Car Bombs Hit Israeli Embassies

Two Israeli embassies were targeted with car bombs this morning, one which detonated in India and one which was defeated in Georgia.  The culprit is presumably Hizbullah, whose deputy leader Imad Mughniyeh was killed in a car bomb attack four years ago yesterday.  Since his death, Israel has been on high alert around the anniversary for retaliation by Hizbullah. 


Today's attacks were somewhat expected by the Israeli government.   Since Hizbullah lacked the element of surprise, the government was able to mitigate damage to its property and personnel.  Tali Yehoshua-Koren, the wife of an Israeli diplomat who was injured in the blast in New Delhi, is seriously injured but stable enough to be flown back to Israel for medical treatment.  Without planning and diligence by Israeli diplomatic security personnel, the damage could have been a lot worse.


The question in Washington this morning is what Israel's reaction will be.  IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz is in an emergency meeting with the head of intelligence and commander of the air force, and may make a statement later today.  Foreign Minister Lieberman has stated simply that Israel will not be swayed from its policies and sees the attacks as evidence of the threats Israel faces.  


For his part, Prime Minister Netanyahu has placed blame squarely on Iran though it is unlikely he has sufficient evidence so soon after the attacks to back up the claim.  It appears thus far that the Israeli government will use the incident to build pressure on Iran rather than engage with Hizbullah and risk being dragged into another 2006-esque conflict.  This response benefits the United States since it builds diplomatic pressure on Iran and does not distract media coverage of the Levant from the ongoing violence in Syria.  


But Israel's metered response is not out of pressure from the United States or the international community.  Rather, it is likely the Israeli government  pre-calculated a response from Hizbullah when it decided to take action against Mughniyeh (an attack for which it has not claimed credit) back in 2008.  That is to say, Hizbullah's response is the cost of business in the tough neighborhood that is the Middle East.

What The White House Can Do About Syria

The United States has closed its embassy in Syria and asked Americans in the country to evacuate. The ambassador from the UK has been recalled for consultation but the embassy itself remains open.  These actions come in the wake of brutal attacks by the Assad regime in Homs and elsewhere in the country.

Attempts to pressure the Assad regime took a setback Saturday morning when a draft UN resolution passed with 13 votes but was vetoed by Russia and China, generating considerable ill-will towards those countries from the US, UK, France, and other bill supporters.

The United States now finds itself in a complex foreign policy dilemma.  Even if Saturday's resolution had passed it would have had only a small effect on the Assad regime, which has recklessly killed more than 4000 people since protests in Syria began last year.  Given international support of the US for upholding human rights, the normative power of R2P, and American citizens' support of action on behalf of at-risk populations abroad, the American government is compelled to act.  At a more primal level, no American with any basic sense of decency can feel complacency towards images of children with their jaws blown off their heads and having limbs amputated. 

At the same time, US military action is virtually out of the question.  Syria is using tanks to target opposition forces, limiting the potential efficacy of a no-fly zone.  American support for military intervention in the Middle East is low in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Finally, intervention in Syria could easily become a proxy war with Iran given that the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG) is aiding the Syrians in their military operations.

In addressing the carnage in Syria, the United States should employ two strategies.  The first is to continue to pass sanctions and urge partners and allies in the international community to do so.  Tanks cannot get to Homs, Hama, and Deraa without fuel.  It may very well be that other actors will continue to fund and fuel Syria's military regardless of international action.  However, making it as hard as possible for Syria to continue targeting its own civilians will ensure a minimum of support to the Assad regime.  Additionally, international solidarity against human rights violations may make actors who support Syria now less willing to do so over the long term.

The second capability is to actively support the efforts of regional partners to stabilize Syria's human rights situation.  The violence in Syria is destabilizing for the entire region, and the heavy Iranian hand in that violence is concerning for those who fear the rise of Iranian hegemony.  Israeli intervention is out of the question given its historic conflict with Syria and other states in the region.  That being said, the US should reassure Israel of its support for Israeli security in the event of cross-border violence.  In turn, it should ask the Israeli government not make statements on Syria which exacerbate tensions or de-legitimize rebel forces as affiliated with the "Zionist aggressor."  

