Looking for Options: The Israeli Establishment and the Syrian Conflict

Israel’s National Security: What’s at issue?

Since its foundation, Israel has based its defense calculations on two concepts: existential security and current security. Existential security concerns the preservation of the very fundamentals of the Zionist enterprise — the preservation of Israel as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people. Current security is about maintaining the personal safety and well being of Israelis on a day-to-day basis.

For several decades, Israel has had the good fortune of not having to engage in all-out war with any of its neighbouring states. The country even signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. For decades, however, Israelis have been exposed to a wide range of terrorist assaults: aircraft hijackings, kidnappings, suicide bombings, car rammings, knifings as well as constant rocket attacks. Israelis are, understandably, obsessed with current security — so much that in recent public discourse issues of existential security are being almost completely overshadowed.

At times, Israel’s current security needs are in conflict with the country’s requirements for its long-term existential security. Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is justifiably seen as an asset in maintaining Israel’s current security. However, this very same occupation erodes Israel’s existential security by undermining its Jewish and democratic character as well as its international legitimacy, and thus has an undeniably negative effect on Israel’s long-term survival.

This is exactly what the late Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon wanted to avoid. His decision to disengage from Gaza was driven not by rockets but by long-term existential security considerations. Sharon’s goal was to preserve Israel’s Jewish character by ridding itself of any remnants of Jewish settlement and the concomitant direct control over more than a million and a half (now closer to two and a half million) Palestinians in Gaza.

The Israeli military plays a vital role in dealing with current security, which is often intertwined with existential security. They are not mutually exclusive because the ideologies of the terrorist organizations, which Israel deems as a threat to its current security, seek the destruction of the State of Israel, which is a threat to its existential security. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) feels that deterrence is the best strategy to discourage states (such as Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and substate actors (such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic State [Da’esh], Jabhat Fatah al-Sham [al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra], etc.) from attacking its country. The IDF will not change its deterrence strategy for state and substate actors. This is because both actors occupy land and/or have constituencies; thus, they have something to lose.

Israel has three ‘red lines’ of deterrence that are the deciding factors in whether the IDF will respond militarily: (1) transfer of conventional weapons, (2) transfer of chemical weapons, and (3) any projectile(s) landing on its territory. Israel will respond almost immediately with a strike, usually at the source of the weapons exchange or the point of origin of the projectile. It will strike regardless of where or when the incident occurs, all the while coordinating with its partners that might be affected by its actions. This explains Israel’s rationale for military airstrikes against Iranian, Hezbollah, Syrian, and (Salafi) rebel targets in Syria throughout the Civil War.

A Regional Rumble in Syria: Israel’s Concerns over Iranian presence in Syria

Israel sees Iran as both an existential and current security threat. Iran’s rhetoric of wanting to destroy Israel and, according to Israel, attempting to acquire nuclear weapons makes this a cause for grave concern. Moreover, since 1979, Iran has sought to export its Islamic revolution and, over the decades, it has funded many Shi‘a militias—some of which have emerged in the Syrian Civil War—including Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shi‘a political party-cum-militia with a strong military presence in Lebanon and now in Syria—a threatening presence on Israel’s northern border. The reason Israel also deems Hezbollah an existential and current threat is because of Hezbollah’s militant aspirations and its stated goal of eliminating the State of Israel.

The question now remains whether Israel will completely engage in the Syrian Civil War due to the recent incidents in southern Syria. Other than engaging in a complete military conflict in Syria, Israel will continue to monitor the developments in Syria, and do whatever is necessary to ensure that its security concerns are addressed. Currently, Israel is disturbed by recent developments, as there is now an Iranian militarily presence directly in southern Syria. The IDF will continue to implement its red line policy. Escalation will only occur if Israel feels provoked by its enemies in the south of (or other parts of) Syria. The higher the provocation, the stronger the response will be. This is why Israel has reacted to developments in the south of Syria by striking military targets, all the while communicating with its Russian partners.

From Israel’s Binoculars: A View of Damascus

While Israel came very close to concluding a peace agreement with Syria in 1949 under President Husni al-Zaim, the two countries (since the 1949 Armistice Agreement) have had no diplomatic ties and are officially in a state of war. They have fought three wars (1948, 1967, and 1973) and were involved briefly during the second Lebanese Civil War when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. Prior to 1967, there were hostilities between the two countries in the demilitarized zones (DMZs) as well as continuous shelling and infiltration into the Golan Heights by the Syrians. Since 1967 the two major points of contention are Israel’s demand that Syria recognizes the State of Israel and Syria’s demand that Israel returns the Golan Heights, which Israel conquered at the end of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. This is the essence of what is commonly known as “land for peace” for any future agreements between the two countries.

