B'Tselem is an Israeli human rights group. This week it commemorates its 20th anniversary with the release of data collected over a 20-year-period. It makes for grim reading:

In the last 20 years Israeli security forces killed 7,398 Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories. While 1999 saw the lowest level of Palestinian casualties - 8 altogether - in 2009, the number of Palestinian killed rose to 1,033.

During the same period Palestinians killed 1,483 Israelis, of whom 488 belonged to Israel’s security forces and 995 were civilians. And while – again - 1999 saw the lowest number of Israeli casualties - 4 in all - in 2002, which was a bloody year of suicide attacks on Israeli towns and cities, 420 Israelis were killed.

Of the measures used by the IDF in the Occupied Territories, house demolition is one of the most controversial. According to B'Tselem, in the last twenty years, Israel has demolished at least 4,300 Palestinian houses, either for being built without a permit, or as punishment. This figure, however, does not include the destruction of property during military operations which amounts to some 6,240 Palestinian houses.

As for Jewish settlers: while in 1989, 69,800 lived in the West Bank and 118,100 in East Jerusalem, today - over 300,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and 190,000 in East Jerusalem.

Contract article -

In the wake of the Fort Hood shooting, commentators on this blog and elsewhere have been exploring more broadly the connections between grievances, ideology and violent action. Too often there is a tendency to see a certain inevitability in processes of violence, to believe that people with particular grievances will inevitably be tempted to engage in or at least support violent acts. I thought it might be interesting to look at a case that disrupts these assumptions.

A very fine organisation that I used to work for in Washington, the Middle East Institute, is hosting its annual conference this week. At the opening session, an award was presented to Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish, a Palestinian doctor, for his efforts in promoting peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. An obstetrician who worked for many years in both Israel and Gaza, he continually engaged people on both sides in projects that would deepen understanding (such as joint research on the effects on conflict on children in Gaza and in Israel) and in humanitarian efforts, including bringing desperately ill Palestinians into Israel for treatment.

His commitment to peace is made even more remarkable by the events of 16 January 2009. Dr Abuelaish lost three daughters and a niece when an Israeli shell hit their home in Jabaliya, Gaza. He was at the scene and saw with his own eyes the blown-apart remains of his daughters. (The Israeli army said it was returning fire after being fired upon from the area.) A Reuters TV report on the incident can be seen here.

Despite this personal tragedy, Dr. Abuelaish has not forsaken his efforts to build peace and understanding. At the MEI conference, he explained his thinking thusly:

For me the 16th of January, 2009, is the day when my three precious daughters and niece were killed by Israeli shells. It is hard to describe the dreadful scene and events of that day. The body parts of those beautiful girls – each of them was a special world – spread over the ceiling and were drowning in a pool of blood. I do not want anyone in this world to witness or see what I have seen.

But we are all human and we all make mistakes and commit sins from time to time. As a believer with deep faith as a Muslim, I fully believe that what I have lost – what was taken from me – will never come back. I need to go forward and be motivated by the spirit of those I lost and do them justice…

We need to discover the humanness inside all of us and adopt it as our pathway. We have to defend loudly the humanity that we all belong to and in this way we defend ourselves. Willingness and talking is not enough. It is a matter of action. As Martin Luther King said, our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends…

What do we need to understand and respect each other, and that the dignity of all is equal and live in collaboration and partnership? We need to smash and destroy the mental and physical barriers within each of us and between us. Let us build a new generation who believes that advancing human civilization is a joint project and that the most holy things in the universe are humankind and freedom. Instead of building walls of separation, let us build a bridge of understanding, respect and love, and restore the trust we need to activate our big open minds, hearts, eyes and arms.

The personal experience of losing family and friends to violence is often cited in studies of radicalisation within conflict zones. It is perhaps one of the more easily understood factors – after all, feelings of loss and the desire for revenge are not ideologically dependent but emotionally and psychologically resonant across wildly varying human societies. But the story of Dr. Abuelaish – and the many other Palestinians who support peace and reconciliation efforts – reminds us that any investigation into the sources of political violence must also consider those upon 'the path not taken'. To engage in violence is a choice – not a predetermined outcome – and a choice made at the expense of alternative paths. Understanding why people with similar grievances make divergent choices is a complex field within the broader political violence literature.

Finally, I would call attention to Dr Abuelaish's evocation of Dr Martin Luther King. When we talk about global ideologies, we tend to think of those that advocate extremism and/or violence; we equate the term with threats. It is worth remembering the vast, cross-cultural influence of ideas and ideologies that promote non-violent activism, pacifism and transnational cooperation in pursuit of peace. In most conflict zones, peace activists get little support or attention and it is all too easy to dismiss their efforts, or conflate genuine peace activism with political efforts of a more dubious nature.

Nevertheless, the global network that rests upon the ideas of people like Dr King and Mahatma Gandhi, and that endures in the same political and military space as global networks of jihadism or other violent tendencies, offers an interesting counterpoint to many of the ideas now circulating in media and policy circles.


Contract article -

Major 'Abbud al-Zumur, the former military intelligence officer who served on the governing bodies of both the Jihad organisation and al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group - IG) in Egypt, published in August 2009 a book entitled The Third Alternative: Between Authoritarianism and Surrender which analyses the causes of violent radicalism and prescribes ways of ending political violence within Arab- and Muslim-majority states.

This book is the latest development in what can be called a second wave of modern Islamist de-radicalisation. It is one of several instances of this literature to address political participation and pluralism explicitly. However authors from the very same movement sometimes have different views on this topic: IG's ideologue Nagih Ibrahim, for example, has called on Islamist movements to abandon politics and focus on missionary activities, while IG leader, Karam Zuhdi, declared that the group's current rejection of democracy could change based on its interests.

This new literature features a departure from upholding fiqh al-'unf (Islamic jurisprudence justifying violence) toward discouraging armed confrontations in general and de-legitimising political violence in Muslim-majority societies in particular. Most of the arguments in de-radicalisation literature are not new but the message bearers made a difference. As one of the former commanders of the IG's armed wing puts it: "Hearing the [theological] arguments directly from the sheikhs [IG leaders] was different….we heard these before from the Salafis and from al-Azhar…we did not accept them…we accepted them from the sheikhs because we knew their history."