Saudi Arabia may be a wiser choice for more direct engagement on Syria.  Saudi hegemony in the region is threatened by Iran-Syria coordination.  If Saudi does not take steps to balance Iran in Syria soon, it's regional strength may weaken.  The United States should signal that Saudi diplomacy to deter Iranian interference in Syria will be supported.  Saudi action in this regard may bring awkward questions about Saudi's influence on human rights in Bahrain.  Saudi intervention in Syria based on concern for human rights would be highly ironic given heavy tear gassing and use of live fire by security forces in Manama.  However, the US can express support for "containment" of Iranian influence in ways which meet security objectives for Saudi Arabia and human rights stabilization for the United States.  

The US can also support Turkish and Lebanese efforts to deal with refugees coming from Syria.  Turkey and Lebanon have both accepted refugees from Syria despite Turkey's tension with Syria and Lebanon's deep mistrust of the country which occupied it from 1976-2005.  This support could manifest itself as physical relief items such as tents and stoves, to granting Syrian refugees in those countries the opportunity to seek political asylum in the United States.

Both strategies are important actions the US government can take towards mitigating the already dire situation in Syria.  The situation there is more than a debate about humanitarianism.  It cuts to the core of who Americans are as a nation, and how we respond to civilians in immediate and preventable mortal danger.

Syria Scorecard

Today the UN Security council voted 13-2 to approve a resolution condemning Syria for the violent repression of its citizens.  Russia and China both vetoed the resolution.


The Bad
The news of a veto comes just hours after a Syrian military operation in Homs killed a number of Syrians on the anniversary of a similar event in Hama.  The news will undermine Syrian confidence and trust in the international community, and sets a precedent for future action.  The vetoes also represent the difficulty of coordinating on humanitarian concerns.  Today's resolution called for a cessation of violence only.  It had no provisions for intervention and did not call for President Assad to step down.  Finally, the veto is likely to affect US relations with Russia and China.  As a State Department officer, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice worked on Rwanda, and the issue of responsibility to protect (R2P) is deeply personal for her.  Before and during today's meeting, her body language indicated personal disdain, and her speech after the resolution failed was fiery.  While she did not call out Russia and China by name, she was very clear later to contrast the American position against those who advance their own "narrow interests."  While the situation is far from a crisis, relations between the US, Russia, and China have hit a sour note on this issue.


The Good
Today's resolution was sponsored by Morocco and consistent with a plan drafted by the Arab League.  It was supported by 13 out of 15 Security Council members and demonstrates a broad coalition for taking action on behalf of Syrians.  Realistically speaking, this would have been the outcome had the resolution passed as well, only slightly more so.  


Most importantly, the Obama administration has put the United States in the lead of an international coalition the Bush administration could only dream about.  While diplomacy is often downplayed as a set of meaningless formalities, today's security council meeting is proof that leadership by example rather than by threat produces outcomes.  Russia and China may have vetoed the resolution, but they paid a substantial political cost for doing so.  Both countries have been alienated in the international community and especially in the Arab World where tweets expressing profanity towards the countries were copious this morning.  They have also demonstrated a lack of leadership on an issue behind which the majority of the world is united.  Ambassador Rice's statements were clear that U.S. policy in will be to exact as heavy a political penalty as possible on Russia and China for standing against the resolution.  Anyone who believes the current US administration projects weakness internationally is deluding themselves in light of today's direct attack on countries which fail to uphold important American values.  


Ultimately, today's Security Council drama proves that while the United States may make mistakes, it learns from those mistakes and tries to be on the right side of history.  The ambassador of a global power does not use terms like "disgusted" and "blood on their hands" on the floor of the Security Council unless they mean it.  The United States means it.  While military intervention is unlikely at this point, the United States will likely implement other measures to deter President Assad from continuing to brutally target his own people.

