Tag Archives: Benjamin Netanyahu

Britain, Gaza, History, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States

Israel has been drawn into a trap by Hamas

MIDDLE EAST

Intro: Following the events of October 7, Israel’s enraged response has plunged the Gaza Strip into a humanitarian disaster. The southern city of Rafah has suffered the brunt of the crisis with a five-fold population increase, vital resources lacking, and no sign of the violence abating. What can be done? Analogies are being drawn with Nazi Germany

AT the southern end of the Gaza strip, lies the city of Rafah. It might be the most densely populated place on Earth right now.

Five months ago, before the bloody atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists on October 7, and then Israel’s enraged response since, the city was already overflowing with people.

Since then, its population of around 280,000 has increased five-fold to almost 1.5 million, crammed into 23 square miles. Refugees are living ten to a room, if they are lucky enough to have shelter at all. Most are on the streets.

Vital resources including medication, fuel, food, and water, are in desperately short supply, and what little exists is ruthlessly controlled by the Hamas criminal network.

Rafah is also a terrorist stronghold. If Israel remains intent to wipe out the leaders of this fanatical Islamist regime, Israel Defence Forces (IDF) will have to attack the city.

The cost of civilian lives will be heavy. And the cost to Israel could be catastrophic, too, if Western governments withdraw their increasingly equivocal support. It really is not clear just how much support Western nations are willing to give Israel.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, is under intense pressure domestically to finish off Hamas. But, if he attacks Rafah, he will be falling into a trap.

Israel is facing a hate-filled enemy willing to use human shields. Hamas’s ringleaders are happy to see women and children slaughtered, because they think this will provoke an avalanche of Arab rage that will finally wipe Israel off the map. The Palestinian warlords only have one aim.

For those looking on in horror from around the world, events in Gaza have close and unsettling parallels to the destruction of Berlin or Dresden in Germany at the end of World War II: one Hitler’s capital, the other a military transport hub, with beautiful baroque architecture housing an incalculable number of refugees.

Stalin’s Red Army fought its way to Hitler’s bunker while the RAF razed much of Dresden to the ground in a series of firebomb raids, killing some 25,000 civilians. The Allies were deeply divided over this tactic, and historians still argue over its morality.

Nazism posed a dangerous global threat. By contrast, many perceive the war in Gaza as nasty but local. Israelis, however, living under the shadow of the Holocaust, recognise Hamas as a mortal threat, and one with strong regional support.

For most Israelis, then, debate of any kind is unnecessary. They know that if Hamas is not defeated and crushed, their country is doomed.

This is a war of survival. The October 7 massacre was so steeped in wickedness that Israelis are justified in believing the terrorists want to see every Jew perish in much the same way: raped, burned alive, dismembered. That’s the level of fear and evil that Israelis are faced with.

Prior to events in October, Netanyahu was widely seen by the electorate as a paranoid and corrupt politician clinging to power to avoid prison. But since the Hamas rampage, most in Israel now blame him for not being tough enough on Palestinian violence.

Hamas strategists assumed that their atrocities would draw Netanyahu into a trap. Israel would hit back hard, but its Western allies would forcibly shudder over civilian casualties. Our leaders held their nerve while the IDF invaded from the coast and the north of the Gaza strip, an area 25 miles long and as little as seven miles across at some points. Now, though, the West is losing its stomach for this campaign.

Many of the 29,000 killed so far have been non-combatants. In Gaza City to the north, every other building is reported to be destroyed. Bordered on one side by the Mediterranean, with all exit routes blocked and with residents unable to flee into neighbouring Israel, many had no choice but to trek south to Rafah.

Once in Rafah, they can migrate no further. Egypt has closed its narrow border, fearing a massive influx of Hamas fighters among displaced refugees, risking an Islamist insurrection in Egypt that would overthrow the regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

TWO

SO, what is to be done?

In this international crisis, each country is thinking first of its own priorities.

In Washington, President Biden’s team are all-too conscious of the forthcoming election in November.

The pro-Israel lobby in America is traditionally very powerful and the Jewish electorate tends to back the Democrats – but the growing number of Muslim-American voters could turn crucial swing states against the incumbent.

In Britain, the Labour Party is undergoing its most serious internal crisis since Keir Starmer took over, with the hard-Left demanding its MPs endorse an immediate “ceasefire” – a euphemism for Israeli surrender.

On Britain’s streets, and across the West, hundreds of thousands of marchers have been shouting inflammatory and often vile anti-Semitic slogans for months. A radical sub-culture is definitely spreading, with race hate at its core.

The disgraced former Labour candidate in the Rochdale parliamentary by-election peddled obscene conspiracy theories that Israel encouraged the Hamas massacre, and that all the Islamic world is under attack by Jews.

An audience in a London theatre hounded out a Jewish man who refused to cheer the Palestinian flag. They were whipped up by the comedian on stage, shouting “Get out” and “Free Palestinian” with added expletives. That is a scene redolent of Berlin in the 1930s.

Netanyahu’s ferocious counter-response to the provocation in October has led to a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, but that has played into his enemy’s hands. International courts are considering charges of “genocide” against the Israeli government and military. A Dutch court has already blocked the export of spare parts for the Israeli air force.

Pressure has begun to mount on Jerusalem to accept an “immediate pause in the fighting”, a polite phrase for a ceasefire. British Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, is adamant one can be reached. He is seen as a friend of Israel.

Netanyahu, however, shows no signs of responding to such appeals. The Israeli PM and his generals appear determined to carry on at all costs. It does beg the question: what would constitute an Israeli victory?

After all, even if the IDF does succeed in capturing or killing the leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, and his fighters, this would then leave them with the problem of what to do with the 1.5 million embittered Palestinians left to contemplate a miserable future in the devastated Gaza.

Faced with a similar quandary in the closing months of World War II, the Allies opted for a strategy of winning hearts and minds – distributing medicines and restoring water supplies in western Germany even before Berlin finally surrendered, and then funded a massive restructuring programme via the Marshall Plan.

In much the same way, the world’s best hope now might be a deeply counterintuitive one. If Netanyahu reverses his blockade of aid and lets humanitarian relief flow into Gaza – food, water, medicine, and fuel – he might just persuade Palestinians that Hamas is their mortal enemy, not Israel.

True, a rump of Hamas insurgents might seize many of the aid lorries. Those who need this precious cargo most, the women and children, would likely get very little.

But it would be an important gesture for Israel to say: “We do not hate all Palestinians – only our hate-filled enemies who want to kill us.” Such slim hopes are the best we have – and it will take the most dexterous statesmanship, as well as military planning, to avert a host of new catastrophes.

Standard
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, 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