HAMAS AHOY!

Foundation For the Defense of Democracies

Claudia Rosett, Forbes.com

05/28/2010

With a flotilla of "peace activists" steaming toward the blockaded Gaza strip, Israeli authorities have been worrying about a showdown turning into a public relations disaster. That's a sorry reflection not on Israel but on the willingness of a world audience to swallow almost any amount of propaganda, if it comes with a Gaza label. The basic narrative spun by the organizers of this "freedom flotilla" is that some 700 "activists" from dozens of countries have boarded eight or nine ships filled with tons of "humanitarian aid." Their mission is to run the Israeli blockade, "break the siege of Gaza" and "establish a permanent sea lane between Gaza and the rest of the world." The umbrella website for this venture is labeled "The Free Gaza Movement," and on it the "Free Gaza Team" of the "Freedom Flotilla Coalition" professes a dedication to nonviolence and respect for universal human rights. All that might make sense if Gaza were a peaceful and democratic enclave, unreasonably walled up by its neighbors. But there's some important information that the flotilla crew omits. Gaza is a terrorist enclave. Gaza is controlled by an Islamist terrorist group, Hamas. And Hamas is: backed by Iran; headquarters some of its leaders in terror-sponsoring Syria; has a busy and violent history of suicide bombings, shootings and rocket and mortar attacks; and is dedicated in its charter to the destruction of Israel. That is what the blockade is all about. It didn't happen because the neighbors decided to victimize Gaza. Rather, it is Hamas-run Gaza that threatens the neighbors, and for that matter, is hostile generally to liberal, western societies. Recall that in 2002, trying to stop the violence of Yasser Arafat's second intifada, former President George W. Bush proposed a "roadmap" for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In the multilateral haggling that followed, Israel in pursuit of that peace withdrew in 2005 from Gaza--a move that required Israeli authorities to forcibly drag some Jewish residents from their homes. But peace did not follow. In the ensuing Gaza elections in January 2006, Palestinian voters gave a large majority to Hamas. Five months later an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, was kidnapped into Gaza. Today, almost four years later, he has still not been released. In 2007 Hamas in a bloody coup ousted the remaining parliamentarians of the rival Fatah party and after a spree of murdering fellow Palestinians took complete control of Gaza. During 2008, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, terrorists in Hamas-run Gaza fired 1,750 rockets and 1,528 mortar bombs into southern Israel. This was a gross and deliberate provocation which the United Nations and its constituent members of the so-called international community did nothing effective to stop. In late December 2008 Israel finally launched Operation Cast Lead, sending troops into Gaza for just over three weeks to try to shut down the attacks. Hamas has not renounced its aim of destroying Israel. On the contrary, Hamas has been receiving military training and smuggled weapons from Iran, where the nuclear-wannabe rulers have openly expressed interest in wiping Israel off the map. In February 2009 Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, who operates out of Damascus, openly praised Iran for helping Hamas fight Israel. That's the context in which the blockade on Gaza needs to be understood. For that matter, Egypt has also had miseries enough with Hamas to find it worthwhile maintaining the blockade, though this seems to be of less interest to the "freedom flotilla" crowd. Who are these "activists," exactly? That seems to be something of a moving target. News outlets have been giving numbers ranging from 600 to 800, aboard either eight or nine ships, coming from such places as Greece, Algeria, Ireland and Turkey. The blockade busters include the requisite Nobel Peace laureate, Irishwoman Mairead Corrigan-Maguire. From Gaza, John Ging, head of the U.N.'s Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA) has strayed outside his theoretically apolitical brief in order to applaud the flotilla. The Free Gaza website features video messages offering a bon voyage from such hoary fixtures of the lynch-Israel gang as Noam Chomsky, and one of the U.N. Human Rights Council's favorite Israel-haters, Richard Falk. Under the heading "Donate" the Free Gaza site makes special mention of a "major donation" from Malaysia, "thanks to the passion for justice" of former Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir and his wife. An excited Al Jazeera reporter, in an English-language broadcast Thursday, made a point of mentioning contributions of some sort from Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen. And among the cheerleaders for this effort is former British parliamentarian George Galloway, who perhaps has more time to devote to Hamas-run Gaza now that he no longer has the option of consorting with Iraq's late dictator, Saddam Hussein. For this coalition to describe itself as affiliated in any way with "freedom" is an abuse of the term. Likewise, the show of bringing tons of "aid" is hollow at best. Israel, in an attempt to head off a confrontation, offered to let the Gaza flotilla unload its cargo at an Israeli port and have the goods delivered (after inspection) to Gaza by land. The flotilla folks weren't interested. Nor were they willing, despite their avowed love of universal human rights, to try pressuring Hamas to let them bring letters and food to the kidnapped Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. This ship convoy is not about freedom and not about aid. It is patently about helping Hamas and harming Israel. What's crazy is that the free world would leave Israel to grapple alone with this latest propaganda onslaught. In saner times this "freedom flotilla" would be a public relations disaster all by itself. Claudia Rosett, a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.

