THE CAMEL'S NOSE BLOG

Settlement Bill Fractures Israel's Right

2012-01-28T18:37:00.002-05:00

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

2012-01-21T19:33:00.001-05:00

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

2012-01-19T18:56:00.002-05:00

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.

Perry, On Turkey

2012-01-18T10:08:00.002-05:00

Rick Perry claimed yesterday that Turkey "is being ruled by what many consider to be Islamic terrorists." Anyone taking 30 seconds to look over the AKP's Wikipedia article could quickly evaluate the validity of this claim.

Problem: Wikipedia is down today in protest against SOPA. This protest has a silver lining however. Namely, it affords students of Middle East foreign policy like Rick Perry and this blogger to say literally anything about Middle Eastern politics without fear of being fact-checked.

For example, now that Wikipedia is down, it would be much harder to evaluate the claim that many people believe Rick Perry was himself educated at a secret madrassa in Sri Lanka alongside Abd-el Rahman al-Rahim, the uncle of the cousin of the son of Al-Qaeda Number Two Ayman Zawahiri. It would also be difficult to deny that many people believe Perry knows the words to not only America The Beautiful, but also the Star Spangled Banner, in Arabic (Yemeni dialect) and recites them regularly in that language.

Additionally, since the claim is only that many consider the statement to be true, the tidbit itself need not be what social scientists refer to as "accurate." So while it would be accurate to say that one time the Turkish government supported a flotilla operated by the IHH which has links to Islamist groups with members who some people consider to have been engaged in some activities which are terrorist in nature, such a claim would be an unnecessarily precise one. Besides, nuance in foreign policy is overstated. What, should we spend our entire day reading Wikipedia, that great bastion of substantiated and fact-checked nuance?

Perhaps though, Perry ought to be admired for his consistency. Once Wikipedia comes back online, made-up, offensive, and unsubstantiated claims about madrassas and Arabic lyrics would quickly undermine the credibility of this blog.

Perry, in contrast, will retain the support of his followers.

Reacting To Hamas Instability

2012-01-17T18:48:00.001-05:00

Three senior leaders of Hamas, Moussa Abu Marzouk, Mohammed Naser, and Izzat Risheq, have moved their families from Damascus in the wake of increasing instability in Syria. Abu Marzouk's family is in Egypt. According to Palestinian sources speaking to al-Hayat, Abu Marzouk, deputy politboro chief of Hamas, may have himself been received by Egypt on the condition that he refrain from political activity. The moves come after the family of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal was moved to Amman, Jordan.

Hamas has not been immune to the effects of the Arab Spring, and like many actors in the Middle East, its current position is unstable. This instability opens opportunities to make progress towards a more secure order in the region.

As Syria becomes increasingly violent and the Muslim Brotherhood gains influence in Egypt, Hamas leaders naturally are looking to more stable countries from which to base their operations. While the three senior leaders mentioned above are staying in Damascus for the moment, they likely have contingency plans for if - or when - the Assad regime collapses. However, whether or not Egypt will be a safe haven for Abu Marzouk largely depends on the final breakdown of the new Egyptian parliament, as well as the extent to which the SCAF views him as a threat to stability.

Hamas' scramble to adapt to the new realities of the Middle East has also brought cleavages in the movement to the surface. An essay posted on Facebook today by the Lebanese senior official of Hamas recognized Khaled Meshaal as a "brave leader" for planning to step down at the end of his term as the head of Hamas. However, Meshaal had made no such statement, and Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, roundly denied that Meshaal would step down. Such incidents may indicate internal disagreement within Hamas about how to pursue its political agenda, including the contentious reconciliation process with Fatah.

For those in the Middle East to whom Hamas poses a security threat, now is the time to engage with key players who can reduce Hamas' ability to threaten or inflict harm. Concerned actors should quickly to signal support for a SCAF decision to limit Hamas' ability to project power from inside Egypt. They should also maintain contact with the Muslim Brotherhood who will have substantial influence in Hamas' decisions should the group gain a foothold in Egypt.

On the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation process, concerned actors should reiterate their support for free and fair Palestinian elections. This move would condition Hamas' legitimacy on following through with elections, and incentivize political rather than violent action.

Finally, concerned actors should recognize the blow to Iran posed by a Hamas evacuation from Syria. While Iran and Hamas will likely try to maintain alignment, it will be much harder to do so from Arab countries with Sunni governments. This harms Iran's regional influence, and alters the strategic calculus of all players on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Israel's Political Shakeup

2012-01-09T18:14:00.000-05:00

In the past 48 hours, two major Israeli figures have entered the political arena. On Sunday, Israeli talk show host Yair Lapid announced he would run for Knesset as the head of a new, likely centrist, political party. Today, Noam Shalit, the father of Gilad Shalit, announced he would run as part of the center-left Labor party.

The announcements are probably bad news for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Both Lapid and Shalit are popular political outsiders who are not particularly ideological. There is little doubt that they can carry much of the Israeli ideological center. Many on the far right in Israel likely will resent what they will perceive as opportunism by the two men. It is highly likely, for example, that a Jerusalem Post editorial in the next four days will attack Noam Shalit for "forcing" Israel to exchange 1027 Palestinian prisoners for his son. However, such attacks speak only to the influence Mr. Lapid and Mr. Shalit may command in Israeli politics.

[Update: That editorial can be found here]

Lapid's influence is based in the trust the Israeli public has in him as a talk-show host and journalist. The switch from journalism to politics in Israel is a well-trodden path. Both Labor party leader Shelly Yachimovitch and prominent Kadima MK Nachman Shai were journalists before entering politics as well. Yair Lapid is said to represent the quintessential Israeli, and guests on his television show have come from across the political spectrum. Whether his party will siphon votes from Kadima will depend on the party's exact platform, and whether it runs as part of a list with another party (or parties). However, if Lapid positions his party right of center, he may very well win the votes of former Likud voters who are disillusioned with the way PM Netanyahu's coalition has veered to the far right under pressure from Yisrael Beiteinu. Lapid's run will also put pressure on Netanyahu to come out strongly against religious radicals, including those in Beit Shemesh, who are wildly unpopular in Israel.

Noam Shalit's alignment with the Labor party comes just months after the election of Shelly Yachimovitch as the new party leader. The participation of both of them in the Labor party brings significant change after the party's poor performance in the 2009 parliamentary elections. Shalit's alignment with the Labor party is a slap in the face to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who made a point of meeting with him repeatedly and working proactively to bring his son home. Some Israelis may resent that after Netanyahu extended himself for Gilad Shalit, his father has now joined an opposition party. However, Labor's constituents may very well see it as a strong stance against the inefficiency of government in that it took five years to bring Gilad Shalit back home.

Whether or not Lapid and Shalit will change the face of Israeli politics is a completely open question. However, the entrance of both men into the Israeli political scene at the same time is significant. It indicates that both men see an Israeli public which is weary of the status quo and may be sympathetic to new leadership. While neither man comes completely out of nowhere, both will be new actors on the political scene. In the highly entrenched world of elite Israeli politics, fresh ideas and fresh players will be key to fostering strong leadership regardless of how the political pie is divided.

US Should Keep Close Eye On Hamas Leader

2012-01-05T12:01:00.003-05:00

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is in Tunisia today as part of a four day visit to the country. Haniyeh arrived from Turkey, where he met with Prime Minister Erdogan. Haniyeh has also visited Egypt and Sudan, and intends to visit Qatar and Bahrain in the coming days.

Given that these visits are Haniyeh's first trip outside the Gaza Strip since 2007, their impact is unclear. However, given the increased prominence of Islamist movements in Egypt and Tunisia, the United States and Israel should keep a close eye on the outcomes of these visits, which likely have three objectives:

1) Haniyeh's visits are largely intended to raise Hamas' legitimacy and create new relationships with other Islamist movements in the region. It is also intended to legitimize Hamas in the eyes of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian Authority and the Fatah party must be careful about engaging with post-revolutionary states given their dependence on Israel and the United States for influence. In contrast, Haniyeh is openly engaging not only with several major players in the Arab world, but with Islamist leaders like Mohammed Badie in Egypt and Rached Ghannouchi in Tunisia as well.

2) Haniyeh's visits are intended to create a pro-Palestinian coalition in the Arab world by putting the Palestinian issue on the agenda of the Arab Spring. This move speaks to the broader trend of an internationalized Palestinian issue. Alongside political maneuvers at the UN, diplomatic visits abroad contribute to a (successful) policy of pressuring Israel via international proxies.

3) Haniyeh's visits are intended to raise the political salience of Hamas. They are a concrete example of non-violent steps Hamas is taking in order to increase its influence. By engaging with other Islamist political parties, Haniyeh is trying to associate Hamas with these movements which wield considerable political influence in their respective countries.

While today's defense strategic guidance document mentions the Arab Spring and supports Israel's security, it says little about engagement with political parties in the region. It will be important for the Obama administration to have clear strategies to achieve US objectives and support US allies in the region. The terms of engagement with Islamist groups will be one of the most important of these strategies.

Israel And Palestinians Agree To Disagree

2012-01-03T12:09:00.004-05:00

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators currently are meeting in Jordan at the behest of Jordanian FM Nasser Judeh. The meeting is largely a move by Jordan to increase its legitimacy among the international community, and perhaps with its Palestinian majority as well.

Both Israel and the Palestinians have extremely low expectations for the meeting. Israel today approved the construction of over 300 new housing units in the West Bank, while the Palestinians threatened to take unilateral steps should the talks fail.

The meeting is entirely an exercise in futility, and similar meetings are likely to result in a similar lack of progress in the near future. Here's why:

Israel and the Palestinians both have bargaining ranges. For a peace deal to be possible, these ranges would have to overlap. However, over the past year or so, Israel and the Palestinians have been careful to hold the lowest extreme of their bargaining range just outside the high extreme of the other side. The two sides are involved in a sort of reverse bargaining game, where the objective is to avoid, rather than create, disagreement. Their issue of choice is the settlements, which have become a toxic issue politically despite having only secondary importance on the ground. When the Palestinians refuse to take Israel seriously while settlement building is ongoing, and Israel refuses to freeze settlements, it creates an equilibrium of disagreement. This equilibrium prevents either side from having to actually make changes on the ground.

Since negotiations are designed to identify a specific agreement point within overlapping bargaining ranges, they are highly unlikely to be successful at the present time. International actors should avoid pushing for negotiations if they will be ineffective. Rather, they should work to push the incentive structures of the two governments closer together. Given the non-sustainability of the status quo, this pushing is largely a matter of altering perceptions. However, until both Israel and the Palestinians operationalize the understanding that peace is a strategic security interest, face-to-face negotiations will have little real-world effect.

One Year Later

2011-12-31T17:48:00.002-05:00

It is now 2012 in the Middle East. The new year brings along with it many uncertainties in the days and months to come. The region compared to just one year ago, is fundamentally different. While the final destination of this bus we call the Arab Spring is uncertain, it is clear that our ticket is one-way. Compared to a year ago, the region in 2012 is fundamentally changed.