The new body of literature mainly deconstructs the eight major arguments of jihadism: al-hakimmiyya (God’s exclusive right to legislate), al-riddah (apostasy, mainly of ruling regimes), al-jihad/qital (fighting) for the Islamic state, jihad al-daf'(defensive jihad),  ahkam al-diyar (rules of conduct in the "abode of Islam" and the "abode of infidelity"), methods for sociopolitical change, the inevitability of confrontation, and the "neo-crusader" arguments.

Deconstructing those arguments in post-jihadist literature entails an inference shift. The theological arguments of jihadism rest on the idea that literal orders from God supersede any rational calculations or material interests. This usually translates into an impetus to engage in armed confrontations against much stronger powers. In post-jihadist literature, there is a shift to the idea that interests determine the interpretation of the text. If a confrontation, or any other behaviour, is likely to lead to negative consequences, it must be forbidden and should be avoided.

Despite the persistence of jihadism, violence, and the conducive conditions to both paths, a post-jihadist era has begun. On the ideological level, post-jihadism involves de-legitimisation and discouragement of political violence in general as well as upholding theologically-sanctioned pragmatism. On the behavioural level, it criticises Islamists who still engage in violence is another feature, and on the organisational level, it aims to disband armed wings and secret units.

Most post-jihadist literature does not take a clear stance on democracy. But accepting the "other," moderating rhetoric and behaviour, and participating in electoral politics may be the only viable options for these groups if they want to remain politically significant. In other words, if jihadism heralded the inevitability of armed confrontation, post-jihadism might well entail the inevitable acceptance of democratisation.

Contract article -

The UN General Assembly, last Thursday (5 November), adopted a resolution asking Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to deliver to the Security Council the Goldstone Report, which accuses Israel and "Palestinian armed groups" of committing war crimes during Israel's military operation in Gaza ("Operation Cast Lead") in winter 2008/9. Denying any wrongdoing, Israel expects the United States to use its veto power in the Security Council to bury Goldstone for good. 

In the meantime I had a go at Professor Asa Kasher. An eminent Israeli philosopher, Professor Kasher, in 2004, headed a team of experts in developing a Code of Conduct for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which emphasizes how it should behave in low intensity warfare and when operating in densely populated areas.

The other day, Professor Kasher gave a TV interview which seriously upset me. Here was perhaps the most important Israeli philosopher of war discussing the IDF, "Operation Cast Lead" and the Goldstone report, leaving the impression, at least on me, that all was well with the IDF and its conduct in Gaza while, on the other hand, criticizing the Goldstone report.

Now, I am experienced enough to know that it is always a good idea to count to ten before reacting, especially to matters that really upset you. But on this occasion I simply reached for my keyboard and typed a message:    

Dear Prof Kasher,
I've watched your interview … I have no doubt whatsoever that the perspective of history will identify a clear pattern from you being a bright, eminent philosopher … to someone who, later, became … "the national whitewasher" … someone who … at the philosophical level, gave approval for terrible, terrible things that have been done by Israeli troops, particularly during "Operation Cast Lead".
Yours,
Ahron Bregman

It took me no longer than the time between hitting the "send" button and the "your message has been sent", to realise that my terse message was inappropriate, something which I was soon to learn straight from the horse's mouth:

 

Dear Dr. Bregman:
Thank you for your message.
Your views about my views seem to rest on two wrong assumptions:
1. That you have sufficient knowledge of the facts. Reading Goldstone, The Guardian, Haaretz and some NGO reports is never tantamount to becoming knowledgeable about what the IDF have or have not done.
2. More personally, that you are sufficiently familiar with my views and activities. The depiction of a person as one who is willing to sanction everything the IDF does is not less than a libel. I published (with Amos Yadlin) papers, in scholarly journals, during 2005, way before the 2nd Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead. Our papers are full of arguments. One may disagree on grounds of counter-arguments, but the rhetoric of some circles is never argumentative and respectful, but always bashing and smearing. It is a contemptible style, utterly incompatible with genuine pursuit of human dignity.

Sincerely,

Asa Kasher

 

Well, I must admit that Professor Kasher inflicted a serious blow (especially in his number 2), leaving me with a bloody nose.

Having said that, I still believe that by working so intimately with the IDF, many of whose troops are now suspected war criminals, Professor Kasher caused himself an irreparable damage. For even if the Code of Conduct he helped to develop is fine on paper, and even if some elements in his criticism of Goldstone are correct (and I'll not go into it now), still when one counts the bodies, particularly of children, left by the IDF in the streets of Gaza in 2009, one becomes suspicious of all those involved in the Gaza saga: the troops who used indiscriminate fire, the politicians who dispatched them to operate in crowded Gaza, various advisors linked to the military, including army lawyers and – yes – philosophers of war too.

Still, the "rhetoric", as Professor Kasher put it in reference to my style, was indeed inappropriate and did little to help me convince this grand philosopher that, while the killing in Gaza was in no way his fault, it was however within the context of his 2004 Code of Conduct that the IDF did what he did there.

Contract article -

These were the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, regarding the Israeli Navy commandos who seized control of a merchant ship full of Hezbollah-bound weapons.

The weapons and ammunition, including 106 mm shells, 107 mm and 122 mm rockets, hand grenades, mortar shells, anti-tank missiles and ammunition for AK-47 rifles, were hidden aboard in polyethylene bags. 

The Brigadier Rani Ben Yehuda of the Israeli Navy said that the amount of weapons and ammunition is ten times more then was caught on the Karin-A in 2002, and could provide the Hezbollah with enough equipment to fight Israel for more than a month.   

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki also denied the story saying: "The ship was carrying goods to Syria, not Iranian arms. There was no equipment aboard the ship meant for the manufacturing of weapons in Syria."

