once Hamas was brought on board, though, the talks were always likely to founder. To suggest otherwise is illusionary.

Mr Kerry has devoted large swathes of his time over the past nine months in attempting to bring about a workable solution. Although many of the arguments have been thrashed out many times before, Mr Kerry’s timetable for delivery of an agreement was unrealistic, despite his efforts and commitment to the process being commendable. Progress has been made. Mr Netanyahu has come a long way from his previous implacable opposition to a two-state solution and agreed to halt new settlement buildings along the border while the talks continued.

For their part, the Palestinians have been forced to merge through weakness rather than strength: Hamas, in particular, has been affiliated with those unwieldy and tyrannical despots in both Egypt and Syria. The new ‘unity government’ in Palestine is being portrayed as a technocratic administration (whose members have no political affiliation). Fatah’s reconciliation with an organisation widely regarded as a terrorist movement, however, will be seen by many as being toxic.

There is one clear way to move forward. And that is for Hamas to recognise Israel and renounce violence for good.

Standard
Government, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Politics, United Nations, United States

The Geneva agreement between the U.S. and Iran…

INTERIM DEAL

The interim deal between the United States and Iran has made significant progress that will halt the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program, but it is also weak in some important respects.

The deal makes no mention of potential military action if Iran does not live up to its obligations. However, the deal is a ground-breaking agreement that will attempt to resolve longstanding concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The interim deal ties Tehran to an ongoing diplomatic process whose primary rewards remain deferred until a far more ambitious and comprehensive agreement can be achieved.

Describing the agreement as an ‘initial, six-month deal’, President Obama said it includes ‘substantial limitations’ that will deter Iran from creating a nuclear weapon.

U.S. negotiators said the deal addresses Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and its existing enriched uranium stockpiles, but details on this remain unclear. It also dealt with Iran’s centrifuges, a component part needed which can enrich uranium for fuel for a bomb, and its ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium using the Arak reactor.

Mr Obama, both in his televised statement to the nation and the fact sheet issued by the White House, committed to no additional nuclear-related sanctions against Iran as long as Iran abides by it. Many in Congress, though, have said new sanctions are necessary to make sure Iran abandons what they consider a path toward developing nuclear weapons. Others say that whilst they share Mr Obama’s desire to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran through diplomacy continuity for stronger sanctions against Iran is still needed to make sure diplomacy succeeds. Bipartisan legislation is expected in the United States that will impose tough new economic sanctions if Iran undermines the interim accord or if the dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is not underway by the end of the six-month period.

For some, the interim deal provides the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism with billions of dollars of cash in exchange for cosmetic concessions which will neither freeze nor significantly roll-back its nuclear infrastructure.

Whilst there is also a perception that this is a deal that reflects Iran buckling under the weight of international sanctions which has truly bowed to global pressure, there is also a risk of the final deal being buttressed if factors such as a hard deadline for a final agreement is pursued, a caveat previously imposed by the United Nations Security Council. The UN has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran suspend its production of nuclear fuel, with a threat of military force if terms are not met.

Contentiously, before the deal in Geneva had been announced, Iranian officials said that any interim deal must declare production of nuclear fuel as an ‘Iranian sovereign right’. But even limited enrichment facilities will allow Iran to still be in a position to build all the elements to acquire a nuclear infrastructure without ever actually turning it on. The permission to enrich will ensure that the Iranian nuclear program remains an international issue for many years.

ISRAEL

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now appears to have little choice but to accept this deal that he has derided as deeply flawed.

Mr Netanyahu believes the six-month deal leaves Iran’s military nuclear capabilities largely intact, while giving Iran relief from painful economic sanctions, undermining negotiations on the next stage. At the same time, Israel’s strongest piece of leverage, the threat of a military strike on Iran, seems to be out of the question despite Netanyahu’s insistence it would remain on the table. Mr Netanyahu has referred to the deal as a ‘historic mistake.’

He said Israel was not bound by the agreement, and reiterated Israel’s right to ‘defend itself by itself,’ a veiled reference to a possible military strike against Iran.

Mr Netanyahu has spent years warning the world against the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, calling it an existential threat due to Iranian references to Israel’s destruction, its support of hostile militant groups on Israel’s borders and its development of missiles capable of reaching Israel and beyond.

Israel also believes that a nuclear-armed Iran will provide militant groups like Lebanon’s Hezbollah an ‘umbrella’ of protection that will embolden them to carry out attacks.

Netanyahu had said that any deal must ensure that Iran’s enriching of uranium — a key step toward making a nuclear bomb — must end. He also said all enriched material should be removed from the Islamic Republic, and called for the demolition of a plutonium reactor under construction.

A deal that would satisfy Israel was never likely from the outset due to differing ‘red lines’ between Israel and the U.S.

While Israel sees any enrichment as a cause for concern, the U.S. was willing to tolerate nuclear development as long as it was unable to produce weapons.

U.S. negotiators have said that the relief from sanctions was minimal and that the most biting economic measures, including sanctions on Iran’s vital oil industry, remained in place and more could be imposed if Iran fails to follow through.

Israel’s relationship with the U.S. will be critical as it conducts peace talks with the Palestinians in the coming months. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who is mediating the talks, has set an April target date for reaching an agreement, and there is widespread speculation that the Americans will step up their involvement as the deadline approaches. Given this, Israel’s main card – military action against Iran – appears to be out of the question despite some hard hitting Israeli rhetoric on the Geneva agreement.

Enrichment is at the heart of the dispute because it can be used for peaceful purposes or for producing a nuclear bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for civilian usage such as energy production and for use in medical treatment.

Uranium at low levels of enrichment, up to 20 percent, is used in research or generating electricity. Uranium must be enriched to a far higher level — above 90 percent — to produce a warhead. So far, Iran is not known to have produced any at that level, but Israel argues that the technology for doing so is the same as that for enriching at lower levels.

Under the compromise, enrichment would be capped at the 5 percent level, and Iran’s stockpile of 20 percent uranium would be ‘neutralised,’ effectively preventing it from reaching weapons-grade level. Also construction on the plutonium reactor is to be suspended. The White House also promised ‘intrusive monitoring’ of Iranian nuclear facilities.

Israel says any enriched uranium in Iranian hands is potentially dangerous, since its centrifuges can quickly convert it to weapons grade. Israel believes that Iran’s ability to keep its nuclear infrastructure intact will allow it to quickly resume the program if the talks fail.

In all, about 250 kilograms (550 pounds) of highly enriched uranium is needed to make a weapon. Iran already has about 200 kilograms (440 pounds) of enriched uranium.

The Geneva accord is not all bad for Israel, since Iran is deemed to have capped enrichment activity and slowed construction of the plutonium reactor. However, Iran’s ability to ‘break out and make a nuclear explosive device does remain intact, and is a concern being expressed by Israeli officials.

Standard