Future generations will remember 2011 as a year in which the universal aspirations of humanity became crystal clear. For those risking life and limb in the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli, Damascus, and Manama, the values of freedom and self-determination are far more than words on paper. They are creeds; Rallying calls to end the era of oppression which for decades has stood between the Arab people and their destiny. Watching events unfold live on Arab satellite television, checking Facebook pages, and following feeds on Twitter, the whole world was swept up in the energy and proactivity of a young generation. Where this energy will lead is the question 2012 will begin to answer. But if the Arab Spring is a movie, we surely have seen only the first few minutes.

The new order in the Middle East brings with it many challenges. What will the role of Islamist parties be in government? Will they drive countries to radical fundamentalism, or act rationally to maintain the support of key constituencies on whom they depend?

Will the post-revolutionary states of the Middle East be able to transition fully to democracy? How much democracy is enough democracy? Will the rights of minorities be respected in this process? How long will it take before we can be sure?

While these questions raise the concern, and perhaps the fear, of outside observers, there are also many things in which we can take comfort: In the raw passion for change of the Arab revolutionaries. In the support of those outside the region who see young adults not unlike themselves making a difference. In the refusal of historically oppressed people to fear any longer. In the dedication to a cause which has cost far too many protesters their lives.

Perhaps most importantly, 2011 was a year in which the Middle East, against all odds, became better. It became a place where new opportunities flourished, where the flame of the human spirit ignited, and where the hopes and dreams of the future took root. As 2012 dawns, let us continue to make the region a freer, safer, more peaceful place.

שנה טובה
سنه سعيدة
Happy New Year

Knesset Cowardice For Christmas

2011-12-25T17:52:00.003-05:00

At a conference of Israeli ambassadors today, Foreign Minister Lieberman said that Israel should manage rather than solve its conflict with the Palestinians. The Foreign Minister then simultaneously rejected territorial concession while accusing the Palestinians of foot-dragging on negotiations. He reiterated his animosity towards Europe as well.

For his part, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that if Hamas joins the Palestinian Authority, Israel will not negotiate with the Palestinians. Netanyahu said he was willing to meet with Palestinian PM Abbas. However, the move appears to be yet another move by the Netanyahu administration to avoid meaningful progress on Israel's long-term security.

This kind of reticence and foot-dragging by Israel's administration reflects its populist approach to politics. Rather than actually addressing the reasonable concerns Israelis have about their security, the government is just parroting these concerns without doing anything about them. This strategy has been sustainable thus far because it generates popular support and job security for its ministers.

But creating job security for ministers is not leadership. Rather than simply reiterate the concerns of the public, governments are also expected to present solutions to those concerns. Saying "we understand your fear" does not keep Israelis safe. It also does not mitigate the threat posed by Hamas, nor by the Arab Spring, nor by European impatience with Israel.

Peace is not a utopian objective for Israel, but rather a strategic security interest. No one has more to gain from peace than Israel, but today's actions are more focused on making excuses than making these gains. The government may argue that expectations on it to proactively seek peace are unfair. But unfair conditions on Israel's government are par for the course. In 1948, when Israel was attacked simultaneously by six countries, that was also unfair. Yet Israel did what was necessary to ensure its security interests. It must do the same today.

These days, Israel's security threats are non-conventional. When people turn to the government for solutions, they get empathy. Empathy is incredibly important, especially in a country with the level of national trauma that Israelis have experienced. But empathy and a "Lu Yehi" mentality is not enough to stop Hamas, or a Palestinian statehood bid, or BDS, or rocket attacks. Only policy solutions can make Israel safer. And the only way to get those solutions is by having a government that leads its citizens rather than leaving today's problems for tomorrow.

The Netanyahu government's failure to engage meaningfully on these security challenges is not conditions-based. It is fear-based. The government is taking the easy way out by avoiding the hard work of security-building. Ultimately, it will be regular Israelis who pay the price.

How Israel Should Respond To Hamas 'Non-Violence'

2011-12-23T16:27:00.001-05:00

News of Hamas joining the P.L.O. and renouncing violence continues to stick in the headlines. Today, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal reiterated the group's alignment towards non-violence, noting that unarmed popular protests "have the power of a tsunami."

It is unlikely Hamas has permanently turned away from violence (see this book for an explanation why). Rather, it has calculated that in the present period, armed resistance is not likely to be either supported by Palestinians or effective. In this regard, Israel is right to be suspicious of a group whose charter from the late 1980's calls for armed resistance against Israel and has attacked Israeli civilians on countless occasions.

On the other hand, Hamas has signaled clearly a move towards non-violence because it is working. The Palestinian statehood bid at the U.N. has put significant international pressure on Israel. Protests in Palestinian towns like Bilin and Nabi Saleh continue to receive publicity in the international media. Israel is maintaining a status quo response to these changes, but given the high costs of doing so, cannot maintain these policies forever. Sooner or later it will have to make a policy shift.

A smart Israeli strategy right now would be to "trap" Hamas in its current policy of non-violence. This change in Hamas' policy is a reflection of a shift in its cost-benefit analysis. Whereas before Hamas calculated that the benefits of violence outweighed the costs, Hamas calculates today that the costs outweigh the benefits. Israel should make moves to cement the incentive structure which is currently keeping Hamas on the path of non-violence. That means raising the benefits to Hamas of non-violence while also raising the costs of a return to violence.

Concrete Israeli steps to cement this incentive structure include:

1) Easing the blockade on the Gaza Strip. Doing so could build support among moderate Palestinians for Hamas in Gaza. Hamas is concerned about losing popular support in the wake of the Arab Spring. This Israeli policy move would make Hamas less fearful about losing Palestinian support, which it often gets from being the party willing to "stand up" to Israel with violent attacks. By easing the blockade, Hamas would get the support, but be less likely to take drastic violent action. Israel could also send a clear signal that the shift was conditional on Hamas remaining non-violent, thus offering a stick as well as a carrot.

2) Maintaining contact with the P.L.O. and Palestinian Authority. Israeli disengagement from the Palestinian National Authority after Hamas won the 2006 elections undercut its ability to incentivize non-violent political action. Israel could learn from this mistake by engaging with the P.L.O. despite the fact that Hamas is now a part of it. Creating relationships also creates dependencies, and Hamas may think twice about a policy shift if it would mean losing the payoffs of its political investments.

3) Shift the burden of proof to Hamas. Israel loses credibility when Hamas says it is embracing non-violence and Israel doesn't respond in kind. Israel should react by calling Hamas' bluff. This means it should encourage steps which induce Hamas to send a costly signal that it is serious about non-violence. For example, it could offer increased humanitarian aid and ask Hamas to close arms smuggling tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza. That way, Hamas either complies and Israel wins, or Hamas doesn't comply - looking hypocritical - and Israel wins. Hamas is playing a careful rhetorical action game to trap Israel. Israel should play back, and play hard.

Israel's Irresponsible Foreign Ministry Leadership

2011-12-21T18:50:00.000-05:00

Update: Defense Minister Ehud Barak concurs.

Senior Israeli Foreign Ministry officials have called the U.N. Security Council discussion on Israel's settler violence "disgusting." In a move which even the right-leaning Jerusalem Post calls "undiplomatic," These senior officials attacked European countries for their criticism of settlements, settler violence, and a lack of progress towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Given Israel's already delicate position in the international community, these irresponsible comments damage the security of the state. They also impugn the reputation of employees of the Foreign Ministry serving abroad who are now forced to deal with these comments in discussions with their host governments.

European pressure towards Israel is nothing new. The Security Council's resolution on settler violence is also consistent with that of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the state. Senior members of the Foreign Ministry might disagree with the Prime Minister's position, or legitimately may regret the double standards the Security Council applies to Israel.

But international politics is not about fairness, and Europe's frustration over Israeli policy is the state of play in the region. This is a critical time in which Palestinians have been accepted into UNESCO and are vying for state recognition. Israel is facing increasing pressure by the international community over its presence in the West Bank, and several anti-democratic bills which have been taken up by the Knesset. One of these bills seeks to limit the funding states - including European states - can give to Israeli NGOs. Thus, the Foreign Ministry's claim that European countries are becoming irrelevant in Israeli politics is simply absurd.

Expecting that Israel will instruct its diplomats to be diplomatic is not a partisan one. Diplomacy is a basic tool of 21st century statecraft no matter who does it. Just as defense ministers should not be pacifist, foreign ministry leadership should not regularly reject the basic components of diplomacy.

Real leaders don't make excuses. They're too busy creating results. At the task of advancing Israel's posture in the international diplomatic arena, Israel's Foreign Ministry leadership is failing. Israelis deserve a diplomatic leadership which actually believes in diplomacy and uses it to protect the state, not cynical isolationists who would rather pick useless fights than create real progress and security for Israel.

Egyptian Salafists To Uphold Israel Peace Treaty

2011-12-20T19:24:00.001-05:00

Egypt's Salafist al-Nour party has announced for the first time that it intends to respect Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. Salafism is a radical Islamist school of thought, and Salafists tend to be substantially more fundamentalist that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. The news is therefore somewhat surprising to those who normally see Salafists in a threatening light.

On the other hand, disparities between the positions and policies of Islamist movements are both precedented and necessary in the uncertain electoral climate of the Middle East of 2011. For its part, al-Nour has fielded women candidates and generally refrained from religious rhetoric in its campaigning, though both these steps are somewhat inconsistent with Salafist ideology.

The significance of today's announcement is that it demonstrate's al-Nour's current lack of legitimacy. Recognizing the peace treaty legitimizes al-Nour among two key constituencies.

The first is the largely secular Egyptian public. To be sure, the Egyptian public is far from pro-Israel. That being said, Egyptians have far more important things with which to concern themselves than Egypt-Israel relations. Stating that it will not overturn the peace treaty is intended to demonstrate that al-Nour will not lose focus from the bigger issues confronting Egyptians. This helps to legitimize the otherwise extreme positions of Salafism, along with other steps the party has taken.

Secondly, the announcement legitimizes al-Nour in the eyes of the international community and the United States. The regional stability that the peace treaty creates is a key interest of EU countries and the United States. The exact balance of Islamist v. Secular parties in the Egyptian parliament is a second-level concern compared with Egypt's adherence to its international commitments. Al-Nour's statement will not likely give international players much confidence given the radical positions of Salafism. There is also no guarantee that al-Nour will renege on its statement at some point in the future. However, it gives European and American policymakers leverage at home to justify engagement with post-revolutionary Egypt.

Salafist parties will be very important players in elections in post-revolutionary states. In Tunisia, these parties have already caused unrest. In Egypt, a Muslim Brotherhood/al-Nour parliamentary coalition would have unpredictable and potentially harmful effects if incentive structures to encourage pragmatism are not erected. Today's announcement shows that al-Nour may be willing to meet secular constituencies and international parties halfway. That may not be far enough, but it's a good start. Israel's expression of willingness today to engage with Islamist groups is a smart move in this regard, and should be replicated by other states with interests in the region.

Arab Spring Is Good For Israel And The World

2011-12-18T16:38:00.009-05:00

The Jerusalem Post ran an editorial today claiming protesters in the Arab Spring have not created a better world nearly one year after it began. Citing Ismail Haniyeh - of all reliable sources - the article contends that since Hamas claims the Arab Spring helped Islamist movements, it is clearly bad for Israel.

This is a ridiculous claim, and a ridiculous editorial.