The assumption is, as Hanan Greenberg, ynet reporter added; the group stands behind this is the Quds force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which is responsible for exporting the revolution outside Iran's borders.     

I wonder how it is possible to be so transparent about this goal and yet to still deny it when they are caught actually doing it? The fact that it has happened so many times in the past shows that the only thing that changes is the method of delivery – air, sea, or land.
 

Contract article -

I have seriously upset some of my friends with my previous post.

The way they reacted to it, which was to send emails to my private address rather than to our Blog, partly explains why they were so offended: They felt that it was wrong of me to wash Israel's dirty linen in public.

They felt that as a former Israeli I should have acted more discreetly: perhaps by sending "eyes only" letters to influential people, or discuss my thoughts in private with friends and let them deal with the matter in a more diplomatic way.

But, frankly, I am in no mood to act in such a way.

Israel, I know, and this is the lesson of history, only moves under open pressure, and matters are urgent enough at the moment for people like me to join-in and do whatever we can to save Israel from herself, and also save those who, as I write, are watching television, or visiting a shopping mall in Gaza or elsewhere in the Middle East, not knowing that they are going to die, unless we take action to save them.

Do not misunderstand me: saying that Israel only moves under pressure is not an open invitation to attack her physically, although it is safe to say that such a physical pressure did provide good results in the past, benefiting Israel, the entire Middle East and the world. The Arab attack on Israel in October 1973, for instance, was a critical event, pushing Israel to return the occupied Sinai and sign a peace deal with Egypt in 1979; the successful Palestinian first intifada played a major role in convincing Israelis to recognise the PLO and later sign the Oslo Agreements; successful Hezbollah guerrilla tactics forced Israeli troops out of Lebanon after 18 years of occupation; and the second intifada played a major role in convincing Ariel Sharon to pull out of Gaza in 2005.

Back to the present situation, I strongly believe that only open pressure on Israel could ensure that she investigates – for her own sake - the serious allegations made against her in the Goldstone report, where she is accused of "committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity", during her three-week war in Gaza in January 2009. Such pressure – by the US, Europe, by the UN and by ordinary people like me and you - will also achieve another aim (and the following refers to my previous statement about those not knowing they are going to die, unless we take action to save them), which is forcing Israel to rethink her military tactics and be more cautious in using force and fire in heavily populated areas, notably in the Gaza Strip, if and when she operates there again.

There was, to be sure, another matter in my previous post that bothered some of my friends, namely the paragraph where I said that, "I think it is a good thing that some Serbs, Africans, Arabs and – yes Israelis too - who have been involved in conflicts, have their balls (excuse my French) shaking a bit, before landing in such places as Britain, Spain, Belgium, out of fear that upon emerging from their aeroplanes they might be shown the connection flight to The Hague".

Now I know that some of you guys, out there, will immediately think that the criticism emerges from my reference to private parts. But no. What actually upset my friends was that I mentioned, in the same breath, Israelis and … Serbs! It was, apparently, alright to refer to Arabs and Africans, but Serbs? With their reputation of being war criminals?

The truth, however, is that Israelis and Serbs are similar in so many ways; not only in their worldview (where among other things they both believe that, "the world is always against us"), but also in the tough tactics (I would refrain here from using the words "cruel tactics") used by their armed forces against their enemies, and the dogged insistence of both Israeli and Serb leaders that their armies are "the most moral in the world".

Contract article -

A new radio station called Voice of Prisoners has now officially hit the airwaves in the Gaza Strip.

As the name suggests, the radio programmes are specifically directed to the Palestinian detainees and focuses on allowing them to maintain ties with their relatives.

In an article written by Ali Waked for Ynet, Rafat abu-Khalil, one of the station's personalities and a former prisoner, who was detained in an Israeli prison for fifteen years for partaking in the Islamic Jihad, says that Voice of Prisoners meets an increasing need for such programming.

Indeed even though similar programmes have been broadcast for years from the Israeli area, it was only for a few hours a week. Rafat abu-Khalil added that this only led to requests for more programmes and complaints that there was not enough air-time.

Prison management cannot prohibit the station from broadcasting. However the programmes can sometimes be quite challenging because prisoners can use it to transfer information to other prisons. But at the same time it can also be a good tool for prison management to gain useful intelligence.

Israeli public opinion is very much against such an initiative. Many comments have been left on the website saying that it is crazy to let them communicate with their families, a parallel has been drawn with Gilad Shalit who has barely seen the light of day, let alone talk to his family, for more than three years now.

During my research as a Criminologist, I’ve always supported any initiative that could improve conditions for Palestinian or "Security" prisoners which I believe are crucial to allow them to go through the process of de-radicalisation, and for us to have a better society.

But as an Israeli I can only relate to the comments that have been posted which deplore the lack of reciprocity and the different attitude to human rights and life itself.

You can also read the article in Hebrew here.

Contract article -

Last month, Hala Mustafa (picture), editor-in-chief of the quarterly Al-Demoqratiya (Democracy) magazine, made the headlines in Egypt and other parts of the Arab world.

The reason: Hala had conducted a meeting with the Israeli ambassador to Egypt in her office at the headquarters of the Al-Ahram Centre in Cairo.

This prompted the Egyptian Journalists Union to investigate her for breaching the organisation's bylaws, which prohibit any contact with Israelis.The incident may not be significant in the bigger scheme of things, but it sums up the attitude towards peace in the region.

For the Egyptian Journalists Union and other professional associations, full 'normalization' can only happen after a comprehensive peace settlement – including Israel's withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 – has been achieved.

The argument is that any engagement with Israelis before a full settlement would only provide Israel with an opportunity to legitimise the status quo.

In its own twisted way, there is a logic to the argument.

What really doesn't make sense, however, is the response of the Egyptian government. The regime has had a peace treaty with Israel for nearly three decades, and the meeting between Hala and Cohen took place on the premises of a government-sponsored centre.
Yet high-ranking officials have supported the Union's boycott: they publicly reprimanded Hala for the meeting and expressed their support for the Union's (and other organisations') anti-normalisation policies.