According to Israel, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been confrontational towards Israel by aiding and abetting Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as being the conduit by which Iranian weapons are transferred to Hezbollah and other Shi‘a militias. Both Iran and Hezbollah, in Israel’s view, are respectively state and substate actors that are a threat to its national security. For the same reason, Israel also views Syria as a national security threat. The Israeli establishment was clearly expecting the al-Assad government to fall to the Sunni jihadist rebels, who were supported by Saudi Arabia, prior to Russia’s limited intervention in September 2015. If the ongoing peace negotiations in Sochi and Geneva are successful, it is almost certain that President al-Assad will remain in power or whatever the warring parties in Syria agree upon. Nevertheless, Israel is concerned about a strengthened al-Assad government remaining in power. That would be the best explanation for why it was recently revealed that Israel is arming some Sunni jihadist rebels. Israel is willing to ally itself with Salafist rebels in order to prevent the “Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis” from proclaiming victory in the Syrian Civil War. Whether this proves to be a wise decision for Israel, remains to be seen.

Russia’s Syrian Foreign Policy: The Israeli’s Vantage Point

Russia intervened in Syria in 2015 at the request of Syrian President al-Assad. Russia has no particular affinity for al-Assad; rather it sees him as the only alternative to an Islamic fundamentalist state. Russia’s main objective is that the Middle East remains stable while Syria was heading towards anything but stability. There are two reasons why Russia entered the Syrian fray.

First, while the Caucasus region is not entirely in Russia proper, it is on its border and presents a “zone of vulnerability.” Given the recent history of US-sponsored “regime changes” in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Caucasus, Russia is on high alert. This is because many Muslim citizens of the Caucasus countries were joining extremist organizations to fill the power vacuums created by US “regime change” policy. This is the main reason why Russia came to the aid of al-Assad’s government in September 2015 in the Syrian Civil War. It did not want to see a chaotic “Libya outcome” in Syria or see Da’esh or Jabhat Fateh al-Sham in Damascus.

The second reason is that Russia has a large Muslim population (estimated at 12-15 percent or 16 million to 20 million ethnic Muslims) that it also fears might become radicalized. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia deems Islamic radicalization as one of the most serious challenges to its national integrity and stability. A destabilized region will pose grave problems within Russia’s borders. Thus, it has created a strong partnership with Israel to coordinate these stabilizing efforts.

Russia and Israel share a common concern towards international terrorism spreading throughout the region. When Russia entered the Syrian Civil War, the Israeli government immediately contacted their Russian counterparts. It appreciated the concern Russia had towards the jihadist terrorist threat in Syria, but the intervention led to an equally alarming concern for Israel. That is, Israel worried that this would increase Iran’s influence in Syria. This should not be interpreted as a cooling in Russo-Israeli relations. There has always been dialogue between the two governments on all levels. Given Russia’s intervention in Syria, both countries’ military and intelligence apparatuses are in contact in the Syrian arena to avoid unfortunate outcomes. Moreover, Israel relies on Russia to be the intermediary to resolve border issues. We saw this recently in Lebanon and Syria given Russia’s everexpanding presence and many contacts in the region. However, the concerns in Israel regarding Iran in southern Syria still remain. For instance, Israel has made it clear that it is concerned with the recent agreement between the US and Russia for a “zone of de-escalation” in southern Syria. In the view of the Israeli establishment, this prevents Israel from reacting to security concerns in the area—namely, military activities by the “Iran-Hezbollah-Syria axis.” Nevertheless, given the US absence, Israel understands that it must balance between protecting its security and awareness that its activities could, as Russian President Vladimir Putin warned, lead to “a new round of dangerous consequences for the region.” In other words, Israel now understands that it cannot take a militant line in the Syrian arena.

From the Israeli Lens: America’s Policy in Syria

Israel was never entirely sure what to expect from the Americans throughout the Syrian Civil War. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump both balked at intervening in the Syrian arena. However, like President Obama, President Trump does not have a complete grip on his administration and it is difficult to tell what the US foreign policy is in Syria.