Ismail Haniyeh was speaking to a crowd of Islamists on the anniversary of the founding of Hamas. Saying the Arab Spring has helped Hamas to an Islamist crowd is as natural as a Republican saying they would annul Roe v. Wade in a presidential debate. But in neither case should we take the statement as indicative of actual policy.

Rather than looking at Hamas' rhetoric, look at its actions. The group has recently been more lenient in enforcing strict religious prohibitions in Gaza. That's because the group is reacting to the most important development of the Arab Spring: the empowerment of the Arab people.

Tunisia's Ennahda party and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood are also reassessing their role in their respective societies in the wake of the Arab Spring. Both have taken a more "moderate" stance, knowing that they must appeal to the vast majority of Arabs who are secular. This has brought uncertainty even within the groups themselves now that they must actually govern instead of criticize from the sidelines. Therefore, any statement that a country like Egypt "is on the fast track to becoming a totalitarian Islamic state" is irresponsible nonsense that not even the Muslim Brotherhood itself believes.

But the Islamist issue is also just one part of a larger picture. The real impact of the Arab Spring is the self-empowement of millions of people to achieve representation, freedom, and basic rights which are engrained in Israel's Declaration of Independence and Basic Laws. The people of the Arab world are joining Israel's alignment with liberal values in a way unprecedented in history. If the Arab Spring has had any impact over the past year, it has been to demonstrate the universality of the human desire for freedom and autonomy. This affirmation has indisputably made the world a better place in addition to creating new opportunities for Israel's long-term security.

This affirmation has not been in words alone. The protesters which the editorial disparages have been beaten, arrested, tortured, assaulted, and even killed for their commitment to freedom. The complications which the Arab people have been willing to take on is many times greater than the complications the protests have caused for governments. Their courage has inspired people around the world, across religious and ethnic lines, including Israelis.

It is clear the the empowerment of Islamist parties poses new challenges to the West, and Israel in particular. But policymakers must weigh these potential costs against the real benefit of the empowerment of millions of people. Given the way we in the pro-Israel camp champion Israel's record on human rights and values, there should be nothing scary about millions of Arabs declaring full support for these values.

Why The Reuters Israel Bias Study Is Flawed

2011-12-10T18:08:00.013-05:00

The traditional pro-Israel blogosphere has been buzzing with the release of an academic journal paper which claims Reuters employs anti-Israel propaganda in its reporting. Given that most of the evidence of anti-Israel bias in the press is anecdotal, an academic paper may lend considerable leverage to claims the media consistently discriminates against Israel in its reporting.

The paper suggests persuasively that anti-Israel bias may be at play in the media. But social science is not for suggesting. It is for demonstrating with a high degree of certainty that a given variable is causing a certain outcome. The difficulty of this task is perhaps the most intellectually honest reason many academics steer clear of policy-relevant research. Simply put, it's really hard to demonstrate anything to a high degree of certainty.

The author, a finance professor, begins by coding 50 Reuters articles randomly selected from the period of May 31 - August 31, 2010. He goes through each article with a list of 41 possible types of propaganda (rumors, euphemism, innuendo, etc), and classifies each instance of bias as one of these 41 types. Separately, he asks 33 college students to rate their affinity towards either the Israelis or Palestinians/Arabs, and their willingness to take unspecified supportive action on their behalf. The students then go through the same 50 articles, and answer the same two questions about their personal affinity after reading each one. The author finds that reading the articles shifted the students' perceptions towards the Palestinians in a statistically significant way.

Sounds pretty convincing, and for an editorial it certainly would be. But there are major flaws in the research design presented above from a social science perspective.

In the article, the author uses a fancy-sounding technique called ethnographic content analysis (ECA). Content analysis, as much as it pains this blogger to admit, is a fancy term for going through a document with a pen and circling stuff that's interesting. Ethnographic content analysis means going through the document and circling stuff "reflexively" rather than developing transparent, reliable, and fair definitions of the coding categories before doing the actual coding. It is a method even more subjective than normal content analysis. So when a pro-Israel professor goes through Reuters articles about Israel, it's hardly surprising that he finds evidence of anti-Israel bias.

This is even more the case given that the timeframe of the analysis covers the extremely emotional Gaza flotilla incident in which tempers flared on all sides of the Israeli-Arab conflict. A researcher would be hard pressed to find any truly objective account of the incident in any media or academic source.

Evidence of the author's subjectivity is compounded by the extremely questionable way in which the articles are coded. For example, the claim that the Gaza blockade harms 1.5 million Palestinians is coded as an "assertion." The UN and countless human rights groups say otherwise, indicating that this coding is false at worst and debatable at best.

The research design also has practically no controls. In other words, the coding scheme is the social science version of asking "George W. Bush: great president or greatest president?" Additionally, while the author begins by saying that demonstrating an intent to propagandize is nearly impossible for a researcher to do, he ends by accusing Reuters having an "explicit purpose to disseminate that [biased] ideology and manipulate audiences to adopt the same."

Furthermore, the student participants in the experiment read only Reuters articles. That means there is no way for the research design to speak to whether Reuters alone is engaging in so-called propaganda, nor whether students reading about an extremely emotional event (the Gaza flotilla raid) simply tend to side with Palestinians after being reminded of the incident. Nor does it demonstrate that college students are representative of Reuter's customers as a general population. Nor is the design able to speak to whether Reuters is biased or whether it is reacting to social norms about the use of force which the author considers unfair.

Most egregiously, the study tests for bias by essentially asking 33 college students, "Are you biased and if so, how much?" Such techniques are widely recognized as problematic in social science.

In conclusion, the article is far from conclusive proof of systematic propagandizing by Reuters. Attempts to explain Israeli-Palestinian media bias across academic disciplines (Vallone, Ross, and Lepper, 1985; Kressel, 1987; Giner-Sorolla and Chaikin, 1994; Gentzkow and Shapiro, 2006) have consistently pointed to the subjectivity of the coder rather than the media as the causal mechanism of the discovery of bias. This article ultimately is unconvincing at persuading the reader otherwise.

What Israel's Ad Dust-Up Says About US Jewry

2011-12-03T16:57:00.026-05:00

The decision by the Israeli government to pull an ad campaign encouraging Israeli expats to return to Israel is an attempt by Prime Minister Netanyahu to navigate the delicate subject of differences between the U.S. and Israeli Jewish communities. The case is an interesting one and illustrates the complexity of the relationship between U.S. Jews and Israel.

In particular, the outcry of some American Jewish organizations to the ads reflects the particulars of the norm against American Jewish criticism of Israel's government. The leadership of the Jewish Federations of North America and the Anti-Defamation League both condemned the ad campaign. ADL chairman Abraham Foxman has recently condemned what he considers anti-democratic legislation in the Knesset. However, the ADL also recently came out with a unity pledge, co-sponsored with the AJC. It called on American presidential candidates to avoid making Israel a campaign issue. But, it also called for "American voices raised together in unshakable support for our friend and ally," indicating reticence to condone criticism of the practitioners of U.S.-Israel relations.

The Israeli ad campaign dust-up indicates that there is a norm governing criticism of Israel's government. Despite calls for unity, the leaders of traditional American Jewish organizations clearly consider certain criticism legitimate at certain times. Statements from the centrist ADL and more conservative organizations like the ZOA and RJC demonstrate this point. Though their statements are directed at President Obama rather than Prime Minister Netanyahu, the criticism relates to particular tactics both leaders use in negotiating the U.S.-Israel relationship. However, for the American Jewish leadership to call for unity among the ranks while simultaneously entertaining criticism from its own apparatus is indicative of a deeper issue, one which goes beyond simple elitism.

Simply stated, the U.S. Jewish community lacks unity on Israel. The traditional American Jewish leadership is trying so hard to demonstrate unity of thought on Israel precisely because the community is ideologically fractured between traditionalists and progressives. The reason J Street is sanctioned for making similar statements to the ADL about democracy in Israel is because it is willing to openly acknowledge this fracture. Given that ideological unity is a source of political leverage, it is sensical for traditional Jewish leadership in the United States to uphold the illusion of unity for as long as possible. However, the new progressive voice in the conversation can no longer be ignored. Hillel's ideologically diverse pro-Israel initiative, the Talk Israel tent, is an excellent example of the best way for traditional American Jewish organizations to remain relevant, supported, and strong voices for Israel.

White House Saavy On Egypt

2011-11-28T20:26:00.012-05:00

The Obama administration's statement that religious parties can still maintain democratic principles is an extremely well-crafted diplomatic move. Taking the position is contentious, but ultimately will strengthen the U.S. posture in the Middle East for three reasons.

First, the Muslim Brotherhood often mobilizes supporters over animosity towards the West. This animosity is based on historical injustices as well as a perceived Western antagonism towards Islam. However, by legitimizing the ability of the Brotherhood to follow democratic principles, the United States has taken some of the wind out of the sails of this argument. In fact, U.S. support of the Brotherhood's presence in elections is a more tolerant position than that of some very secular Egyptians.

Second, and perhaps more cleverly, the United States has sent the Brotherhood a message about its expectations. Saying that the Brotherhood can maintain democratic principles is a subtle message that the United States expects the Brotherhood to do so. It also communicates that so long as the Brotherhood maintains these principles, it will not face direct resistance from the United States government. The statement thus sets up a clear objective, and incentives for the Brotherhood to meet this objective.

Finally, the Obama administration has begun the slow process of engaging more deeply with Egyptian society. Whether or not the administrations message was communicated directly to the Brotherhood, it is nonetheless a communication between the Brotherhood and the U.S. government. Additionally, the administration's position is relatively hands-off. It seeks to guide the outcome of elections to maintain democratic principles, but is not openly stating a preference for which party it wishes to see doing this. Its pro-democracy position is uncontroversial and the position of a majority of the Egyptian public, many of whom spent hours today waiting in line to vote in parliamentary elections.

Ultimately such pragmatic statements will serve the United States well in its engagement with the post-Mubarak Egypt and the post-revolution Arab world. While pragmatism may involve admitting some sub-optimal realities, these admissions are the first step to crafting smart policy which will advance the interests of the United States and its allies in the region.

Bibi Is On The Wrong Side Of History

2011-11-23T20:15:00.009-05:00

In Israel, the Arab Spring has generated an understandable level of fear. For a country whose security is premised largely on regional stability, protests across the region have created new challenges for Israel, which is right in the middle of the raging storm. Israelis feel, quite reasonably, as if a tsunami of chaos is right on their borders.

The Israeli government has also internalized these fears. However, rather than looking for solutions to the problem, leaders in the country are using populist rhetoric to generate partisan support. Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed the Arab world was moving backward, not forward, and claimed that those who pushed Egyptian President Mubarak to resign from power were "naive."

Such claims serve only to bolster the fears of Israelis rather than to orient the country towards a secure future. They also indicate that Israel's leadership is thinking in the short-term about a long-term problem. That the Arab Spring has proven a sea change is incontrovertible. Given its far-reaching impacts, looking to the long term is a vital first step in crafting a strategy to maintain, or even improve, Israel's regional security posture.

In this light, PM Netanyahu's open cynicism towards the Arab Spring harm's Israel's security posture for three reasons.