To me, this is evidence – if any more was needed – of how some of the undemocratic governments in the region try to have it both ways:

On the one hand, they are using the idea of peace with Israel as a way of 'buying' support and legitimacy by the West.

On the other hand, they are undermining the very essence of peace by embracing the 'anti-normalization' agenda, which – though popular with parts of the Arab street – prevents dialogue and reconciliation from happening in the first place.

In many parts of the Arab world, therefore, peace remains a crime – not, as one would hope, a way of achieving development and prosperity.

Contract article -

Thus wrote George Orwell in England Your England in 1941. He went on to explain:
"They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are 'only doing their duty', as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any the worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil".

I refer to this passage here in connection with Judge Richard Goldstone's report, about which I've written in a previous post, where the judge accuses Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during their three-week war in Gaza in January 2009.

Last week, the UN human rights council voted to endorse this report and this might well lead to an international criminal court investigation should Israel and Hamas fail to mount their own credible independent inquiries into the war crimes allegations within six months.

And why mention Orwell? Because many in Israel, and elsewhere, still believe, if to use Orwell's words, that as they are "only doing their duty" then their country will "absolve them" should things go wrong; for instance if 252 children under the age of 16 perish as a result of indiscriminate fire used in the course of a military operation.

Well, some things have changed since Orwell's days and current international law requires armies to discharge their duties while adhering, even in the heat of battle, to certain rules. When countries seem to try and hide unlawful actions and "absolve" suspected war criminals, the international community often intervenes, as it does in the above case.

While it is impossible to bring such abstract entities as "countries" to justice, it is indeed possible to ask individuals - soldiers, generals, even ministers - to account for their actions. Quite frankly, I think it is a good thing that some Serbs, Africans, Arabs and – yes Israelis too - who have been involved in conflicts, have their balls (excuse my French) shaking a bit, before landing in such places as Britain, Spain, Belgium, out of fear that upon emerging from their aeroplanes they might be shown the connection flight to The Hague.

Contract article -

Judging by recent comments from Colonel Moshe Elad, the prospects for a Palestinian unity government are slim. Writing in Ynet, he argues that the chances of Hamas making peace with Israel are higher than the chances of a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.

Elad's analysis is interesting. In the occupied territories, he says, the two groups are engaged in deep competition. Rather than reconcile, their aim is to gain control and humiliate each other.

He also thinks that most of the Arab world has given up on the idea of Palestinian unity. Except for Egypt, most Arab governments now believe that unity will only be restored if one party wins a decisive victory over the other.

All this makes for depressing reading.

And it's somewhat at odds with my own experience of observing and interviewing the leaders of major Palestinian groups in prison. Inside the prisons, Hamas and Fatah work together quite well.
In some prisons, there have been problems, and inmates from different groups had to be separated. But mostly, their cooperation – though quiet – was fairly effective.

Being in prison, of course, is fundamentally different from being on the outside. But it still shows that collaboration is possible – as long as there is a shared interest and no pressure from the outside.

Perhaps the leaders of Hamas and Fatah should learn a lesson from their imprisoned comrades…

 

You can read the article here (in Hebrew) 

Contract article -

I'm just back from my third trip to India which I love, although it is hard to say why. And as I'm still under the spell of India's cruelties and follies and enchantments, I'm not yet in the right frame of mind to comment on what I'm here for: the Middle East.

The books on my desk at the moment and which I'm desperate to finish reading before embarking on my teaching duties at War Studies next week include: James Cameron's An Indian Summer, Gillian Tindall's City of Gold: The Biography of Bombay, Edna Fernandes's The Last Jews of Kerala, and the brilliant though depressing Suketu Mehta's Maximum City: Bombay Lost & Found.

But let me just share the following observation with you: during my two and a half weeks in India, I've kept an eye – as I would always do while traveling - on the local press: reading newspapers, listening when possible to radio programmes, and watching local television – mainly the news.

And I could see that, while here in the West we don't stop talking and discussing Middle Eastern affairs, there – in the Indian subcontinent - it is not a major item on the news. They discuss – of course – Kashmir, along with the weather (200 Indians perished due to torrential rains that hit Madhya Pradesh), the discovery of water on the moon by an Indian team, and many other local issues.

I must admit that I've found this general lack of interest in Middle Eastern affairs quite puzzling. But then perhaps I should not be too surprised as different regions of the world have their different problems, concerns and interests and these, quite clearly, tend to dominate their news headlines.

Contract article -

Definitely not something I thought I’d ever read in a serious newspaper: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Jewish.

Today's Telegraph reveals that the Iranian President was born a Sabourjian and kept the name until his family converted to Islam.

Sabourjian is a well-known Persian Jewish name meaning cloth weaver. According to the Telegraph, 'The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior'.

Ahmadinejad has always been vague about his ethnic origins, admitting that his family had changed their name but refusing to reveal his birth name and the reasons for the switch.

In fact, earlier this year, an Iranian blogger who had investigated his roots was locked up by the authorities.

The Telegraph uncovered the secret when taking a closer look at a photograph in which Ahmadinejad proudly displays a copy of his national identity card, which records the change of name.

One doesn’t need to be Sigmund Freud to understand what's going on here.

Clearly, Ahmadinejad’s irrational hatred of Israel and the Jews has nothing to do with the Palestinians or any 'Zionist conspiracy'. Rather, it is one giant attempt to compensate for his Jewish origins.

Speaking to the Telegraph, Ali Nourizadeh of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies summed it up very neatly: 'He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society... By making anti-Israel statements, he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections'.

In other words, even if he ever owes up to being Jewish, don't expect him to make Aliyah any time soon...

Contract article -

Some of you have asked me to clarify this business of "10 metres of land separating Israelis and Syrians from peace" to which I alluded in my previous post. So here we go:
    

In peace negotiations between Israel and Syria in Blair House, Washington (December 1999) and in Shepherdstown, West Virginia (January 2000), Israeli and Syrian negotiations were quite successful in resolving – I would say - more than 95 percent of their differences.