Under President Obama, the CIA covertly armed opposition forces, many of which were jihadis (some even linked to al-Qaeda). To his credit, President Obama hesitated to enter the Syrian Civil War, knowing the dire implications of intervention. Unfortunately, his biggest flaw was that he was not in full control of his administration. As a result, powerful forces within the military, foreign affairs and intelligence communities decided to act independently of the President. For instance, President Obama and President Putin agreed to cooperate in Syria to destroy Da’esh and other terrorist organizations after a weeklong ceasefire (organized through their foreign ministries). However, only 48 hours prior to the implementation of full US-Russian cooperation in Syria, the Pentagon sabotaged the efforts made by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

While President Trump had ended the CIA program to covertly give weapons to jihadi forces, he too had his fair share of mistakes in the Syrian arena. While mentioning on numerous occasions during the 2016 US presidential election campaign that he wanted to cooperate with Russia in Syria, President Trump has been unable to fully implement his campaign promise due to anti-Russian sentiments in the American political class. As a result, due to his inexperience, he has had to deal with the same conundrum as President Obama. For instance, relying on very weak intelligence that Syrian President al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, President Trump authorized a launch of 59 tomahawk missiles on the Syrian Army’s outposts—raising tensions in Syria of a possible ‘hot war’ between the United States and Russia as well as forcing Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev to proclaim that US-Russian relations were “destroyed” (razrushennyy). While the situation has settled down, the US retains a military presence in Syria, making it unclear what their foreign policy is for Syria. Is the US policy to destroy terrorism in Syria (as President Obama professed at the UN Security Council and President Trump promised during his campaign) or is it, as it was at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, to remove al-Assad from power? Unfortunately, due to infighting in the US foreign policy establishment over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election, President Trump does not have a free hand in dictating foreign policy and this includes the Syrian arena. As a result, there is no clear answer.

The Israeli establishment views the ongoing conflict in US politics as an internal matter but was hopeful that the al-Assad regime would fall. Given that events seem to suggest that al-Assad will remain in power, Israel is acting according to its security concerns. Regardless of what happens (or who is in power) in Syria, Israel will observe its red lines accordingly with caution (given that Russia is the “new sheriff in town”). However, the internal US political struggle has convinced the Israeli establishment that the Americans are retreating from the Middle East. There has been no significant US military presence in the region for over a decade and the US has been coming less and less to Israel’s defense on the political scene. This has made it increasingly hard for the Israelis to rely on and seek political assistance from their American partners. Having said that, the Israeli establishment still considers the US its number-one ally. While some might consider US bipartisan support for Israel to be on the wane, the two countries share decades of deep ties in the political, economic, cultural, military, and intelligence spheres. In other words, they share the same values and it is highly unlikely that the Israelis and Americans will completely relinquish this relationship for the foreseeable future.

Russo-Israeli Relations: Détente or Full-Partnership?

To conclude, the question must be asked: can Israel and Russia find common ground? That answer is yes. Israel’s two major national security concerns converge with Russia’s. While the current Israeli government sees no interest in seriously negotiating for a two-state solution, Russia, like the Israeli Left, understands that a two-state solution is the most viable and practical answer to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would address Israel’s existential national security concern and, by extension, significantly reduce its current security concern. If both parties (the Israelis and the Palestinians) are serious about negotiating, Moscow is more than willing to be that broker to resolve this matter—as we saw in 2016. In the Syrian arena, both the Russians and Israelis share the belief that the threat of international terrorism is not only a threat to the region but to the international community as a whole. Where the two countries’ national security concerns do not converge is on Iran, specifically the “Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis.” Nonetheless, here too we see cooperation. The two countries have found a way to communicate when their countries’ security concerns are at odds. Even so, they continue to cooperate on a military and intelligence level in the Syrian arena. There are big changes afoot in the global arena. Unlike the Cold War era, the United States is retreating from the region. Israel will have to rely more and more on Russia to resolve security issues. The ball is in the Israelis’ court to make that decision. Russia shows that it is willing to be Israel’s primary partner in the region; Israel must do the same.

The Purge and Marginalization of the Israeli Arabs?

Joint List MK Bassel Ghattas has been arrested for allegedly passing cellphones to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. (Photo: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

This article reminds us of how Russia is, unfortunately, treated by the majority in the West. With no facts, the Arabs living in Israel are purged by the bipartisan Israeli establishment and the media is dangerously going along with it. Whichever aisle you sit on, in Israel or abroad, this ought to be deeply concerning. If not fixed, it could have ramifying implications for the state and the region. What is most grieving is that there is no criticism from the so-called Israeli Left. Hopefully, at some point, the Israeli population will not stand for this and express their anger (preferably) at the ballot box. Regardless of the outcome, one can only commend the Joint List Chairman, Ayman Odeh, for his resolve in the face of this latest development in the ongoing onslaught against the Joint List and the Israeli Arabs as a whole.