First, it promotes a mindset which looks for problems rather than solutions. Contrary to PM Netanyahu's claims, the Arab Spring offers unprecedented opportunities for Israel to begin a process of deeper engagement with the Arab public. The effect of this deeper engagement would be to humanize Israel and create understanding, if not empathy, for those who inhabit the country. While the benefits will not accrue overnight, the low cost of methods such as social media outreach means that the investment risk is marginal as well. Furthermore, given Israel's close alignment with the United States and hegemonic status in the region, Arabs are unlikely to view a Youtube video as a sign of weakness.

Secondly, the Arab Spring is incredibly popular. Citizens and governments in every corner of the globe have been moved by the sight of protesters in downtown Tunis, Tahrir Square, and Pearl Roundabout. Standing against the Arab Spring is not a popular position in the international community in which Israel's isolation has become critical. At a time when settlements, Israel's presence in the West Bank, and stalling on the Peace Process have made Israel unpopular, standing for the basic principles of the Arab Spring is an easy win for a country desperately in need of some diplomatic capital.

Finally, by spurning the Arab Spring, PM Netanyahu is making a statement about Israel's values more broadly. His administration draws international concern when it limits freedom to petition the Supreme Court, limits free speech, and targets left-wing NGOs. Domestically, there are political benefits to be gained for taking such positions, but internationally, such measures incur political costs. By standing against the Arab Spring, PM Netanyahu is extending this "freedom when convenient" mentality to one of the purest expressions of democratic will our generation will ever experience. He alienates the international community by spurning those who fight for the values enshrined in Israel's own Declaration of Independence which calls for an Israel based on the values of "freedom, justice, and peace."

All the Hasbara in the world cannot compensate for an Israel which showcases its commitment to liberal democratic values by supporting the protesters in the Arab Spring. These men and women literally are risking their lives for the chance to live with the same freedoms upon which Israel was founded. Supporting them and their endeavor may incur short-term costs, but surely there is no cause more pro-Israel than the creation of a just and equitable society for those who seek to overcome a history of oppression.

Opposition Grows To Israeli NGO Bill

2011-11-14T19:21:00.005-05:00

An Israeli Knesset committee approved yesterday two bills which would restrict foreign funding of "political" NGOs in Israel. The bill is widely considered to be targeted at left-wing NGOs such as the New Israel Fund and B'Tselem. A similar measure came before the Knesset this past July and failed.

One major difference between the last time the Israeli far right floated a similar bill and this time is that public opposition to the bill has been much higher this time around. In July, the measure was condemned by Leader of the Opposition Tzipi Livni and Meretz MK Nitzan Horowitz the same day the measure was defeated.

In contract, Livni today called the measure "Draconian" and Labor party leader Shelly Yachimovitch accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of "destroying Israel's strongholds of democracy." The United States and the European Union have also exerted pressure against the bill, and the EU's ambassador to Israel said passage of the bill could "hurt Israel's standing in the West as a democratic country." An Israeli NGO called "We Will Not Be Silent" has also released a graphic which is being posted widely on Facebook by centrist, leftist, and far-left Israelis:

Translation:

Welcome

To the Government of Israel

For its participation in the exclusive club of nations that impose limits on international financing of not-for-profit organizations.

Sincerely,

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Belarus, and China

The protests of the domestic and international community against the bill indicates an incontrovertible shift in the balance of political power in Israel. In July, the voice of Israeli opposition was almost non-existent. Today it is considerably more vocal, in the wake of two major events. First, this summer's housing protest movement showed that the Israeli government was not necessarily representative of the mainstream Israeli public. It also gave this public a sense of agency and a voice. Secondly, the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN demonstrated to Israelis the very real cost of Israel's diplomatic isolation and magnifies the importance of concern from the international community over the bill.

As with the last time around, PM Netanyahu will likely play a shrewd political game, and the bill will likely be defeated. However, the political salience of the issue this time is higher than before, meaning that its political impacts on the current governing coalition, and Israel as a whole, will be magnified.

Walt Gets It Wrong On US-Israel Relationship

2011-11-09T19:11:00.022-05:00

Professor Stephen Walt's smackdown of the new WINEP report on Israel is a perfect example of why he and Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago lack credibility on Israel.

Professor Walt is legitimate to broach the subject of the US-Israel relationship, and to make criticisms of the costs it incurs for the US. But in several places in the post his arguments contradict themselves, or claim two slightly different things at the same time. These missteps undermine the overall credibility of the piece.

For example, Walt contends that, "Today, Israel is the only country in the world that mainstream U.S. politicians (and most members of the foreign-policy establishment) cannot openly criticize. It is the only country in the world that U.S. presidents cannot pressure in any meaningful way."

These statements are dramatic, but they are also demonstrably false. Open criticism from such as Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, has been met with righteous indignation from the traditional pro-Israel community, but occurs nonetheless. Clearly, there is a difference between criticism being unpopular and being impossible. Walt admits this fact himself earlier in the piece but equivocates on which he believes to be the case.

While their absolute ability to pressure Israel indeed is limited, President Bush and President Obama (thus far) have both successfully pressured Israel to refrain from attacking Iran. Once again, Walt conflates his own argument, equating "difficult to pressure" with "cannot pressure." More importantly, to say Israel is the only country Presidents have trouble exerting pressure is just not the case. Analysts of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for example, would be very surprised to hear such a statement.

Perhaps the weakest of Professor Walt's arguments, however, is that the special relationship between the US and Israel is a lightning rod for terrorism, claming that there is an "enormous body of evidence suggesting that U.S. support for Israel was a key cause (though not the only one) of our terrorism problem."

The argument has some validity in that a shift in US policy towards a more neutral position would probably delegitimize the claims of some Islamic insurgent groups. If this were to facilitate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that would also defang these claims. But Walt also expresses support for a "normal" US-Israel relationship at the same time. So what exactly is motivating terrorism, the special relationship or US-Israel relations in general? Yet again, Walt's piece claims both at the same time.

And while there is evidence US-Israel policy raises the ire of Islamic insurgent groups, to say there is an "enormous" body of evidence that US support for Israel is a "key" cause of terrorism against the US is a stretch. US killing of Muslims, humiliation of prisoners in places like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the occupation of Muslim lands in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and support for "apostate" regimes are far more salient grievances for terrorists than US support for Israel.

While bloggers making exaggerations is nothing new, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one rife with misinformation and misrepresentation. Professor Walt's attempt to expand the debate on US-Israel policy is likely earnest and well-intentioned. However, representing the truth as a larger-than-life set of talking points only delegitimizes the otherwise strong points he raises in response to the WINEP report. Challenging the dominance of one point of view on Israel is a worthy and legitimate task, but those who raise this challenge undermine themselves by devolving into half-truths and sound bytes. The pro-Israel left must come to terms with the fact that it will be most successful when it simply lets the truth speak for itself.

Obama And Sarko: The Problem Is Bibi, Not Israel

2011-11-08T18:45:00.010-05:00

Today's news of comments French President Sarkozy and US President Obama made about Israeli PM Netanyahu come as no surprise to anyone the least bit in touch with Israeli foreign policy as of late. The quick comments about Netanyahu being a "liar" and difficult to "deal with...everyday" illustrate the extent to which the Prime Minister is alienated in the international community.

Such stories are blood in the water for those asympathetic to the Obama administration, and the next few days are likely to see a race to the bottom of which partisan pundit can feign the most shock and make the most outrageous demands on the President. For those closer to the center, the story presents an opportunity for the Obama administration to make amends with the Netanyahu administration. Given the decidedly unprofessional tenor of the President's comments, this request is reasonable, although it is not clearly in his interest to oblige.

While the Obama administration will need damage control here in Washington, Prime Minister Netanyahu's position is more serious. While Israelis are generally not fans of President Obama, they also value a strong US-Israel relationship. Israel's relationship with the international community is particularly critical as the UN Palestinian statehood bid makes its way through the security council.

But the fact that President Sarkozy and President Obama's comments were about Netanyahu versus Israel is proof positive that policy differences are primarily responsible for the ongoing tension between Israel and the international community. Obama and Sarkozy's comments had nothing to do with Israel as a country, and everything to do with the conduct of the current Israeli administration. That the comments were a regrettable reflection of poor relations is a given. However, to extrapolate a private aside into a fatalistic account of Israel's tragic relationship with the rest of the world would be a stretch given the content of these comments.

UNESCO Recognizes Palestine

2011-10-31T22:02:00.009-04:00

Today UNESCO voted to admit Palestine as a member state. Due to legislative restrictions, the Obama administration was forced to cut funds to the UN body, which derives about 22% of its budget from the United States. The move is a coup for the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations, which has long sought full recognition as a member state and recently submitted a formal bid for statehood to the General Assembly.

Legislation passed by Congress in the 1990's banned the US from supporting any UN body which accepted Palestine as a full member. However, as the Palestinians continue to push their case at the UN, this legislation will increasingly stand to harm US interests, a point to which State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland alluded in her press conference earlier today. Given the multilateral approach of the Obama administration, spearheaded by State, no one in the administration is thrilled to be cutting aid to UNESCO. The body supports Holocaust education, African youth empowerment, and diversity promotion, causes which are very awkward for the United States to stand against. The move is also likely to spur tension between the administration and Congress, whose strongly pro-Israel members today called the UNESCO vote "an affront to the international peace process" as well as "anti-Israel and anti-peace."

Given the approach of an election year, the Obama administration's negotiations with Congress over the terms of legislation relating to Israel are not likely to be high profile. However, they should serve as a warning for the upcoming UN vote on Palestinian statehood. In this case, knee-jerk reactions to Palestinian admission ended up backfiring on the United States. They failed as a deterrent to the Palestinian leadership, which instead allowed these knee-jerk reactions to create international pressure on the US and Israel. This international pressure harms Israel by limiting the diplomatic leverage of its key ally, to say nothing of harming the key ally itself. Pro-Israel actors should keep this harm in mind in the wake of today's vote, and in the shadow of votes to come.

Partisan Chutzpah On Israel

2011-10-25T19:21:00.009-04:00

Adam Kredo at Washington Jewish Week reports a spat between the ADL/AJC and conservative pro-Israel groups over a so-called "unity pledge" which asked leaders and political candidates to refrain from making Israel a partisan issue in the upcoming campaign. Justifiably, some have raised objections as to whether unity truly serves the value of pro-Israel discourse, and whether such a pledge is really enforceable in the highly partisan political environment of Washington DC.

Except that those raising these objections are guilty of doing the same thing. The level of hypocrisy in the American Jewish discourse on Israel has reached a new high.

The same organizations which have historically called for unity, sanctioning those who disagree with all but their own point of view, suddenly care about discourse and free speech. Organizations which mercilessly berate their counterparts with misrepresentations and smear jobs have evidently seen the light about having a civil conversation about Israel. In this twisted reality, calling on Israel to embrace the two-state solution is bad for the US-Israel relationship. Defaming the President of the United States is not.

American discourse on Israel requires both liberal and conservative voices to operate effectively. To productively contribute to vigorous debate over the US-Israel relationship, the organizations involved in this tiff need not change what they believe nor how much passion they invest in issues about which they care deeply. They just need to grow up. Political maturity will sustain the US-Israel relationship, but political hackery will destroy it. This pro-Israel infighting helps no one.