However, they have consistently failed to sort out one sticking point namely, the route of their future border. While the Israelis want it based on the 1923 internationally-recognised border, decided upon by the British (who ruled Palestine) and the French (who ruled Syria), the Syrians want it to be what they call the "4th June 1967 line".

As I said in my previous post, the distance between these two lines is neglible. So why is it such a stumbling block? Because the 1923 border that runs 10 metres off the northeast quadrant of the Sea of Galilee, when the water is up, does not allow the Syrians, if deployed along it, access to the water of the Sea of Galilee which they call "Lake Tiberias", or simply "The Lake".

Now there was a time when the Syrians did sit on the water edge: in the period from 1923 to 1967 they simply crossed the 10 metres separating them from the water and established 5 fishing villages on the water line.

Later, however, in the 1967 war, the Israelis pushed the Syrians off the water, chased the Syrian fishermen out of their villages, and proceeded east and up to occupy the Golan Heights. The Syrians want the Israelis to return the Golan (which, it is quite safe to say, the Israelis are willing to do) and allow them to return to the "4th June 1967 line", the line they held on the eve of the 1967 war on the water.

This, however, the Israelis reject as it would allow the Syrians access to the lake which provides Israel with 35-40 percent of their fresh water needs; the Israelis also suspect that the Syrians might even poison the water.

When the late Syrian President Hafez el Assad was offered the Golan Heights, but not the 4th June 1967 line (it was suggested that the future border would be "mutually agreed", or be "based" on the 1923 border, even "based" on the 1967 line), Assad refused by saying, "I have held barbecues at the Sea of Galilee, swum in its water, sat on its shores and eaten fish from it. I have no intention of giving it up."
    

 

So here we are – stuck because of a few, though critical, metres of land.

Contract article -

On 23 December 2008 I sent a letter to a very influential minister in Israel, someone whom I know well, and who has a direct access to the military. It was an "Eyes Only" – a very private letter. It is worth noting here that, at the time, I did not know that soon after the IDF would be ordered to move into Gaza to execute "Operation Cast Lead".

 

Here is what I said in my letter:

Dearest XXXX                            23 December 2008

 

I know you're busy so I'll be short:

 

1. I'm following events from London and I can see the pressures you're under …

 

2. But it is also clear to me that you might have to do things [in Gaza].

 

3. And this is why I write to you: I strongly suggest that you do not approve the firing of artillery into [Palestinian] civilian populated areas. Nobody here – in Europe – will accept it. Even if your legal advisors say that it is OK, this will still not be acceptable here. If there's an error and a shell lands on civilians, they will then say that you're a war criminal, and you'll not be able to move freely in Europe in the future. These are harsh words, but I say them because I care about you.

 

4. Make sure that in all military forums – from General Staff to talks with simple soldiers – you warn them not to hurt civilians, and do keep the transcripts of your warnings.

 

Be well,
Ahron

I would not go on to describe here what actually happened in Gaza four days after this letter was sent to the minister, just mention that during the course of the Israeli military operation 773 Palestinian civilians, including 252 children under the age of 16 were killed (it would be fair to say that statistics about Palestinian casualties vary and the Israelis dispute the above number).  

After the Gaza operation, a United Nations Fact Finding Mission was established. Its mandate: "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after."

The mission was led by former South African judge Richard Goldstone - a Zionist whose daughter lives in Israel.

Yesterday, Goldstone and his team published their 575-page report. They concluded that, "actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly in some respect crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israel Defense Forces".

They added that, "There were numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects … resulting in deaths and some serious injuries". Goldstone called on the Security Council to order Israel to investigate possible war crimes. His words prompted me to look for my letter to my friend the minister as I felt that in it I quite accurately identified how things might develop.

Contract article -

Sadly, I was unable to attend Dr Radwan Ziadeh's seminar at the ICSR.

But I've just read the interview he gave to Alex Matine. My conclusion: he's a nice guy.

Now, I know that this is a strange statement! But trust me - it is relevant and important. Because one – only one – of the reasons why there is little enthusiasm among Israelis to support governmental efforts to make peace with the Syrians is the prevailing view in Israel that the Syrians "are not nice".

When I was still serving in the Israeli army (by now this is ancient history), I – along with many of my colleagues – was quite reluctant to be posted to the Syrian front. Why? Because the Syrians "are not nice" and they are also - this is what we thought of them at the time - "cruel".

So it is quite refreshing to hear a Syrian who seems to be a nice guy. And with this under the belt, the only problem now is to overcome the remaining stumbling block: the 10 metres of land separating Israelis and Syrians from peace.

The Israelis – including the current prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu – were willing in past peace negotiations to withdraw from the Golan Heights to the so called 1923 international line, decided upon between the French and British in 1923. The Syrians, on the other hand, insist that the Israelis should withdraw to what they call "the 4th June 1967 line".

Let me just tell you that the distance between the two lines is – yes – a mere 10 metres.

Contract article -

Who is Salah Ezzedine? If you had asked the Lebanese people two weeks ago, you might have heard that Ezzedine was a pious man, a wealthy business man, sure, but a philanthropist as well who ran a charity organizing pilgrimage trips to Muslims holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia.  But today you'd hear a different story.  

Already dubbed the "Lebanese Madoff", in reference to Bernard Madoff, the New York failed financier whose multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme wiped out thousands of investors and charities worldwide, Salah Ezzedine is currently being held in custody on suspicion of fraud after he invested hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money before declaring bankruptcy.

Hundreds of people had invested with him, including at least four senior members of Hezbollah who are said to have suffered serious financial losses as the result of this scheme which is suspected to amount to more than one billion dollars.

It's a strong blow to Hezbollah's image who had built up its prestige on its austere religious image and squeaky-clean reputation for financial and political probity.

Indeed many Muslims believe that bank interest is un-Islamic, which is why the Lebanese Shia put their money in businesses run by Salah Ezzedine, who had created the image of a religious and trustworthy investor who was close to and protected by Hezbollah.

The party now denies all involvement with financial misconduct. "Neither Hezbollah, nor its leadership, nor its members have any link to this matter," Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah told the BBC. He also said the aim of the media reports was to harm the image of many of the party's leaders.