 

The US Mainstream Media Is Focusing On The Wrong Crisis

ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson (pictured), has been nominated by President-Elect Donald Trump to be the next Secretary of State for the United States. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images North America

The real tragedy in this ‘propaganda’ campaign of the unsubstantiated allegations that the Kremlin hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s computers and its interference in the American election is that the American people have not been informed about the real crisis that is awaiting them. An uninformed observer would think that America is heading towards the dangerous route of war with Russia. Yet, Dr. Kantor does his best job to voice that concern. Kantor’s warning of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and the United States is exactly what is at stake for the new President of the United States not the unverified Russian hacking and election interference allegations that have flooded the news stations and newspapers in America. Instead of focusing on election interference and hacking allegations, the media should be focusing on a crisis that is far worse (yes, even graver than the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis), which needs to be addressed. The nuclear crisis is an urgent matter that needs to be addressed for any American President.

Whether the President-Elect comes to a final agreement with Russia on this urgent matter, remains to be seen. However, he seems to be starting on the right foot. His intention, in the face of the baseless claims of ‘Russian interference’ in the recent American elections, to nominate Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State is a strong indication that he intends to double down. While it is not the best choice, it is one that will help the President-Elect achieve his détente if he chooses to explore it. On one hand, kudos to Dr. Kantor for coming out in favour of improving US-Russian relations. On the other hand, one has to wonder how many Americans will actually read that op-ed article in The Independent and understand the urgency of ending this New Cold War with Russia.

As it pertains to Israel and its Palestinian neighbours in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the nomination of Tillerson shows us that, beyond the F-35 ‘last stand,’ the President-Elect is indicating that, under his Presidency, it will be up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to determine their own fate because it seems that America has absolved itself from being the decades-old broker. At best, both the Israelis and the Palestinians can rely on Russia to be an honest broker but, in large part, the Israeli and Palestinian leadership have to work out their problems on their own. If Israelis want to lay blame on their current and future predicaments, unless they want to act on their urgent crisis, they have only themselves to condemn.

It was expected that Donald Trump was going to get major pushback and fierce opposition from the political elite in America for his détente efforts with Russia and that is exactly what is happening. So far, he is pushing back. Alas, if he continues, we might be witnessing a change in America’s primitive (and hegemonic) foreign policy. If Max Boot is against the nominee for Secretary of State, then it means that the President-Elect is doing something right. There are scores of items to disagree with the President-Elect. Yet, if he acts on the items that will get the international community out of this New Cold War with Russia, he should be commended not vilified.

What The West Can Learn From Austria (& Italy)

Prof. Alexander Van der Bellen, an economist and fiscal expert, waves to his supporters after his speech during a campaign rally in Vienna in April 2016.  Photo: EPA

While the Italian Referendum is being passed as part of the alt-rightwing wave that is sweeping Europe, the Austrian Presidential Election is being perceived by the media as a sigh of relief that the wind of alt-rightwing populism has been temporarily stopped. More often than not, they try, in a lame fashion, to claim that the breakup of the European Union is a gift for Russia. It has nothing to do with alt-rightwing populism and nothing to do with Russia. It just happens to be that, before the Austrian vote, the alt-rightwing populists had a message that resonated with the voters. However, this election and referendum really showed us two things.

First, while some in the media are tempted to do so, the events in Austria and Italy should not be seen as a ‘win’ nor a ‘loss’ for Russia. They are probably wondering how these results might be advantageous or disadvantageous towards Russia. They’ve been tempted to accuse Russia of interference in elections in the United States and Europe. While none of the sort would fly in a court of law (and, after investigation, proven to be a fallacy in the case of the elections in the United States), they use this McCarthyist tactic to pin these alt-rightwing politicians being in cahoots with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This tactic has more to do with absolving themselves from the real problem and shutting out a debate on why this is really occurring. Yet, while it’s counterproductive to do so, if one does want to look at this through that lens, the Austrian Presidential election is a ‘win’ and the Italian Referendum is a ‘loss’ for Russia.  A broken Europe is not in Russia’s national interest. Quite the opposite. As its largest trading partner, it much rather see a united Europe rather than a divided one.