Bibi Gets Heat From The Right

2011-10-22T17:17:00.005-04:00

In the wake of tonight's stabbing of a 17 year old in Jerusalem, right wing MKs have wasted no time in going on the offensive. In comments linking the stabbing to this week's prisoner release for Gilad Shalit, several of these MKs have accused the Netanyahu administration of "surrendering" to Hamas.

That many of these comments from Likud MK Danny Danon is significant. While MK Danon is outspoken on a number of issues, he is not as radical as many of his counterparts on the far-right. Such criticism from a prominent member of the Prime Minister's own party reflects the deep internal divide in the Knesset over the prisoner swap deal earlier this week. During the cabinet vote on the deal, Netanyahu's coalition partner - Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman - voted no and walked out of the session. Additionally, earlier tonight Likud MK and Israeli Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon called Netanyahu's offer to freeze some settlement building for a return to talks tantamount to "ethnic cleansing." The Netanyahu administration is receiving heat, and not only from the far right.

Such pressures are likely to force PM Netanyahu to harden his government's line in order to prevent further fracturing of his coalition. The national excitement over the return of Gilad Shalit will soon wear off, but many members of the Prime Minister's coalition are expert grudge-holders. This pressure to hardline also comes as the UN is considering a Palestinian statehood bid which, regardless of outcome, will isolate Israel in the international community. At the same time, Prime Minister Netanyahu has faced this challenge before, including during his current term as Prime Minister. While the pressure is growing, it will not be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Today.

Is 1027:1 A Racist Ratio?

2011-10-17T19:06:00.010-04:00

A well known song in Israel by the hip-hop group Hadag Nachash goes "I to am like all the Jews, concerned with numbers 24/7." This week, that number is 1027, the total number of Palestinian prisoners to be freed in exchange for Cpl. Gilad Shalit tomorrow morning. This week's rigorous debate over the prisoner release in Israel comes at the culmination of over five years of discourse over the issue. No point of consensus has yet been reached, and its unlikely such consensus will arrive.

Outside of Israel, including here in Washington, there are those who have made the argument that the deal is indicative of a double-standard on Israel's part. The argument is that Israel devalues Palestinian life as evidenced by the 1027:1 ratio of prisoners involved in the swap. For a single Israeli life, Israel is willing to trade 1027 Palestinian lives, a gaping disparity between its valuation of the two sides of the equation. This argument is controversial but also powerful. More importantly, it raises the question of morality in policymaking, an often-ignored but important facet of the field.

In some ways, the argument is valid. States do consistently value the lives of their own citizens over the lives of non-citizens. Analysts may attribute racial or cultural differences to the disparity, and such attributions may be legitimate. Israel's valuation of Israeli life above Palestinian life is evident in the conditions imposed on Palestinians through land blockades on the Gaza Strip, checkpoints and arbitrary detention in the West Bank, and disregard for historical land claims along the route of the Separation Barrier.

But does this valuation somehow impugn the legitimacy of the prisoner swap scheduled for tomorrow? It's unclear that it doesn't, but it's also unclear that it does.

Firstly, those in the Palestinian leadership making the argument are themselves benefitting from the prisoner release. This point does not undermine the internal validity of the argument. However, it does undermine the credibility of some of its major advocates. It would be akin to someone attending a protest on oil dependence driving an SUV 6 hours to get there. The action alone doesn't delegitimize the argument but it should call into question the credibility of the actor making it.

Secondly, the argument implies that the morally superior decision for Israel would have been not to negotiate at all. Since negotiating a 1027:1 prisoner swap devalues Palestinian life, the argument implies that given Israel's choice between the asymmetric 1027:1 or the symmetric 0:0, the latter would be the optimal (more moral) choice. It bears mention that this has in fact been Israel's choice for the past five years. Thus, while the final terms may be asymmetrical, they are hardly the result of spurious action by Israel. 1027 after over 5 years of political ramifications is not the same as 1027 a week after the kidnapping. Truly demonstrating the swap is immoral requires accounting for many other variables over the 5-plus year period. If the swap is immoral, it is not only on these grounds.

Finally, one must keep in mind that policy is ultimately about tradeoffs. At the end of the day, the Israeli government valued annulling the liability of an Israeli soldier and saving his life over the release of 1027 prisoners. The move, while controversial, will likely benefit PM Netanyahu, his government, the Israeli state, and the Israeli people. No policy advisor in any country in the world would have argued that Cpl. Shalit should not be brought back on the grounds that it was immoral to devalue the lives of Palestinian prisoners by releasing so many of them. To point out the gaping disparity may be legitimate but it is hardly useful from a policymaking standpoint.

In consideration of such controversial and sensitive questions, it is important to keep an open mind. While each of the above points are salient, none ultimately undermines the original argument entirely. Ultimately, such considerations usually brood only more questions. Given Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories, is the prisoner swap the best example of a double-standard with regards to Palestinians? Would any country in the world have acted more morally? Does the swap say more about Israel or about Hamas?

To be continued(?)

3 Likely Political Effects of the Shalit Deal

2011-10-11T21:04:00.009-04:00

Earlier this evening the Israeli cabinet approved a deal by a vote of 26-3 which would free IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit. FM Avigdor Lieberman, National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau, and Vice PM Moshe Ya'alon voted against the deal. In exchange for Corporal Shalit, abducted in 2006, Israel will release 1027 Palestinian prisoners.

The deal is likely to have three key effects:

1) Bump Netanyahu in the polls. Gilad Shalit's cause resonates deeply with Israelis, the vast majority of whom have served in the IDF themselves. The return of Corporal Shalit will be the feel-good story of the decade in Israel, and PM Netanyahu will receive great credit for overseeing the deal. While criticism from the far right may have negative implications for his coalition, the mainstream Israeli center likely will value the return of Cpl. Shalit over the inevitable exchange of prisoners it required.

2) Increase the regional political salience of Hamas. Hamas has been marginalized by the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN. Its strategy thus far has been to oppose the bid, lay low, and wait for an opportunity to spoil any move towards reconciliation between Israel and the PA. The release of Cpl. Shalit will put Hamas on the radar of the West in a way it hasn't been for a while. From the Gazan side, Hamas will likely receive credit for the release of 1027 prisoners. The prisoners issue is a very sensitive one among Gazans, meaning that this credit will likely come with emotional value for all Gazans.

3) Build confidence between Israel and Egypt. Egypt was instrumental in moderating the deal between Israel and Hamas. Given the turmoil in Egypt, many Israelis fear a slide towards extremism there. However, the deal demonstrates that Egypt's relationship with Israel is still good enough that it will play a constructive role in Israel's tense relationship with Hamas.

COIN, Settler Style

2011-10-06T18:57:00.005-04:00

The past four days have seen a disturbing spike in Israeli settler violence. On Monday, settlers torched a mosque in Zangaria, in Israel's northern region. Today, settlers physically assaulted IDF soldiers on patrol near the Shilo settlement after rumors spread that one of the nearby illegal outposts was to be evacuated.

The response of the Israeli government and people thus far has been both predictable and heartening. Political and religious leaders have roundly condemned the attack, and an Ultra-Orthodox newspaper called the attack 'insane.' Nonetheless, such attacks are bound to continue as the future of the settlements becomes less and less certain in the wake of increasing Israeli international isolation over its presence in the West Bank. The government is right to take the threat of right-wing settler violence seriously.

What similar cases - including the Palestinian case - have shown, however, is that condemnation can only go so far. That there is a hardcore group of irreconcilable settlers who will not be deterred ideologically from committing violence is an unfortunate given. However, a complacent or ambivalent reconcilable settler population will only impair Israel's ability to prevent further violence.

Given that the moderate settler community is a critical swing population, the Israeli government should enhance its outreach efforts to them.

Outreach does not have to mean concessions or political promises. In fact, empty political promises are more likely to breed animosity in the long run than honest and candid discussion. But engagement to actively keep the majority of settlers aligned with the Israeli government versus radical settler groups will be key to winning the fight against those who would attack civilians or soldiers for political gain.

For its part, the US should support these efforts, and look for opportunities to engage settlers when it can. While DC analysts often view settlers as the heart of the problem in the Middle East, advancing US objectives there requires engaging with moderate settlers whether their political agendas align with those of the State Department or not.

Panetta's Israel Visit A Carrot And Stick Game

2011-10-03T19:20:00.012-04:00

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's trip to Israel comes at a critical moment. In the wake of the submission of a bid for Palestinian statehood at the UN, and a US-Israel relationship increasingly being framed in terms of defense, the Secretary's visit is an important strategic move by the United States and the Obama administration.

SecDef Panetta is trustworthy from the Israeli perspective. He is former director of the CIA, and has intricate knowledge of US-Israel defense cooperation. While diplomatically the US and Israel have had differences over the past three years, US-Israeli defense cooperation has only increased. Sending SecDef Panetta is a good way for the administration to exploit its strengths vis-a-vis the Israeli government. In an election year, this objective has heightened importance.

At the same time, the changing of the guard at the Pentagon allows Panetta a chance to introduce policy modifications. While heading the department with the closest alignment with Israel, Panetta called for Israel to "try to develop better relationships" with its neighboring countries, a rather explicit recommendation which may very well have been condemned had it come from the White House.

But there is another important message the Obama administration is sending with Panetta's trip. By sending SecDef Panetta this diplomatic round, the US has created a strong incentive for Israel not to alienate their American point of contact. The SecDef has extensive executive authority and is low enough in the chain of command that his message can be slightly less politically sterile than the President. While embarrassing Vice President Biden was a diplomatic fiasco in and of itself, alienating the American Secretary of Defense would be far more risky for Israel. Not only would there be a risk that physical aid to Israel might be jeopardized, but also the political cost in Israel would be higher. Israelis may have their disagreements with the Obama administration, but they also understand the US-Israel relationship to be of high strategic importance.

SecDef Panetta's offers the Israeli government an opportunity to strengthen the core of its relationship with the United States. However, it carries with it the risk of alienating one of the US government's most important principals from the Israeli perspective. In this regard, Secretary Panetta's visit is both a carrot and a stick.

In UN Statehood Showdown, No Winners

2011-09-23T16:31:00.011-04:00

Today, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas submitted a formal application for Palestinian UN membership to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Prime Minister Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu both spoke before the UN General Assembly as well, laying out their respective cases, and showcasing the stark disconnect between the two leaders.

Prime Minister Abbas' speech was a nationalist and hard-lining text typical of Palestinian leadership. While speaking of the desire for Palestinian statehood and peace, Prime Minister Abbas referred to Israel's presence in the West Bank as both "colonial" and as an "apartheid," while saying nothing of systematic terrorism campaigns in which Palestinian leaders like Yasser Arafat have had historic complicity.

Given the tone of the speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu's optimal strategy was to reiterate a desire for negotiations, highlight the efforts it has taken towards peace, and reiterate his acceptance of the 2-state solution. The Prime Minister did make these points...eventually.

