Throughout the Middle East, deep Muslim political divide could stymie
President Obama’s well-intentioned Mideast efforts. Mainstream Arab
countries, like Israel, seek US resolve in confronting the Iranian-led axis, not an “outstretched American hand” to the radical part of the Muslim world.
A decisive, concretely visible Israeli victory over Hamas – which means
pursuing the enemy into its hideouts in Gaza urban areas and refugee camps and bringing about its surrender – is critical to rolling back the march of Islamic fundamentalist political power in the Middle East.
Hamas miscalculated its strength and support; erred in ending the six-month ceasefire with Israel; unwisely offended and threatened Egypt; and misread Israeli politics.
Since the US invasion of Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran has taken on the behavior of a regional hegemon. Indeed, Ahmadinejad speaks and acts as if he is the new leader of the Third World. Iran is setting itself up as the leader of a Mideast “axis of evil” with radical proxies and allies. An important aspect of the new Iranian reach is Tehran’s growing alliance with Hamas, which dates back to January 2006. Under Ahmadinejad, Iran has become an active revisionist state guided by radical religious conviction, while Hamas has captured almost complete control of the PA.
Many have suggested that Israel’s questionable military performance in the Second Lebanon War have impacted negatively on Israel’s ability to deal with the Palestinians. However, in reality the recent war revealed that the tendency to see the conflict in broader terms, such as a clash of civilizations, is very much exaggerated.
The decisive victory by Hamas in this week’s Palestinian elections, paradoxically, serves Israel’s interests. Hamas’ win provides Israel and the international community with an opportunity to fashion a tough line against Palestinian Islamic terrorism and to bring the aid-dependent PA into line. Moreover, Hamas is bound to fail in running the PA, leaving open the possibility in the long term for the emergence of a more mature Palestinian leadership.
If you would like to order a hard copy please contact us.
Abu Mazen is seeking to amass power as quickly as possible, and his election as President of the Palestinian Authority is the easy part of his task. Sharing power with an elected legislature will prove much more difficult and dangerous, which is the reason why Abu Mazen will probably postpone such elections indefinitely. An Abu Mazen government, however, will be hard pressed to gain an overall monopoly of power.
Moderate leaders warn that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may turn from a national conflict into a religious one. Right-wing leaders claim it has been a religious conflict from the start. Both approaches have been applied to the Temple Mount crisis, and both are affected by a totalist perception of the understanding of the religious imperative.
The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.
North Korea’s nuclearization has implications for Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture. There are several plausible means by which a nuclear conflict could arise in the Middle East. It may be time to consider a phase-out of Israel’s “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and to focus Israeli planning around evaluations of enemy rationality.
Former PM Ehud Barak’s arguments in favor of withdrawal from Judea and Samaria undercut Israel’s security and are a departure from the Oslo Accords’ security vision. Israel would be wise to present President Trump with actual facts on this issue.
Many American detractors of Israel begin by citing that Israel receives the lion’s share of US military aid. The very suggestion conjures the demon of an all-powerful Israel lobby that has turned the US Congress into its pawn. But these figures, while reflecting official direct US military aid, are almost meaningless in comparison to the real costs and benefits of US military aid – above all, American boots on the ground. In reality, Israel receives only a small fraction of American military aid, and most of that was spent in the US to the benefit of the American economy.
The Oslo diplomatic process is the starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history and one of the worst calamities ever to have afflicted Israelis and Palestinians. Twenty three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn, the Oslo ‘peace process’ has substantially worsened the position of both parties, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation ever more remote.