Second, and more importantly, the (second consecutive) victory for Alexander Van der Bellen and the ‘No’ campaign victory in Italy show us that the European Union’s austerity measures and harsh financial policies are not welcome. In Austria, they are willing to give an economist and fiscal expert a chance to guide the country out of this puzzle. In Italy, they welcomed what the anti-austerity comedian, Beppe Grillo, had to say. In short, they have no more faith in the politicians who have continuously imposed austere measures—on both sides of the aisle. These measures have incited dangerous political dynamics in some European Union countries, which reflects the growing popularity of the alt-rightwing and xenophobic populism, with the occasional slip towards lucid fascism. The refugee crisis has expedited this conundrum and, to the chagrin of some, Russia can be a suitable partner as they have a vested interest in resolving the crisis.

These are the two main reasons for the outcomes in Austria and Italy. The message from the Austrians was that they want no part in the austerity measures and no part in the alt-rightwing and xenophobic populism. However, what they (both Italians and Austrians alike) do want is for the European Union to address their economic hardships with smart politics. Removing both the sanctions on Russia and ending the austerity measures would go a long way to addressing those issues. Ending the sanctions would resume trade with one of its largest trading partners thereby reenergizing a hurting business sector. Whereas ending the austerity measures would also greatly improve the most vulnerable—the middle and low-income class. It is the most vulnerable who are inclined to vote for the xenophobic and alt-rightwing politicians. Thus, ending these measures would most certainly help end this disturbing trend.

The reason for the shift towards dangerous politics in Europe and the United States has nothing to do with Russia or any other country, it is their own doing. For those in the media who want to lay fact-free blame on a third party are committing shoddy journalism and, in fact, are the very ones to blame because they are allowing this dangerous trend to continue. They are doing a great disservice to the public that they are trying to inform.

If the European Union or the United States want to end the trend towards this ugly style of politics, it might want to begin reintegrating countries like Russia and others that will benefit its economy. Equally, it might also want to look at changing its economic policies where the economy works for all, not just the top 1%. While both Europe and the United States have a long way to go, Europe is slowly understanding this conundrum but the United States is stuck in a self-inflicted quagmire.

That explains the underlying issues that led to the results in the Austrian Presidential election and the Italian referendum but it will not end there. These events are not part of an overall scorecard. These bizarre twists will continue as long as the middle and low-income classes are not heard in both the United States and Europe. The longer this goes on, the worse and more dangerous it will get.

Justin Trudeau and his “controversial” statement should not be criticized

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (on the right) and Cuban President Raul Castro during a recent visit to Cuba. Photo: AFP

What Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in his statement of condolences to the late Cuban President Fidel Castro was just fine. Where he erred in judgement might have been to mention his families’ ties but beyond that he was accurate in his statement. In half a century, Fidel Castro (like him or not) built an independent Cuba on his own. The criticism smacks a certain hypocrisy from his detractors at home and abroad. There is much to criticize Trudeau for but not this. The media and his critics should leave the Canadian Prime Minister alone and focus on how he governs his country—something that the Prime Minister has been lagging since taking office in October 2015.

In addition to Tulsi Gabbard as Secretary of State, Jim Webb should be nominated as Secretary of Defense

Fmr. Sen. Jim Webb has served as a Democratic Senator from Virginia, Secretary of the Navy, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, Counsel for the US House Committee on Veteran Affairs, and a Marine Corps officer. Photo: Jim Webb Official Portrait from US Senate

The media is scarcely reporting now (after botching it earlier) that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is likely to be the choice as Secretary of State for President-Elect Trump (not Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, or John Bolton). If the media does not want to complete the blunder, it should watch for his next “surprise”—this time for Secretary of Defense. Gen. Mattis is commendable pick but does not fall into Donald Trump’s view on foreign policy. Originally thinking that Donald Trump will pick Rand Paul, yours truly forgot that he needs some allies in the Senate to confirm his appointments. Thus, all eyes should be on Jim Webb, not Gen. Mattis. Not to be confused with the American songwriter, Sen. Webb was a Democratic Senator who opposed the interventionist foreign policies during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. He recently ran for president but dropped out because he was “not comfortable” and “unhappy” with his party’s positions. On Nov. 15, he spoke at George Washington University. For those that read earlier blogposts, will recall that universities such as George Washington University were strong indicators for potential cabinet appointees. In any case, Webb is a decorated war veteran (like Gabbard) and his foreign policies fall in line with those of Donald Trump.

If Gabbard does get the nod from the President-Elect as Secretary of State and if Webb follows suit as Secretary of Defense, this should make for interesting confirmation sessions in Washington, DC. More importantly, it would certainly show resolve on the President-Elect that he really wants to change America’s Mesopotamian foreign policy. Fellow foreign policy wonks, hold on to your seats and stay tuned. This one is going to get interesting….