However, he began by insulting the United Nations and the press from the podium of the UN General Assembly. His speech, rambling at times, had the tone of an off-the-record conversation in a Likud party office, not an official statement of Israeli policy. Given the global audience, and historical importance of the moment, the Prime Minister squandered a key opportunity to delegitimize the Palestinian statehood bid and frame Israel as the moderate centrist in the conflict. Instead the Prime Minister chose to invoke "crocodiles" of radical Islam, 9/11, the Holocaust, and Israel's archaeological past. That the UN has held blatant double-standards against Israel is clear. But the place to make that point is not on the podium of the General Assembly.

As the bid moves forward, the Prime Minister's inability to create international support, especially support cobbled together with the assistance of the US, will continue to be a diplomatic and security liability to the State of Israel. The Prime Minister's speech today was the diametric opposite of hasbara. It made moderate centrists less pro-Israel, not more. It harmed Israel's diplomatic leverage in the international community rather than helping it. Most importantly, it showcased an Israeli leadership completely out of touch with reality on the ground and in the international community. While the Prime Minister will sleep safe in New York City tonight, residents of Sderot and Ashkelon will sleep under the threat of rocket fire. Palestinians will sleep ready for another day of systematic discrimination. The conflict will perpetuate for another day. There have been no winners.

Palestinian Statehood: The Score So Far

2011-09-22T19:10:00.006-04:00

Tomorrow the UN Security Council will consider a motion for Palestinian Statehood in a long-awaited motion which has created diplomatic challenges for all parties involved. Trying to predict the short and long-term outcome of the bid would be largely an exercise in futility, and the various possibilities are clearly laid on on the table. However, leading into the bid, there are three clear diplomatic effects the bid has already created.

1) The US-Israel relationship has strengthened. It's not every day MK Danny Ayalon of the Yisrael Beiteinu party says "We have not had a better friend than President Obama" next to the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. That President Obama went to bat for Israel yesterday at the UN General Assembly has not gone unappreciated by the Israeli administration, resulting in strong statements of support from both sides. For President Obama, support for Israel also takes the wind out of the sails of Republican presidential candidates who accuse him of being less than supportive.

2) US soft power among the Palestinian people has degraded. The President's UN speech sparked protests in Ramallah and Gaza City. Some Palestinians feel that despite the President's rhetoric on settlements and the 1967 borders, he has ultimately thrown the Palestinians under the bus in the diplomatic sense. Given the delicate balance the US needs to strike on this issue, alienation of Palestinians may be an unfortunate but necessary cost. However, if the bid were to result in mass peaceful protests, the US would be in an even more awkward position, trying to balance its support for free speech with its opposition to the bid. Its leverage in this situation would be somewhat constrained.

3) Israel has ramped up its peace rhetoric. Given that it already has US support and that the Palestinian leadership controls the tempo of diplomacy, the Israeli administration can call for negotiations and talks without having to actually put anything on the table. By offering negotiations too late for the Palestinians to accept without losing face, Israel can point to a Palestinian refusal to engage as proof that it wants peace more than the Palestinians. If the international community wishes to pressure Israel in the future, this action will constrain its ability to engage the Israeli administration on its own terms.

Netanyahu Plays Peacemaker

2011-09-19T18:56:00.005-04:00

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to sit for peace talks in New York today, as the UN vote on Palestinian statehood creeps ever closer. The bid, which the US plans to veto if passed, has been the subject of significant consternation by Israel and the international community.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's move comes extremely late in the game. The call for negotiations is not 11th hour but it is pretty close. It is also an escalation from the Prime Minister's signaling late last week that he would be open to raising the level of Palestinian representation at the UN. The move towards negotiations now is likely the result of pressure from two sides. On the one hand, Prime Minister Netanyahu is likely under pressure from the United States to present the Palestinians with an alternative that can be a basis for negotiations at best, and undermine the bid's legitimacy at worst. On the other hand, Netanyahu faces domestic criticism including today's comments by opposition leader Tzipi Livni that he is damaging the US-Israel relationship in being intransigent towards the Palestinians.

Signaling a desire to come to the table, however, is an excellent political move by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Floating a willingness to negotiate in the days leading up to the bid will shield him from domestic criticism that he was intransigent. Furthermore, as with his handling of the settlement issue, Netanyahu's call will align with the United States soon enough that he can't be accused of antagonism, but late enough that the move is drained of most of its political salience. The latter component will be critical for Netanyahu's standing with his far-right coalition. Finally, the call for negotiations is consistent with Prime Minister Netanyahu's stated policies up to this point (though in practice it may be another story).

The two key questions now are whether PM Abbas sees the call for negotiations as in his interest, and if so, whether he can sit down to negotiations while saving face. Some analysts argue that Abbas intended the statehood bid as a mechanism to push Israel into negotiations in the first place. Furthermore, entering negotiations has payoffs for Abbas in terms of real gains on the ground. However, given the critical stage of the bid and the immense pressure he would be under to produce tangible results, Abbas may very well let the statehood bid go forward, calculating that he could sit down for negotiations after the statehood bid as well as beforehand.

Jews In Palestine: Anatomy Of A Meme

2011-09-14T16:39:00.021-04:00

Yesterday's USA Today features an article with the headline "PLO Ambassador Says Palestinian State Should Be Free of Jews." The somewhat alarming headline was also reported in the conservative Daily Caller, and has received extensive coverage in Haaretz, JPost, and Yediot Achronot.

At a breakfast in Washington DC yesterday morning hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, a conservative Daily Caller reporter asked the PLO representative to the US whether a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah in a future Palestinian state. USA Today and the Daily Caller both framed his response as calling for Palestine to be free of Jews. But there is more to the story than meets the eye.

The first red flag is that USA Today quotes noted neo-conservative and CFR senior fellow Elliot Abrams. Given the quick turn-around time of the article, it is likely the journalist, Mr. Dorell, had a prior relationship with the highly sought-after Mr. Abrams. For his part, Mr. Dorell has a track record of conservative reporting. The right-wing website Real Clear Politics links to an earlier article Mr. Dorell published about the conservative fear of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt. In another article, he cites noted far right ideologue and Islamophobe Robert Spencer as a reliable source on Islam.

Jamie Weinstein, who reported the story for the Daily Caller, betrays a bias in her email to the Jerusalem Post about the story, saying "We hear nothing from the world community when the Palestinian ambassador to the US calls for a Jew-free state. Pushing for a state for the Palestinian Arabs is well and good, but it seems like the world should spend a little bit of time pondering what sort of state it will be." Legitimate as the sentiment may be, it is certainly not that of an unbiased observer.

That conservatives write conservative articles is certainly not a news story. But when a series of conservative journalists break a "big story" based entirely on one conservative person's interpretation of parts of a quote, it raises serious questions about the story's legitimacy.

Here's what Maen Areikat is actually reported to have said:

“Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future...But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first."

Firstly, the statement doesn't actually answer the question. Secondly, its message is that building Palestinian autonomy is the first priority of a Palestinian State. In no part of the answer does Mr. Areikat actually talk about deporting Jews from a future Palestine. This means that how one reads the comments is largely a matter of personal biases and interpretation.

However, emotionally charged half-truths spread like wildfire in the Middle East, and among the American Jewish community. Since most conservative supporters of Israel are primed to read any Palestinian statement as anti-Israel, the story at hand will not die simply because it happens to not actually be true.

Petty partisanship aside, the story demonstrates how poorly Israel's response to the upcoming Palestine bid for has been managed. Complaining about hypothetical discrimination in a non-existent state means little to an international community who sees the ongoing Israeli presence in the West Bank as contributing greatly to the conflict. Smoke-screening has failed Israel as a tactic time and time again. To mitigate the expected harm to Israel's international reputation and security, the state needs to present alternatives to the status quo and help those who support Israel to bring an effective case to the public.

A Big Test For The Israeli Left

2011-09-12T18:54:00.005-04:00

Israelis voted today in primaries for the center-left Labor party. At present, there appears to be a runoff between MK Shelly Yachimovitch and MK Amir Peretz. Turnout in the primary was about 65% of eligible party voters.

The runoff election will be comparable in many ways to the Democratic primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the start of the 2008 election season. Shelly Yachimovitch is comparable to Obama: She draws enthusiasm from young voters, has never held party leadership, and runs a social justice agenda. Amir Peretz is comparable to Hillary Clinton: a seasoned politician who runs the party line. Peretz led the Labor party between 2005 and 2007, and having served as Israel's Defense Minister during the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

Given that Israel votes using a closed list system, in which candidates are ranked prior to the election, the runoff will be a rare occasion for new blood in the upper echelons of the Israeli government. However, the two candidates who will drop out of the running, Amram Mitzna and Isaac Herzog, are also party regulars. It is likely that their constituencies would be more inclined to choose Peretz in the runoff.

The outcome of the runoff will have important implications for the political influence of the Israeli center-left. A more mobilized Labor party may be a tough constituency to keep inside the current Netanyahu government's coalition, especially considering its strong far right wing component. The burden would be greater should labor come under Yachimovitch leadership. Either way, the vote is a key test for the Israeli left as its constituents decide in what direction to take the Labor party.

This 9/11, The World Needs Humanity

2011-09-11T17:57:00.004-04:00

Today's 10th anniversary of 9/11 was the first time the day has been commemorated as history rather than a recent event. For the families and friends of the victims of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, today was a day of reflection at having reached a milestone of grief. Ten years later, America is still very much a wounded country which questions its future. Al-Qaeda's strength has been diminished, but the fear and uncertainty has only slightly begun to dissipate from a tragedy which has scarred the American psyche for years to come.

Despite mistakes (and there were egregious mistakes) made in the wake of 9/11, the tragedy brought not only Americans together, but all of humanity as well. In the days after the attacks, citizens of countries the world over stood side by side with Americans. The unity was not a calculated act of political alignment, but something more basic than that. It was an expression of human decency, and an affirmation that before we are citizens, we are people. Today, in Ottawa, in Paris, in Jerusalem, the global community gathered again to demonstrate that, despite political differences, humanity reaffirms its commitment to itself.

But others chose to use the power of the day for their political agenda. Unable to wait for September 12th, and 13th, and 14th, and 15th, some decided to make today about politics, and ill-conceived wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about American exceptionalism. The arguments may be fair, and well reasoned. But they are indicative of the extent to which we are unable to see past politics, even on September 11th, 2011. The outcome was dissonant contention on a day which should have been marked by dignity and peace.

We live in an age when people are more connected than any time in history. Yet we still are so often unable to overcome the artificial boundaries of politics. To mourn some is not enough. To fight to strengthen only part of humanity is not enough. To feel pain only on behalf of Egyptian soldiers or only civilians riding to Eilat is insufficient. Both groups had human value, and neither deserved to be targeted. To start deeper conflicts over the plethora we already have is foolish and shows how quickly we channel loss into resentment, sadness into hatred, and a need to heal into more pain.

On this 9/11, we must reaffirm that while our world has changed these past ten years, our humanity has not. Our fates are bound together, and together we will succeed in meeting the challenges which confront us. Let us not turn a blind eye to any human who suffers. Let us not value one life above another. And let us revisit our shock and raw grief today, so that tomorrow we may commit to the amelioration of the human condition wherever it needs our help.

Shalom Salaam Peace.