Hezbollah highly values its legal and political standing in Lebanon and the impact of the financial loss which has just been unveiled in public standing should not be underestimated. Especially after the feeble results that Hezbollah scored in the last elections.

Journalists known to be close to the group have already expressed strong and rare criticism towards the "Party of God". Sateh Noureddine, managing editor of the Lebanese As-Safir daily, which is close to Hizbullah, wrote on Monday that "Hizbullah is not the first and will not be the last revolutionary movement that gets corrupted with money."

Contract article -

 Dr. Radwan Ziadeh is one of the most accomplished researchers in Syria. His book "The Near Peace: The Syrian-Israeli Negotiations" was the first book about this issue to be published in Arabic.
After his seminar for the ICSR at King's College London, he agreed to a short interview.

ICSR: How crucial is the agreement between Israel and Syria as part of a peace process in the Middle East?

Radwan Ziadeh: It's very important. In order to have a comprehensive peace in the region, we need to have peace with all the parties, and not only with the Palestinian Authority. Syria still has some occupied territories by Israel such as the Golan Heights. Without having peace between Syria and Israel peace in the region is unconceivable.

ICSR: During Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's visit to Syria last week, Bashar al-Assad said: "Israel is not ready to make peace either in the short term or the long term... all Israeli governments since 1991 are identical. [...] opinion polls show that Israelis are not ready to make peace because they do not want to give the land back". With a statement like this it's hard to imagine that these two countries could come to an agreement soon.

Radwan Ziadeh: These kinds of statements aren't new between Israel and Syria. But when we get in a climate of negotiations, then the statements will change.
Peace needs serious and difficult steps.We need to create some hope on both sides, show that we have alternatives, that we have a peace agreement.
Without any of this we find ourselves now in a state called 'no peace, no war'.
Neither side can go ahead with the war: it would cost too much, nobody can deal with that. And neither side can promote peace by fear of another refusal of a peace agreement.

ICSR: We recently published a brochure called "15 ideas to fix the Middle East". If you had to contribute your own idea to progress towards peace, what would it be?

Radwan Ziadeh: To look towards the future rather than looking back. Looking back at history we get stuck in history. Only the future holds the solution.

You can listen to the podcast of the seminar by clicking the link below.

 

Radwan Ziadeh is a visiting Scholar at The Center for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University, New York and a visiting Fellow at Chatham House, London.
Previously, he was a visiting scholar at Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard University and a Senior Fellow at United States Institute of Peace in Washington D.C.
Radwan is the founder and director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies in Syria and the co-founder and executive director of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Washington D.C.
 

Contract article -

According to Now Lebanon via Muslim World News (MWN), (h/t Alexander Hitchens) representatives from Hamas, Hizb-ut Tahrir, and the Muslim Brotherhood met in Beirut to conspire against US plans for Arab-Israeli peace. Hitchens provides a translation of the MWN report at his Standpoint blog:

Leaders of Islamist movements from Palestine and Lebanon, such as al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya [the Lebanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood], Hizbullah, Hamas and Hizb-ut-Tahrir are reported to have met in order to discuss the current situation in the region, focusing on the attempts for reconciliation and President Obama's upcoming plan to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Islamist leaders who attended the meeting are reported to have agreed that 'the new American plan aspires to liquidate the Palestinian problem, and poses one of the most dangerous American plans in the region. Therefore it needs to be opposed in all possible forms, in particular by increasing acts of resistance [muqawama] and opposing Israeli efforts towards a  normalisation of their relations with Arab countries as well as American involvement in such initiatives.'

The report goes on to inform us that these Islamist parties will be organizing two meetings: one to plot against the leadership of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and the other to 'encourage the choice of resistance against American plans in the region'.

This isn't the first time the Brotherhood and Hamas have sought to serve as spoilers (see this 2007 NEFA Foundation report). President Obama has invested a lot of political capital into his outreach to the Muslim world, which may include Islamists, but what happens when we discover yet again that the Brotherhood, Hamas, and friends are not interested in a two-state solution? And not interested in anything short of the establishment of Islamic governments, except as an interim measure?

I am convinced that any peace deal would need to include Hamas in some way, and much noise has been made over Hamas' supposed willingness to accept a peace deal at the 1967 borders. Yet this meeting in Beirut indicates that Hamas remains intent on sabotaging a peace deal. Hamas does speak in two voices, but their actions are less ambiguous.

The lesson? We should not put so much stock in the public statements of Islamist leaders – their 'private' actions must be considered as well.

Contract article -

Criss-crossing the UK with my 17-year-old son Daniel in search of a University for him (he wants to do Maths & Philosophy). 

So we went from London to Warwick University (which, in fact, is closer to Coventry than to Warwick, but is called "Warwick University", and for good reason). 

From there to York, Durham, Edinburgh and St Andrews Universities, and then back to London via Manchester and lovely Liverpool, stopping in Wigan, as I wanted to see the place George Orwell had written about in The Road to Wigan Pier.

So I'm safely back now and can report that while Wigan seems to have changed quite a lot since Orwell's days (he stayed there for two months back in 1937), the Middle East – at least during my week's absence – has not changed much.

Everything, at the moment, seems to be suspended as Arabs, Palestinians and Israelis are all waiting for Barack Obama's next move, where he is expected to spell out his peace plan for the Middle East. Well, quite frankly, what else can this wizard of words say that we do not already know?

As far as Israel and Syria are concerned, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights to Syria and the latter to agree to arrangements whereby it keeps away from the Sea of Galilee which, for Israel, is a crucial source of drinking water.

As far as Israelis and Palestinians are concerned, the Israelis should withdraw from 94-96 percent of West Bank land and the two thorny issues of Jerusalem and the Palestinian "Right of Return" to balance off each other, whereby Israel agrees to divide Jerusalem with the Palestinians and the latter forgo their "right of return" to Israel proper, exercising it instead to their future Palestinian state.