Lieberman and Clinton, Oil and Water

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman will be meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton here in Washington next week. This will be only the second time the Israeli FM has come to visit Washington during his term.  


The contrast between the two officials could not be greater.


Secretary Clinton has rebuilt America's soft power by engaging relentlessly with partners and allies around the world.  Even when these contacts disagree with US policy, the Clinton State Department has been vital at restoring American international respect.  Her bold decision to openly engage with Islamist movements will safeguard US interests in the Middle East.  Her work to shift the world from being complacent about Iran to unified against it has weakened Iran's government and severely constrained its room for error.  She also played a critical role in the intervention in Libya which may have saved thousands of innocent lives and reaffirmed America's commitment to the values of Responsibility To Protect.


In contrast, Foreign Minister Lieberman has alienated Israel in the international community.  By estranging Israel's partners and allies, he has decreased the country's security.  His reactionary and irresponsible statements put him at odds not only with the majority of the Israeli people but with the government he serves.  He has supported racial discrimination in Israel.  He decries the corruptness of the international community while himself being investigated for corruption.  He understands the fine nuances of diplomacy the way an elephant understands the fine nuances of ballet.  He consistently has been the greatest liability of the Netanyahu administration.


Next week in Washington will be a veritable Goofus and Gallant guide to foreign policy.

Settlement Bill Fractures Israel's Right

Internal tensions have developed on Israel's political right as a result of a Knesset bill that would make it harder for Israel to evacuate settlements, including illegal ones such as Migron.  The bill has once again brought the contentious settlement issue into the fray, and put the Prime Minister at odds with his far-right Yisrael Beiteinu coalition partners who support the bill.


PM Netanyahu likely is against the bill because of the international condemnation it would draw, and the harm it would do to Israeli government control and sovereignty.  True to form, the Prime Minister has played a balancing game, asking residents of Migron to accept a deal in which the state would build them new homes on nearby state-owned land.  This compromise has been spurned by the settlers.  In addition, the Prime Minister's far-right coalition partners see the bill largely as a test of how "committed" Netanyahu is to basic principles of the rightist platform.  He must be careful to keep them satisfied while simultaneously opposing the bill.  


This balancing game is not new.  PM Netanyahu also played in on the loyalty oath bill, when he supported introducing the bill for debate to please his base but then pushed for significant changes on it to please the international community.  What makes this bill different from the loyalty oath is that its target population are Jewish conservative Israelis, not liberal Arabs.  This means that the political importance of the bill is much higher to PM Netanyahu this time around.  If the bill does not pass, he will take a significant amount of political heat from settlers, not to mention his coalition partners.  At the same time, supporting the bill would weaken the rule of law and Israel's control over its territories.  If any group of settlers can establish an illegal settlement whenever they please, it undermines the Israeli government's sovereignty and credibility.


This blog predicted last year that settlements would be the core issue on which the current ruling coalition in Israel would collapse.  The current fracturing among Israel's right-wing politicians suggests this prediction is at least plausible.

Clowns Run The Circus On Israel Discourse

Nothing can compare to the shock of reading a call by a member of one's own community to assassinate the President of the United States.  The sick and delusional editorial published by Andrew Adler of the Atlanta Jewish Times yesterday is a stain on the discourse of the American Jewish community.  In it, Mr. Adler considers a Mossad strike on President Obama as a legitimate policy option of the Netanyahu government.  Amazingly, Adler underscores the policy option and tries to justify what is essentially terrorism against the elected leader of the United States of America.


What has the American Jewish community come to when individuals like Mr. Adler are the ones moderating its discourse?  Editors are tasked with providing their readership a thought-provoking and engaging debate on critical issues of the day.  They play an essential role in informing the public and its public debates.  They ensure that this task is accomplished in a respectful and fair manner.  That an individual with Mr. Adler's beliefs could be put in charge of the editorial pages of an American Jewish publication demonstrates the extent to which the clowns are running the circus in the opinion leadership of the American Jewish community.  