Israel Can No Longer Ignore the Egyptian Public

2011-09-09T17:29:00.005-04:00

Egyptian protesters knocked down a wall around the Israeli embassy in Cairo and torn down the Israeli flag for the second time today. As of present, the protesters have also breached the embassy and eyewitnesses are reporting that protesters are throwing down Hebrew documents from the window. The situation remains volatile and ongoing.

The anger which the protesters are expressing has been brewing for decades under a Mubarak regime which aligned far more closely with Israel than the Egyptian public. But while the Mubarak regime acted with little regard for the Egyptian public, it's policy was based on security interests, not any love for Israel. As a result, Egyptians have had little contact with Israelis, and Israel has had very little penetration into the Egyptian public sphere. This means that anger and frustration with Israel has been removed from serious consideration of Israel's side of the story.

The reaction in the Israeli and American Jewish community so far is one of fear. A breach of an Israeli embassy is a serious matter which is likely to put even more pressure on an already delicate relationship between the Israeli government and the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). Cynics will point to the riots as proof of pervasive anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world.

In the short term, Israel's primary interest is of course to secure its diplomatic personnel and reassure its public that the event does not threaten Israel's borders. In the long term, however, the tactical prescription is clear, and must occur imminently. After the fall of President Mubarak, Israel has no choice but to engage the Egyptian public.

There are a number of Egyptians expressing concern at the chaos happening at the Israeli embassy. They argue the actions are brash and detract from the real purpose of the January 25th revolution. By empowering these moderate elements (signaling in press engagements that Israel doesn't consider violent rioters the majority of the Egyptian public, for example), Israel can help delegitimize future riots and begin building the foundation of a public diplomacy strategy in Egypt which addresses some of the misperceptions Egyptians may have about Israel.

Already, Israel has made significant progress in its engagement with the Arab world. The government's social media presence in Arabic is impressive, and there are two IDF Arabic spokesmen (Avichai Adraee and Ofir Gendelman) who regularly appear on Arabic satellite media. The next step will be to hone not only the language of the message, but the information it conveys. Empathizing with the frustration of the Egyptians and facilitating engagements between Israeli and Egyptian citizens will be key first steps to this effort.

Of course, not all of the protesters and those who oppose Israel are motivated by raw emotion. Some are frustrated over the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and many fear Israel's military prowess. In its policy deliberations, the cost of capital in the Arab public sphere should be a serious consideration given its very real impact today in Cairo. Policy changes may incur short-term costs domestically, but the protests are yet another reminder that Israel's current strategy in the West Bank and Gaza is unsustainable. Israel is not to blame for the radical and dangerous actions of the protesters in Cairo. But there are political and diplomatic steps it can take to assure the integrity of its embassy and a better strategic relationship with Egypt in the future.

Turkey And Israel Stay Frenemies

2011-09-06T19:26:00.010-04:00

The State Department expressed concern today about the deteriorating ties between Turkey and Israel. Last Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed "regret for the loss of life," but stopped short of apologizing for the IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara which killed 9 Turkish citizens on May 31, 2010. On Thursday, Turkey refused to urge the UN to with hold publication of the Palmer Report on the incident because Israel had maintained a refusal to apologize. That afternoon, before the incident had a chance to play itself out, the Palmer Report was leaked to the New York Times. On Friday Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador and top diplomatic staff. This morning, Turkey suspended defense ties with Israel and warned of more sanctions on Israel. It also plans to challenge the legality of Israel's naval blockade at the Hague.

These deteriorations come after the Palmer Report concluded the naval blockade was legal, though it expressed serious concerns about Israel's land blockade. While the report accused the IDF of escalating too quickly, not broadcasting an intention to board the Mavi Marmara, and possibly roughing up detained passengers, the report is being seen in Israel as a rare victory at the UN. Given the general anti-Israel sentiments of the UN, its consideration of the naval blockade as legal is a diplomatic coup for Israel.

This perception of victory has affected greatly Israel's reaction to the Turkey situation. Since the Palmer Report was not taken as an attack on Israel's legitimacy but a strengthening of it, Israel is in a much more reconciliatory mood. The government is consistently stating that it values its relationship with Turkey and does not intend a deterioration of relations.

Turkey's government, on the other hand, has many potential reasons to continue being antagonistic. The actual calculus might be some combination of the following foreign policy considerations:

1) The Palmer report de-legitimized Turkey's position. It declared the naval blockade legal and Israel took it as a statement of support rather than isolation. Turkey may be reacting to a perceived loss by doubling down its efforts. The strong role pride plays in the Middle East may be exacerbating these efforts.

2) Turkey-Israel antagonism draws the attention of the West. The State Department's remarks today may be just what the government was looking for. Turkey seeks to be a key regional player in the Middle East. If it can make the US pay attention, it may be a reminder that Turkey matters strategically in the region.

3) Turkey strategic position has changed as a result of the Arab Spring. With the attention of the West focused largely on Egypt and Tunisia, Turkey's role as a regional player has been downgraded. After the infamous Davos Forum walkout in 2009, Prime Minister Erdogan was hailed as a leader of the Arab popular cause, even despite the fact he is Turkish. Now that the Middle East has seen popular revolutions, Erdogan is no longer in this position. By extension, Turkey's regional role has changed as well.

Regardless of reason, the poor relations are hurting both sides. Israel needs Turkey's friendship, defense cooperation, and water resources. Turkey needs Israel's defense cooperation (the sanctions probably hurt it more than Israel), its alignment with the United States, and its shared status as a non-Arab country in the Middle East. While actions in the political arena are dramatic, the long-term relationship of Turkey and Israel is likely to maintain itself. Creating this end state sooner rather than later would benefit all parties involved.

A Milestone For Israel's Protest Movement

2011-09-03T19:08:00.005-04:00

Tonight, about 450,000 Israelis protested the cost of living in Israel, nearly 300,000 of them in downtown Tel Aviv. While not the million that protest organizers had been advertising, the numbers are formidable and illustrate that the protest movement's momentum has not slowed down, even in the wake of the Eilat terror attacks August 18th.

The protests are one of many different pressures which the Israeli government is facing this September. A UN General Assembly vote on a Palestinian State will be highly politicized in Israel, as will today's news that Turkey will try to refer Israel's blockade of Gaza to the Hague. In addition, the Durban III conference, widely expected to be antagonistic to Israel, will be held September 22nd.

The key challenge for the protest organizers will be to maintain political pressure and momentum through the opening of the Knesset's winter session in early October (unless an emergency session is called prior). The legislature, currently on summer recess, will likely take up the protests given their extremely high political salience. However, if the protests die down, it will be easier for political leaders to focus more on the multitude of other political issues first, translating to less political leverage for the protest movement.

The protests have shown formidable sticking power and tonight's protest is be an important milestone towards that which the protesters seek. However, the movement's political capital will have to be leveraged in the Knesset once the new session opens in order for the movement to effect concrete political change. However, even if the movement fails to reach this goal, it has created irreversible social change whose effects are likely to be farther reaching than any political settlement.

A Big Weekend For Israel's Housing Protest

2011-09-01T21:26:00.008-04:00

This Saturday evening, organizers are planning to hold one of the largest protest rallies in Israeli history. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected in downtown Tel Aviv in a rally which will feature performances by music and television stars.

The protest has garnered significant attention as the first major protest following the terror attacks of August 18th in Eilat. If successful, the protest will be a critical demonstration of the persistence of the protest movement. This month, this persistence will face challenges as Israel navigates several foreign policy and security situations. Today, the UN report on the Gaza flotilla incident was leaked by the New York Times in a way which is likely to harm Israeli-Turkey relations in the short term. Later this month, the UN General Assembly will be voting on a Palestinian state. Egypt-Israel relations also remain a matter of some concern.

Protest organizers anticipate that the government will attempt to re-direct the Israeli narrative to these serious foreign policy and security issues. Saturday's protest will be an indication of whether the movement will be overshadowed by the multiple diplomatic crises Israel faces. The protests have shown the promise of sustained momentum. Whether this momentum can continue will depend largely on events in Israel 48 hours from now.

Israel Updates Soon

2011-08-31T21:00:00.003-04:00

Upon returning to Washington DC there's been a number of items to take care of...such as starting another year of grad school, and writing an article about the Israeli tent protests which is soon to be published. Regular updates on the protests, Israeli-Egypt relations, and the UN Palestinian statehood bid will continue soon.

Tel Aviv Demands Social Justice

2011-08-26T07:13:00.012-04:00

The protest camp on Rothschild boulevard runs nearly a mile long down the street. The park itself is actually a bike path with grass on both sides, and one can only imagine the ire of bikers who must contend with tourists and grad students snapping photos.

The signs on Rothschild are more diverse in their messaging than those in other camps, even Jerusalem's. The messages were also more partisan and slightly more obscure. Since the camp has so much publicity, organizations have sensed an opportunity for publicity and have set up shop at the camp. As an example, here is a flyer being held down with stickers from the socialist Hadash party.

This poster is about Scientology.

While references to the Arab Spring were few and far between elsewhere, this sign was prominent on Rothschild. It reads: "Rothschild, Tahrir corner."

Far from being a static display of signs, the camp is filled with people. There are those who have set up tents and are participating in the protest.

But the biggest difference from the other camps was the people walking through. Since Rothschild is a bike path in downtown Tel Aviv, the camp was pull of people out for their evening walk, parents teaching their kids about civic participation, and people with cameras snapping pictures. The feel of the camp was that of an exhibit like The Gates in Central Park. It spurred discussion among those who walked through, and it was not uncommon to see groups of people with no clear link to the protests sitting on the benches lining Rothschild engaged in thoughtful political discussion.

One of the most interesting moments in the camp was this one:

The woman pictured is an IDF corporal, judging from the two stripes on her upper arm. She was taking a picture of a drum circle being led by followers of Rav Nachman Me'uman. The moment was incredibly symbolic of the closeness between civilians and the military in Israel. While the woman pictured is in uniform, she carries a bright colorful backpack and has a sense of artistic curiosity about the protests. It strikes the viewer that even soldiers are taking an interest in the protests in their down time.

Jerusalem Demands Social Justice

2011-08-21T09:00:00.006-04:00

Over the past few days, The Camel's Nose (TCN) visited three protest sites in Jerusalem. Many of the major cities in Israel have a central camp, and smaller satellite camps throughout the city. In Jerusalem, the headquarters of the movement is in Park HaSoosim.

Unlike many of the other protest sites, the protest in Park HaSoosim has glossy posters and flyers. In the center of the camp, an activist sits behind a table with papers and flyers on it, ready to answer questions and hand out material.

Down the street, there is a smaller protest camp.

This morning a number of protesters had gathered to hold a meeting. Unlike the protest camps in Beer Sheva and Haifa, this camp (as well as the one in Park HaSoosim) is inhabited by many youth. At least half of the activists were women, and there was one woman at the latter camp with two children.

Down the street, there is a camp in Gan Ha'Atzmaut, directly across the street from the American Consulate in Jerusalem.

The camp has a small kitchen and there were about 8 people there just before Shabbat began Friday afternoon. A head activist at the camp said that the camp had been cleared because of illicit behavior in the past few weeks. In response, he drafted a list of rules, which include no drugs, alcohol, or violence. The camp also has a daily schedule, hour by hour. Finally, it has a roster of slightly less than 20 people who live there 24/7.