So all is known and there is no need for new "peace plans", "road maps", or "Obama's visions".

At the end of the day, it all boils down to the need for Churchillian Middle Eastern leaders, brave enough to take the bull by the horns and cut the Gordian knot.

 

 

Image: The Road to Wigan Pier (drawing), courtesy of Harvest/HBJ Publishing

Contract article -

You may have heard about the great Atkin conference on Middle East peace we hosted in July.

 

ICSR brought together experts and policymakers from across the region to work out ways in which to move the situation forward.

The result is a booklet with 15 ideas on 'how to fix the Middle East'. They are snapshots of the discussions and the debate that took place at the conference.

They don't amount to a comprehensive peace plan, nor are they all complementary. But they really provide an excellent overview of the issues that have to be addressed.

And they show that positive action is possible, no matter how fraught the situation appears to be.

Now that President Obama seems to be moving the process forward, it is precisely this kind of creative thinking and debate that's needed now more than ever.

Have a look at the various ideas... tell us which ones you like most... and contribute your own!!

Let's see if we can get 15 MORE ideas on how to fix the Middle East from the Free Radicals' blog... ;-)  

Contract article -

I’m a bit concerned that the continuing war of words between Israel and Hezbollah might get out of hand and lead to an all-out war. Israel’s Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, whom I know quite well and who, I can testify, is careful with his words said, last week, that Israel “would not tolerate a situation whereby a neighbouring country (he referred to Lebanon) has in its government and parliament a militia (he meant Hezbollah) that has its own policy and 40,000 rockets aimed at Israel”. A senior official for Hezbollah, Hashem Safi al-Din, responded that it was ready for any eventuality and he went on to warn Israel that any “silly act” would lead to such a forceful response as to make the previous 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah “look like a joke”.

So what could trigger an all-out confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon? Well, when the temperature is rising, anything could easily ignite the keg of powder. But what, in particular, and perhaps more than anything else has the potential to cause an explosion is any attempt by Hezbollah to carry out its revenge attack for the death of Imad Mughniyeh (seen above), a top commander in the organisation who was killed when his car was blown up in Damascus in February 2008. Hezbollah believes Mossad was behind the assassination, a claim Israel denies.

I also expect that unlike in 2006, where the Israelis tried to work only from the air, this time – if war does break out - they will put boots on the ground, mainly in the area between the Israeli-Lebanese border and the Litani River to search and destroy Hezbollah’s mortars and other launchers to stop firing into Israeli town and cities. And as much of Hezbollah’s arsenal is now hidden inside towns and villages in southern Lebanon I expect that any Israeli operation there will trigger a massive movement of Lebanese population from the south towards Beirut.

So will the war of words turn into words of war? Frankly, I don’t know.

 

Photo credit: Hezbollah Media Office via Associated Press 

Contract article -

In early 2009 the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons decided to conduct an inquiry on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They were prompted to do this primarily by the conflict in Gaza in December 2008/January 2009 ("Operation Cast Lead"), and also by the advent of new governments in Israel and the United States.

Along with others I was invited to appear before the committee and give evidence. The committee, led by Mike Gapes MP, has just published its findings in a Report called "Global Security: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories". It's a fascinating document and I invite you to read it by clicking on the following link.

Contract article -

 The Saar 4.5 gun-ships are the newest generation of small, fast-attack missile boats designed and built by Israel with some of its equipment, notably spare parts of the ship's guns, being bought from British companies. Saar boats participated in Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip earlier this year and because of that Britain now imposes a partial arms embargo on Israel – it would not sell Israel replacement parts for her Saar ships.

The embargo follows a British review of 182 licenses for arms exports to Israel, including 35 for exports to her Navy and the cancellation of five such licenses, all related to the Saar ships. The British government insists that by using the ships in Operation Cast Lead, Israel violated the security agreements between the two countries, which specify what uses may be made of British equipment.

It's worth mentioning here that in the 1960s and 1970s Britain used to be a major supplier of arms to Israel, including the transfer of 300 Centurion tanks and other equipment. But following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 the British government decided to impose her first arms embargo on Israel; since then sells from British companies to Israel have never really recovered and by now only a fraction of Israel's defense related imports come from Britain.

While the British decision is unlikely to have a major impact on the Israeli Navy's operational capabilities, Israel is still concerned that the British move might encourage other nations to halt their defense exports to Israel. 

 So who's the next to impose an arms embargo on Israel? I bet it would be Belgium.

Contract article -

Coming on  the  heel  of  President Obama's speech in Cairo, the  swift   march  of  events seem  to  have  energized  voters  in  Lebanon and Iran who  turned  out  in  a  record number. President Obama did  mention  the  imperative  of  upholding minority  rights; and  singled  out  both  the  Christian Maronites  of  Lebanon  and  the Copts  of  Egypt .

By  the  same  token  he  emphasized  women's  right  to  full  inclusion  in  public  life. At  least  in  the  case  of  Lebanon, both Maronites  and  women  voted  at an   unprecedented  rate  (60%) . Last  month  not  only  a  similar  high  turn  out  took  place   in  Kuwait ,  but  also  four  women  were  elected  for  the  first  time, despite  the fierce  resistance of  a  coalition  of  tribal  and  Islamist elements .  

The  parliamentary  elections   in  Lebanon  earlier  and  from  Kuwait  last  month  clearly  indicate  that  Islamist  parties  lost  significant  grounds  to  secular  liberal  counterparts. Along  with  Turkey, these  two  countries  have  had  some democratic  traditions by  Middle  Eastern  standards. 

Scholars  of  the  subject    maintain  that  societies  which  manage  to  have  four  or  more  consecutive, free and fair  elections  are   usually  judged  to  have  achieved  a democratic  transition.  Without  direct  visible  foreign intervention, both  Lebanon  and  Kuwait  seem  to  have  such  transition  well  under way . 

The  fear  that  Islamists  might  impede  the  process  have  not  materialized. Leaders of competing Islamist forces conceded defeat and accepted the result. To  his  credit,  the  much  demonized  Hassan  Nasrallah  of  Hezbollah  made  an  eloquent  sport-like concession. The  often  repeated  contention  that  with  Islamists  in  the  fray, it  would  be "a one  man, one  vote, one time" is  yet  to  be  proven.