When Bibi Meets Barack: What Will Happen in Their Upcoming Meeting?

By Barry Rubin*

Why was Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu suddenly invited to meet with President Barack Obama next week? There are three very different reasons.

One is the Obama Administration's realization that its harsh policy toward Israel has been mistaken and has yielded it no diplomatic benefit. Another is he knowledge that this policy is very unpopular among Americans in general as well as American Jews in particular. With November elections coming up, the White House wants to cut its losses.

There is also, however, a third reason which relates to substantive issues. The White House wants to hear from Netanyahu what his views and plans are regarding negotiations with the Palestinians. The Obama Administration is eager for progress on indirect talks, hopeful of moving to direct talks (which Netanyahu very much wants to do), and is also looking at longer-range possibilities.

My view is that Netanyahu should stress the following: Israel wants peace and is willing to agree to a two-state solution. But here's what we want in return, so go to the Palestinians and see what they are willing to give in exchange for an independent state.

At this point, he explains the need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; demilitarization of any Palestinian state (which I would call "nonmilitarization," meaning that it keeps existing security forces but doesn't build separate, conventional armed forces); that any agreement will permanently end the conflict and all Palestinian claims; and that all refugees must be resettled in the state of Palestine. He must also explain in detail what Israel wants in terms of security guarantees.

To a lesser extent, Netanyahu can discuss his views on borders. But his task is to break the pattern in which only Palestinian demands are considered and debated. In this context, the question is only what will Israel give, never what it will get in exchange.

This is a reasonable set of demands and one that the Palestinian Authority (PA) would be able to meet if it were a "normal" political entity seeking a permanent two-state solution.

Unfortunately, the leadership-and even more those who stand behind them in Fatah-wants to wipe Israel off the map and get everything. But that's a lesson that the Obama Administration has to learn for itself.

The current PA strategy is to pretend cooperation but ensure that, in effect, the talks are sabotaged. It hopes at some point next year to go to the United States and Europeans to claim that since Netanyahu won't make a deal they should recognize a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence or force Israel to accept a Palestinian state with no concessions by the PA. This probably won't work, though there are enough hints to the contrary to persuade the PA that this kind of strategy is its best bet.

The point for Netanyahu, then, is to express his total cooperation with peace efforts. If the PA refuses direct negotiations and rejects reasonable offers he must show that this will not be Israel's fault.

Another approach suggests that Netanyahu should offer some kind of interim solution in which the PA would become a de facto state leaving Jerusalem, borders, and most other issues for the future. I think this would be a disastrous error, in essence giving the PA what it wants first without it having to make any compromises. No matter what time limit or conditions are put on the plan, once there is a Palestinian state recognized by the entire West and a full member of the UN, all such limitations will erode away.

Remember the issue here is not what a final diplomatic solution would look like but what negotiating posture Netanyahu will take in his White House visit.

Two other points must be mentioned. Netanyahu will show appreciation for the U.S. efforts on sanctions, but what longer-range strategy does he advocate? Probably, here, he will learn more about U.S. views on containment and strategy if and when Iran gets nuclear weapons as well as further unilateral sanctions. He is going to have to listen and evaluate what this approach means for Israel, especially in considering whether or not Israel should attack Iranian facilities at some point in the future.

Finally, Netanyahu is going to have to use all his smoothness and charm to educate his interlocutors about what the Middle East is really like without ever hinting that he is being patronizing or arrogant. That's a tall order but if any Israeli can do that, Netanyahu can.

In contrast to the last visit, where he was received quite rudely, this one is set to be a love fest publicly. Eventually, we will find out whether it was that way privately as well.

Obama gets OK on boosting Israel against rockets

Haaretz:

U.S. House of Representatives approves Obama request for 205 million dollars to spur production of system to counter short-range rockets like those used by Hamas and Hezbollah.