הממשל הנכנס של טראמפ והכיוון שלו במדיניות החוץ

במהלך הקמפיין של הנשיא הנבחר, דונלד טראמפ, הציר על כוונתו לעבוד בשיתוף פעולה עם רוסיה כדי לשנות את טיב היחסים בין שתי המעצמות והורדת המתיחות על מנת להימנע מעימות. עמדה זו של טראמפ מנוגדת לעמדה של רוב הרפובליקנים ורוב הדמוקרטים. לאור זאת, מעניין לבדוק שניים מהמינויים הפוטנציאלים לקבינט של טראמפ: טולסי גבארד (חברת קונגרס דמוקרטית, שירתה בצבא ארה״ב בעיראק, ומתנגדת למדיניות החוץ שמפלגתה) וראנד פול (סנטור רפובליקני, ותומך במדיניות החוץ של טראמפ). המינויים הללו יהוו אינדיקציה לגבי מדיניות המימשל בארץ ובאזור כולו. על פי התקשורת בארץ ובארה״ב, טראמפ נפגש עם גבארד ביום שני, כדי לשמוע דעתה בנושא המאבק ״באיסלם הקיצוני.״ לצערי הרב, התקשורת (בארץ ובארה״ב) לא הבינה לעומק את משמעות המפגש.

למעשה, וכאן התקשורת נכשלה, טראמפ וגבארד ניפגשו על בסיס עמדות משותפות וכוונתו של טראמפ למנות את גבארד לקבינט. במידע טראמפ ימנה את גבארד לשרת החוץ או הביטחון, יהיה זה מסר ברור לאמריקאים ולעולם שאכן בכוונתו לבצע את מדיניות החוץ בה הוא דוגל. ואת זה, התקשורת לא הבינה או לא רצתה להבין. נצטרך לחכות ולראות מה הנשיא הנבחר יחליט בשבוע הבא.

The “Frexit” Watch….

François Fillon in Villeurbanne, France on October 6, 2016. Fillon surprised everyone when he won 44% of the primary vote on Sunday and has jumped ahead as the leading contender in his party’s primary runoff vote next Sunday. Photo: Jeff Pachoud/AFP

While yours truly doesn’t prescribe to their type of politics, this isn’t only accurate but it’s also wise policy given Russia’s importance. His message and policies seem to be resonating with voters and would be the logic nominee. Whomever wins the ‘Républicains’ primaries next week, the new ‘Républicains’ front runner’s message and policy shows us — again — that there’s a major disconnect between the political elite and what the people want, as yesterday’s first round primary vote of the ‘Républicains’ showed.

It would be nice to have an eventual nominee amongst the ‘Socialistes’ prescribe to the same type of inclusive progressive policy. This would take the wind out of Marie Le Pen and the ‘Front national.’ Although, neither her nor her party should be counted out in the upcoming spring election in 2017 given the anxiety of the French voters.

What will “the Donald” really do on Foreign Policy?

Donald Trump speaking at an immigration policy speech in Phoenix, Arizona in August. Photo: Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

If one wants to understand how President-elect Trump would conduct his foreign policy, they should read this article.

“That is why watching President-elect Trump’s choices for his foreign policy team is so important. If he chooses primarily alumni of the Bush administration, we can be fairly certain that there will be few, if any, beneficial changes in Washington’s security strategy. Indeed, it could conceivably be even more interventionist than that pursued by the Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations. The main difference might be that it would be conducted unilaterally rather than multilaterally, especially if someone like John Bolton gets a key position.

If on the other hand, Trump begins to pick advisers who have little or no previous government service, it would be an encouraging step. Watch for appointments from realist enclaves like Defense Priorities, the Independent Institute and others. Also watch for the appointment of individual unorthodox or “rogue” scholars from such places as Notre Dame University, George Mason University, the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, and (ironically) the Bush School at Texas A&M University. Such moves would indicate that Trump was choosing new blood and really intending to make a meaningful change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy.”

That might explain why Trump made his recent comment about “the ultimate deal” for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but, again, it is still too early. No one in their right-mind should have voted for this novice candidate but, unfortunately, he was. That is how the flawed American system works. While the former category was yours truly’s biggest fear during the campaign, let us hope he picks advisors from the latter.