Week after week, opinion leaders in the American Jewish press lambast President Obama mercilessly, calling him an Israel-hater who is in the pocket of the Muslim countries.  Playing on anecdote after anecdote, they begin with a conclusion and pick and choose the relevant facts as they please.  Obviously, criticizing the administration's policies on settlements, Iran, or Hamas is fair and legitimate.  But some opinion leaders in the American Jewish community are using these criticisms to construct a fear-based narrative about the Obama administration which is simply ludicrous.  Yet the narrative persists in American Jewish discourse because opinion leaders in that community advance it, and members of the community believe it.  And it was in the context of this paranoid narrative that Mr. Adler believed it was legitimate to call for the assassination of the President.  There can be no clearer evidence that the scare-mongering about President Obama's position on Israel has gone too far.


Real support for Israel means educating American Jews, not scaring them.  It means separating fact from fiction, and carrying out these characteristically vigorous debates in an air of respect.  If this has historically not been the tone of debate, it must be so now.  No love for Judaism and no love for Israel could justify assassination.  No editor committed to free and respectful discourse should tolerate such comments.  No community should be satisfied with anything less than full accountability when one of their own espouses casual hatred and incites violence.


Mr. Adler, please resign.

Don't Read Into The RNC Israel Resolution

The pro- and (not-so-pro)- Israel Left was quick to jump today on a recently-passed Republican National Committee resolution which reads:

"NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Republican Nation Committee that the committee by this resolution commends the nation of Israel for its relations with the United States of America.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and G*d-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people."

It is certainly no stretch of the imagination to read "united Israel governed under one law for all people" as supporting a one-state solution.  This was the interpretation of former B'Tselem Washington branch head Mitchell Plitnick who broke the story earlier today.  J Street, +972 Magazine and ThinkProgress endorsed this interpretation as well.

J Street's somewhat fatalistic take on it, that the "bipartisan consensus on a two-state solution is shattered," is probably an overstatement, especially since it assumes this is the first move the RNC or Republican party has made against the two-state solution.  In addition, American foreign policy in the Middle East is full of apparent contradictions and overlapping policy positions that spin a policy analyst's head in circles.


Ultimately, Foreign Policy magazine's David Kenner has it right in contending that the resolution is merely "a collection of platitudes [the RNC] thinks support Israel."  The resolution's contradictions with well-understood and longstanding policies of the RNC make the validity of this assessment clear.

For example, the resolution stresses "one law" in Israel for "Jewish and non-Jewish citizens," basing this claim in Leviticus 24:22 (#exegesisFAIL, this verse refers to foreigners, not non-Jews).  However, the RNC is clearly not calling for legal parity for Israeli Arabs, especially given that neither the word "Arab" nor the word "equality" appears in the text of the resolution.  This line contradicts the understood policies of the RNC.

The resolution also claims that "the roots of Israel and the roots of the United States of America are so intertwined that it is difficult to separate one from the other under the word and protection of almighty G*d."  Firstly, its unclear what the RNC means by this statement.  Secondly, the RNC has no problem making statements which exacerbate tension between the United States and Israel when it entails attacking President Obama on his comments regarding settlements.  Again, the line contradicts the understood RNC policies.

By the end of the resolution, the reader is left with a convoluted statement based loosely in Bible verses whose core assumptions are not reflected in their conclusions. Given its heavily religious tone, the statement is much more likely intended to maintain RNC support among Evangelicals and pro-Israel Christians than to delineate RNC foreign policy preferences.  It has very little policy value.  Thus, by jumping on the statement, the Left may have read a bit too far into the extent to which the statement, at the end of the day, matters.

The role the Left plays in countering baseless and ill-informed policy statements about Israel is of course an important one.  But in responding to the politicization of Israel in U.S. politics, it must be careful not to only further engage making Israel a partisan issue.  It is important that this RNC resolution was spotlighted.  However, fatalistic and hyperbolic language about its importance will only contribute to the very problem of polarization on Israel that Americans are counting on the left to solve.