By ReutersThe U.S. House of Representatives approved President Barack Obama's request for 205 million dollars to spur Israel's production of a system to counter short-range rockets of the type used by Hamas and Hezbollah.

The authorization for the extra funding was part of a defense spending bill that would provide 726 billion dollars next year for U.S. national defense programs, including funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House gave the bill final passage on Friday by a vote of 229 to 186.

The Senate Armed Services Committee likewise voted to provide 205 million dollars for the Israeli system, known as "Iron Dome," panel chairman Carl Levin told reporters on Friday.

Levin said he hoped his committee's bill would reach the Senate floor before the July 4 Independence Day recess.

A congressional staff member said the request for the funding "seems to have come directly from the commander in chief," Obama. It was not entirely clear what prompted it.

Produced by Israeli state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., Iron Dome uses small radar-guided missiles to blow up Katyusha-style rockets with ranges of between 3 miles and 45 miles (5-70 km), as well as mortar bombs, in mid-air.

Its development was spurred by the 2006 conflict in Lebanon with Hezbollah, and the Gaza Strip war against Hamas a year ago. In both cases, Israeli towns within reach of short-range rockets were in some ways defenseless.

A White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said earlier this month Obama recognized "the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis."

"As a result, he decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of the Iron Dome system," Vietor said.

Two Iron Dome batteries are under construction, an Israeli defense official said in February. Designed to be towed by vehicle, they will be available for any Israeli front at a few hours' notice.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has three initiatives with Israel to boost its home-grown capability to defend against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.

The so-called David's Sling Weapon System is for short-range defense; the Arrow Weapons System targets medium-range missiles; and the Arrow-3 interceptor is an upper-tier system under development.

The United States is also developing interoperability between the U.S. ballistic missile defense system and the Israeli architecture to make sure Israeli systems can be stitched in to a global umbrella.

In addition, the Obama administration is working toward a Middle East missile defense that envisions adding an advanced radar site in a Gulf state to one already in Israel to thwart any Iranian attack, U.S. officials have told Reuters.

The House voted to authorize 10.3 billion dollars for ballistic missile defenses overall, 361.6 million dollars more than Obama's request. The extra funds will strengthen defenses against "the most immediate threats from nations such as Iran and North Korea," said Rep. James Langevin, the Strategic Forces subcommittee chairman.

The Middle East in May 2010: An Assessment

By Professor Barry Rubin


Why am I writing so much about U.S. policy and less about developments within the region itself lately? Because in a real sense not that much is happening right now in the region. A colleague remarked to me today that the world's political weather is set by the U.S. president. This seems very true right now.

Recently, there was a bit of a war scare regarding the Israel-Lebanon border. Yet there was never any chance of a shooting conflict. Syria and Hizballah don't want one at present. They are too busy taking over Lebanon and are holding their fire for the possibility in future of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

There's also a lot of noise about Israel-Palestinian Authority indirect negotiations. But nothing is happening or going to happen there either. The closer you get to the two sides--and the further from the discussion in the Western media and capitals--the more obvious is that reality.

Regarding Israeli politics, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition is solid. The Kadima-led opposition is very quiet and not making any strong points. Netanyahu's government is going to continue for quite a while.

Nor have there been any big changes in the internal stability of Arabic-speaking countries, though we are all waiting for the coming transition in Egypt. Turkey's regime continues to march it in the direction of greater Islamism, though the outside world seems to take little notice. Lebanon's "progress" in the direction of Syria-Iran control is clearer. And it is now clear that the Iranian regime has defeated the opposition for the forseeable future, which probably means a bundle of years.

At the moment, then, the main battle is being fought over the region's head, so to speak, regarding Iran's nuclear program. That involves U.S. policy and the question of sanctions. The foundation for the future--and it might be a very weak one--is being laid down in these maneuvers. For the failure to establish strong sanctions indicates that it is unlikely U.S. policy will be able to build a strong containment strategy in the era when Iran does have these weapons.

If you've been following my writings, you understand that doesn't mean Tehran will fire off nuclear-armed missiles, just that Tehran will try to gain hegemony in the Middle East. It won't succeed but it will make progress in that direction.

In the longer term, I'm reaching two conclusions. First, we should be devoting our research to what the region would look like when Iran has nuclear weapons. Second, I don't believe that Israel is going to attack Iran, and my conclusion is that this is a correct decision. I'll be talking more about these points in the coming days.