Regardless of which advisors he picks, the United States is a country hurting at home and it is spending too much abroad. If Trump appointees come from the alumni of the Bush administration, it will only reinforce the disconnect between the political elite and the population (and the GOP will most probably lose its “supermajority”). If he picks advisors with no government experience (Defense Priorities, the Independent Institute, etc), a Trump presidency will expedite Obama’s policy of removing the United States from the international scene. Either way, the United States is in bad shape and it needs to fix its problems at home. If Trump does not address the economy, he will begin to lose that majority just like Obama did in his eight years in office and those same “angry voters” will continue to vote for whomever will listen to them and it will not go in Trump’s favour.

Whichever way Trump decides to go, it is seriously time to reconsider an alliance with the United States. While the previous blogpost showed that there is another country besides the United States that is willing to broker a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it can also be interpreted for the other countries around the world. There are other emerging countries like Russia and China that should seriously be considered as partners, not enemies on the international stage. It is time to let a new world order, one that addresses the challenges of 21^st century, emerge with new partnerships because the old (post-World War II) structure we’re in is leading us in a direction that is confrontational and dangerous. If we don’t heed a new way, we will head in a path that will be, as “the Donald” loved to say on the campaign trail, a total disaster.

The Case for the “Israeli Left” to Pivot Towards Russia

With the 2016 United States Presidential election now behind us, let’s look forward.  What candidate Trump can teach us is that America is continuing its policy of removing itself from its international obligations and playing a significant role in the Middle East.  This was a foreign policy that began under President Obama and will most likely continue under the next president.  Outgoing President Obama’s views both at home and abroad were a breath of fresh air from America’s 43^rd President, George W. Bush.  However, many pundits in the media dubbed Obama’s policies as “false hope” and awfully “naïve.”  That might have been the perception but it may be misguided to criticize him for beginning the United States on this path.

What President Obama was trying to do was focus his presidency on the domestic problems that was plaguing his country and be less committal abroad.  Throughout his presidency, he correctly assessed that America has urgent items to address at home—namely race relations, gun violence, income inequality, a shrinking middle-class, and countless other domestic issues—and too much is financially invested abroad.  While he made some progress, his attempts fell way short on the domestic file, which harmed his ability to be truly effective on the international stage. While Obama’s successor campaigned on the same sentiment, it is highly unlikely he will be able to follow through on those protectionist campaign promises.

Despite what Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies on the right of the Israeli political spectrum say, this should not take away from what President Obama did to maintain strong ties between Israel and the United States.  Amongst other noble achievements for Israel, his greatest achievement was the “Iran deal,” which addresses the reduction of Iran’s nuclear capability for at least a decade or longer.  However, his most important and significant political move came in 2013 when he spoke to Israeli students.  While he would’ve certainly liked to see a two-state solution occur during his presidency, the speech was the “real Obama.”  He clearly stated that Israel shouldn’t rely on foreign powers to create the two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.  Only the Israeli and Palestinian populations alone could push its respective politicians to solve the two-state conundrum.  Along with his other foreign policy decisions in the region, he was clearly trying to reduce America’s leadership role in the Middle East.  At times, it might’ve had its errors and hiccups but the message was clear.  He wanted America to focus on its domestic woes.

Now, with the recent election of America’s 45^th President, it is clear that America has no interest to get itself involved in this region with recent disasters in the Middle East and North Africa—namely Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and most recently the Syrian civil war.  Equally, it is a country that has over expanded itself on the international stage in other parts of the world and has consecutively voted for Presidents that have campaigned on reducing its power abroad.  What President Trump decides to do remains to be seen but as a candidate, he is determined to focus on America’s domestic economic concerns rather than be tangled abroad.  That is why the Israeli Left should begin to shift itself to others who do have an unequivocal interest in this region, the national security of this country, and the Palestinians.  Yes, that country is Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin with Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Moscow before the opening the Cathedral Mosque in Moscow after reconstruction in 2015. Recently, President Putin has offered Moscow as a location to resume peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis. Photo: http://en.kremlin.ru

Up until recently, the Israeli Left has been associating Netanyahu’s approach towards Russia as part of his plan to buy time and that’s an argument that comes with justification.  In the seven and half years as prime minister, he has done just that.  He has teetered between the two camps within the Israeli Right: the Neo-Zionists, a religiously inflected extremist view for the Land of Israel and justifying the settlement project as messianic, and the “procrastinating” camp, which believes that Israel doesn’t have a peace partner and that Arab leaders are hell-bent on destroying it and will act in that way based on their capability.