Now, enters Iran and the optimism for democratic transition starts to fade a bit. The tenth presidential elections of the Islamic Republic were held on 12 June 2009. The Incumbent President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the election with 66% of the votes cast and Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the reformist candidate, had received 33%.

There was a big outcry of foul, both domestically and internationally. Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran's dual system (the theocratic and the democratic ones) came out in a Friday prayers sermon declaring that the winner is definitely Ahmadinejad.

The whole sermon (yes, supposedly a religious, spiritual ritual) was centered on the election results and conveyed four messages to the four raisons d'être of the Islamic Republic: the people of Iran, the Islamist political elite, the enemies of the Islamic Republic Iran (or the imperial forces), and the hidden Imam.

The conclusion of the Supreme Guide, who supposedly should be above factionalism, was siding publicly and heavily with Ahmadinejad. That was expected. The election had to be stolen because otherwise Iran's hardliners would have been confronted by a democratically elected president determined to revive republican values and institutions.  

But the interesting part of the speech was the message delivered to America under Obama's administration. It was not the regular "death to the imperialists" (despite the chants of the crowd). It was challenging Obama on his own turf: "Human Rights?!!...you Democrats burned Davidians' children alive in Texas!" Ayatollah Khameini recalled (in a different context, he would ve probably added WTF?!).

Will the "Obama effect" crash when it comes to Iran? This we will yet have to see. But the defiance of the Iranians for democracy and freedom, the outpouring applause the President received in Cairo, and the electoral results of Lebanon and Kuwait all show that the overwhelming majority of Arabs and Muslims are ready for democratic transition.

But being ready is just one little factor supportive of that transition. It takes a lot more than that. In most of the Middle East, the balance of power (and of terror) is heavily tilting towards the state against their own societies and whoever hijacks the state and the electoral results – whether Islamist or secular – is not ready for democratic transition.  

Contract article -

For those of you interested in keeping an eye on the unfolding event in Iran, here is a very good blog.
Contract article -

Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said the other day that if the Iranian nuclear project has no technical glitches, and if Iran's program does not malfunction in any way then the Iranians will have a bomb to launch 'by 2014'. And I wonder: '2014'? You guys have promised us that the Iranian will be ready with their bomb by 'late 1990s', 'the beginning of this decade', '2009-2010' and now you are telling us 'by 2014'?

Well, if you are not going to change your mind again and you stick to this date, then clearly by 2014 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not be in office nor, I suspect, his boss, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose health is not great.

And given that recent opinion polls show that only one in five Israeli Jews believes a nuclear-armed Iran would try to destroy Israel (thus no pressure on the government to act) then the conclusion is simple: The probability that Israel would use military force to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities in the near future is lower than low.

Well, perhaps I should be more careful. The words 'lower than low' were used in Israel back in October 1973 in reference to the probability of an Egyptian attack on Israel. The rest, of course, is history.

Contract article -

'I call on you, our Palestinian neighbours, and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions'. So said Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a highly anticipated foreign policy address on Sunday. Yes, I do like these two words 'without preconditions'. So here we go:

Netanyahu declared his willingness to see the creation of a Palestinian state, but in return he insisted, among other things, that:

   1. 'Jerusalem must remain the unified capital of Israel'.
   2. 'The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders'.
   3. 'When Palestinians are ready to recognize Israel as Jewish state, we will be ready for a true final settlement'.

So what are these if not Israeli preconditions? Now, add to it Netanyahu's insistence on allowing 'natural growth' in Jewish settlements, which is an old trick Israeli governments use to increase the number of settlers on the disputed land, and what you’ve got here are new hurdles that render a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state impossible.

But then, perhaps, as former US President Bill Clinton put it, we should regard Netanyahu's tough terms the opening moves in a 'drama that will have a few more acts', being the Prime Minister's response to Obama's first moves.

Well, if that's indeed the case then it's over to you, Mr Obama! Contract article -

I'm told that as this is my first blog post then I may want to use it to introduce myself, my interests, and my professional 'obsessions'. Well, when people send me emails introducing themselves as such as such from here or there, the first thing I often do is Google them: all is public now, privacy has gone.

So go on, my reader – DIY. It would be appreciated, though, if you refrain from googling "Ahron Bregman Ashraf Marwan", which I suspect you might well do anyway. 

It is the 2nd anniversary of Ashraf Marwan's death. Who was Ashraf Marwan? Well, he was many things – an Egyptian minister, a roving ambassador, a successful businessman, but above all his name is now linked to the spying world. He was the most important spy Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad ever had in the Arab world, one who played a prominent role in the lead up to the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

This, of course, was a top secret for many years. But in my 1999 book Israel's Wars I hinted at Marwan's identity, arguing that he was a double agent who had, in fact, misled his Israeli masters and was, as I put it, the jewel in the crown of the Egyptian plan to deceive Israel before the 1973 war.

However, my concealed references to him in Israel’s Wars and other publications, eventually led to a serious spat between us, where he dubbed my version of events “a silly detective story” and I, in response, unmasked him; revealing that he was Ashraf Marwan, son in law of Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

We later mended fences, met and kept working relations for five years – I was an advisor on a book he was writing. But then came his mysterious death on 27 June 2007 – the very day we were due to meet for a chat.

He either jumped to his death from the balcony of his flat in Mayfair, London – or was pushed. I pray that, in either eventuality, my unmasking him had nothing to do with his brutal death. Two years after the event the Metropolitan Police are still searching for clues as to what actually happened on that fateful day. 

And why do I tell you this story? Simply because this is the sort of story people who introduce themselves tend not to mention. And it is only because I know that you – the enquiring reader out there - would do more than reading my own boring introduction of myself, that I am so open about this unfortunate event.

The bottom line? Drop the formal introductions and never unmask spies - at least as long as they’re still alive.

Ahron Bregman

Contract article -