The recent rapprochement with PM Netanyahu and his rightwing coalition with Russia might suit Netanyahu and the Israeli Right’s rhetoric of managing the crisis and buying time for a two-state solution; however, it is a partnership that the Israeli Left should also strongly consider.  The Israeli Left has correctly argued that a two-state solution along the 1967 borders is the only tenable solution for Israel to remain a Jewish and democratic state.  As the status quo remains, this reality becomes grimmer by the day.  Moreover, the Israeli Left accurately points out that managing the crisis will only lead to undesirable consequences—namely the strong possibility of a civil war.  On these two points alone, a partnership with the Russian Federation can be of great benefit.

It’s no secret that the Israeli Left understands Israel’s national security better than the Israeli Right.  In this day and age, mutual interests drive international politics.  Countries base their interests on their own national security.  Its partnerships with other countries tend to derive from that on the international stage.

Israel bases its national security on two-points.  First, it wants to preserve Israel as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people.  This was one of the main arguments for disengaging in 2005 from the Gaza Strip.  With the current occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, this point is becoming a threat to the Jewish and democratic principles of the state.  The second point is about the day-to-day maintenance of the personal safety and well being of Israelis.  Here too we are seeing a severe deterioration as we see stabbings, car-rammings, and shootings more frequently to Israelis both within and outside the Green Line.  These alarms seem to be ignored by the current Israeli Prime Minister.  He is willing to address none of these points and rather play politics with it and sway between the political camps on the Israeli Right.  However, Israel’s Left seems to understand its national security better and, while the Americans are leaving this region, Russia has not.  Yes, both Israel’s and Russia’s national security converge.

Russia has a vested interest that this region remains stable for its own domestic purposes.  Primarily, Russia has a large Muslim population that it also fears might get radicalized.  Since the break up of the Soviet Union, Russia deems Islamic radicalization as one of its most serious challenges to ensure its integrity and stability.  In fact, today, Russians view stability as a priority over democracy—largely because of the hardships they had suffered under the Yeltsin years.  A destabilized region will pose grave problems within its borders and, thus, it wants this region to remain stable.  With the Middle East geographically attached to the Caucuses region, this is a grave concern for Russia as the Caucuses has been a recent hotbed for the so-called Islamic State.  Likewise, a peace accord between the Palestinians and the Israelis is equally in Russia’s interest due to the alternative scenario having undesirable destabilizing consequences to the region.  Actually, it is official Russian policy that there be a two-state solution.  Most certainly, it understands the Middle East better than most countries because it has historically been in the region for centuries.

If the latter issue still isn’t convincing, under its current President, Russia has shown signs of being a willing friend of Israel and a partner to bring a two-state solution.  When the late Ariel Sharon was Prime Minister, Russian President Vladimir Putin urged Mr. Sharon to hand over territory in the West Bank to the Palestinians.  In 2005, Mr. Putin visited Israel for the first time.  This was the first time that a Russian (or Soviet) head of state visited the Jewish state.  Seven years later, he returned to inaugurate a monument of the Soviet Army victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.  In his speech, President Putin suggested that the Holocaust was “the darkest, most shameful chapter in human history” and praised the Soviet Army for smashing “the head of the Nazi monster and [allow] all nations to survive.”  Most recently, President Putin has offered Moscow as a location for negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  If it weren’t for Israeli researchers Gideon Remez and Isabella Ginor’s sabotage attempt, suspicion wouldn’t have been instilled with the Israeli population.  To those like Remez, Ginor, and others, that have suggested that Russia shouldn’t be trusted, are simply impeding a two-state reality to exist and one should question their judgment if they are interested in a Jewish state living side-by-side a Palestinian one.

With Russia’s interest of stability in the region and a supporter of a two-state reality, this should be a wakeup call for the Israeli Left that there is a country that wants this reality to come to fruition.  With the mutual interest of the two countries, it is time to work with the Russians, not be stubborn and confrontational.  The way Israel’s other allies and partners conduct themselves with Russia is not a reason to prevent relations. It is a country who has the same interests as Israel.  Israel’s main interest is a democratic Jewish state living side-by-side with a Palestinian one and so is Russia’s.  Given what is going on in the region with the “Arab Spring,” it is safe to say that Russia will remain a major player and have much influence in this region to ensure that their interests of stability remain preserved.  While America soul-searches on both the domestic and foreign level, the Israeli Left should consider Russia as a partner for brokering a two-state solution.  Certainly, the onus is on the Israelis and Palestinians to ferment a final agreement but, as the evidence has shown, the Russians can certainly help as a partner and be an honest broker.