The inhabitants of the camp at Gan HaAtzmaut and many other sites were slightly older than those at the other two sites. This reality differs, however, from some Beltway perceptions that this is a youth protest. While the youth have a strong voice in the protest and are vulnerable in the Israeli economy, they are not the only participants in the protests.

A Tense Weekend In Israel

2011-08-19T11:06:00.008-04:00

The Jerusalem light rail system opened today after extensive delays. As the new trains roll up and down Yaffo street, they are absolutely packed with people, many of them young religious children. But the excitement about the system is tampered in the wake of yesterday's horrific attacks in Israel's south which killed eight Israelis.

Experiencing these attacks from within the country, one gets a sense of the domestic political considerations as well as the international ones most often the subject of discussion in Washington. The key point to keep in mind is that people here are not just "used" to terrorism. The attacks in Eilat yesterday were just as shocking as a complex attack in Fairfax, VA would be for residents of the nation's capital. As a result, people here feel afraid, and out of control. Their nightmares about the chaos in the region are, in the Israeli mind, becoming confirmed by an attack in which terrorists came from Gaza to Egypt and then into Israel.

The lack of control people feel here isn't something most Americans have felt in a very long time. That a rocket could come at any minute, that one's bus could suffer a shooting attack at any moment, is no way for people to live. Obviously, life in the Palestinian territories is far from a cake walk given the very difficult political and security situation there. But here in Israel, the Palestinian's problems are theoretical, while theirs are here and now. It is this immediacy which most strongly impacts the Israeli mentality.

As a result, Israelis become more likely to support harsh action in the Gaza Strip, even if those policies are not the most efficient options at Israel's disposal. Being able to pound targets and blow up terrorists is a way to regain some sense of control. Emotion is never the best guide for policymaking, but it is intrinsically a powerful influence. Being in the country now, it is very easy to understand why Israelis often support action which in the end contributes to an ongoing cycle of violence. The need to feel control, furthermore, has become exacerbated in a world in which Israelis feel they are targeted by all their neighbors in the region, and one in which they see the international community as complacent towards their well-being.

So what do these domestic political dynamics mean for US policymakers? There are three major guiding principles which can help shape a more effective approach towards advancing US interests with regards to Israel:

1) Avoid policies which frame Israeli leaders' choices as one of reassuring their people or reassuring the United States. Yesterday's comments from the White House Press Secretary are a perfect example of the successful execution of this principle. The US didn't give Israel a blank check, but did give it enough wiggle room to mount a response to those who perpetrated the attack.

2) Frame US policy preferences in terms which reassure Israelis and legitimize that they experience fear. Promote the idea that a tempered and intelligent response, and not falling into a terrorist group's mental trap, shows the strength of Israel and its people.

3) Understand that politics aside, everyone in this region is only human. For these citizens of the Middle East, the conflict isn't a heated discussion at a party or a conversation over catering from Corner Bakery. It's a situation which makes day to day life frustrating and difficult. The people in this region deserve better than that.

Haifa Demands Justice, Eilat Suffers Shock

2011-08-18T15:21:00.012-04:00

Today TCN visited a protest camp in the Hadar neighboorhood of Haifa, in Israel's north. The camp is a bit smaller than the one in Beer Sheva.

Haifa is known for coexistence between Jews and Muslim Arabs, and the protest signs reflect this reality.

There were 5 or so protesters at the camp around 10:30 in the morning. While the camp in Beer Sheva had a clear student influence, the atmosphere in Haifa was a bit more serious. In both camps, it is not just youth who are participating. Noone at the camp in Haifa appeared under the age of 30.

One of the protesters at the camp mentioned the poverty in Hadar, noting that there were many religious and immigrant populations in the area, and that children were out on the streets at 2 or 3 in the morning. The poverty issue is particularly sensitive for the Hadar protest camp, one of three camps in Haifa.

Blogging plans have changed slightly in the wake of the attacks in Eilat earlier today. What were planned as protests have now become a vigil. TCN will still cover the protest camps, but not the Saturday night demonstrations which have been cancelled in the wake of the attacks.

The attacks, are a clear escalation of violence as of late, designed to make the evening news in Israel and around the world. In responding to the attacks, Israel will need to be careful to demonstrate strength without the overreaction for which those who perpetrated the attacks are hoping.

The United States has roundly condemned the attacks, saying it stands with Israel against terror. White House spokesman Jay Carney also said the administration hopes the perpetrators will be brought to justice quickly. This statement is a clear indication of the balancing act required by the US. On the one hand, the US needs to avoid giving Israel a blank check to maintain credibility with the Arab world. On the other hand, reassuring Israelis can come only by validating an Israeli right of response. The administration's statement achieves both these aims by allowing for a decisive response, but one which is focused only on those responsible for the attack.

Beer Sheva Demands Social Justice (With Pics)

2011-08-17T12:19:00.017-04:00

The Camels Nose (TCN) visit to Beer Sheva came just days after a major protest in the city in which over 20,000 people participated. Beer Sheva is a city on the periphery both geographically and socially. The city's demographic is a combination of students, religious families, and immigrants from Russia, the former Soviet Bloc, and Ethiopia.

This was a major theme of the protesters' message in Beer Sheva. The large white sign below translates as "Bibi, there is a country outside of Tel Aviv!"

Most of the blue tents in the picture remain unoccupied throughout the day. Supporters generally come to the protests, outside Beer Sheva's Grinberg Center for Children on the city's main street, during the evening hours.

This morning TCN visited the camp to talk to some of the protesters.

There were about 10 people at the camp by 9:30am, ranging in age from their 20's to their 60's. There were only a few women, but the total number of people was too small to evaluate the gender balance of the protest movement itself. Despite being on the periphery, the protesters were passionate about what they were doing, and even expanding their efforts in unique ways. For example, this poster on the water cooler at the tent advertises "Biking for social justice."

The camp has a table with Nescafe and tea, and a kitchen as well. The refrigerator is powered by an extension cord going into the Grinberg Center.

The camp is across the street from Ben Gurion University of the Negev, one of Israel's seven major universities. The National Union of Israeli Students has become very involved with the protests and even has signs of its own which read "fighters for the home."

Some in the Bedouin community in and around Beer Sheva has also entered the protests. While the extent to which they've been accepted by the movement is unclear, the movement does seem to be promoting the idea of cooperation. The pink sign says "Social Justice for Everyone. The Bedouin are participating in the protest." The yellow sign, interestingly, says "Right to housing for all citizens. No to house demolitions." Demolition of Bedouin houses in unrecognized villages has been a key issue for the Bedouin community in the Negev desert.

Thus far, having spoken with a number of students, young professionals, and community members, common themes are arising. They are themes of which Washington DC analysts should take close note.

Theme 1: The protests did not just arise out of nowhere but grew from a "chain" of events over the past 20 years. That being said, they are unprecedented since at least the 1970's.

Theme 2: The Arab Spring is exciting, but the protests in Israel have almost nothing to do with them. Rather, they are closer to the protests in Greece and London. Two quick reactions to this point. 1) It's true, and 2) It's a good example of Israel trying to emulate Europe more than its Middle Eastern neighboors.

Theme 3: The government's reaction has been limited at best. Two representatives of the Trajtenberg Committee visited the camp. Protesters described it as "they listened..." indicating that the commission is not promoting a particular solution of its own at this point.

Finally, while there is in fact disagreement among the Israeli public as to the efficacy of the protests, many people TCN spoke with said they believe similar protests could happen in the United States, but that they hope it doesn't happen.

Whether or not this is valid, however, is the topic of a future blog post. Stay tuned...

For more pictures or information, please email TheCamelsNoseBlog@gmail.com

Touchdown in Tel Aviv

2011-08-16T02:43:00.003-04:00

Posting over the next week and a half will be a bit sporadic, as updates will be coming from various internet cafes and hostels around Israel. Readers can expect to see analysis of Israeli attitudes towards the US and the Obama administration, as well as analysis and interviews with participants in the housing protests.

Stay tuned, and Boker Tov!

Israel Values Democracy Over Stability

2011-08-11T19:39:00.008-04:00

In an interesting development, both Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beiteinu) and Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) have spoken regarding the ongoing protests in Israel. Both have emphasized the idea that Israel remains a stable country despite the protests in which over 300,000 people participated last Saturday night. However, Yishai threatened to withdraw from the coalition if no solution is found, whereas Foreign Minister Lieberman has sided squarely with the government and attacked the media for being "one-sided" with regards to its coverage of the protests.

The comments indicate that the protests are having a real effect on coalition politics in Israel. While Lieberman and Yishai fall in different places with regards to the government's response, both have made statements which directly impact the stability of the current Israeli coalition. Yishai's comments deftly place Shas on the side of the protesters by exerting pressure on the coalition while simultaneously expressing confidence a solution will be found. Lieberman's comments indicate that, at least for the moment, he does not intend to dissolve the coalition over the protests.

However, both ministers miss a more fundamental point: Stability is not the issue. As a liberal democracy, Israel's institutions and political system are designed for protests. These protests are not the first, and surely not the last, protests over social issues in Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu, understanding the strength of Israel's institutions, has moved forward in setting up committees and offering policies to alleviate the source of grievances. Yet some in his coalition seem to have significantly less faith in the democratic process.

Democracy may be messy, but it is designed as such. That some in the Prime Minister's cabinet see protests and are concerned more with stability than the legitimate grievances of the Israeli people is indicative of where their priorities lie. That they should see a need for stability-related Hasbara in this case is ironic. The protests have done more to create international support for Israelis and Israeli democracy than any policy enacted by the current coalition.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has a tough month ahead. Between the UN Palestinian statehood vote and the protests, there is no shortage of issues which could collapse his coalition. However, the Prime Minister would be well-advised to listen to those who elected him rather than those who seem to lack faith in the very democratic government they represent.

Assad Crosses The Line

2011-08-10T08:50:00.004-04:00

Syrian troops stormed two towns near the Turkish border today, expanding an offensive which has left scores dead and increasingly forced the hand of the international community.

The United States has been in a tough position regarding the Arab Spring. On the one hand, its stated commitment to human rights and freedom mandates intervention in the brutal repressive tactics which many states are using. On the other hand, intervention can easily become interference, generating negative sentiment and wasting money that the government doesn't have the freedom to spend. For this reason, US pressure on Syria has been primarily rhetorical.

However, President Assad's ongoing campaign of targeting his own citizens has shifted the cost-benefit analysis. It is one thing for the US to pick and choose its battles. It is another to blatantly ignore ongoing violent repression. For this reason, the US has now begun to ratchet up pressure.

Yesterday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited Syria to, in the words of Prime Minister Erdogan, send a "strong message" to Syria. The visit represents a confluence of interests between the US who needs to appear more active, and Turkey whose border stability is threatened by Syrian actions in Idlib province. Davutaglu's trip also comes on the heels of statements by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah this past Saturday that "there is no justification for the bloodshed" in Syria. The statements by both countries indicate the extent to which Syria is becoming a regional liability.

Given the increased regional pressure on Syria, at the behest or at least the tacit approval of the United States, the cost of US inaction is becoming increasingly higher. Reports are now surfacing that following a second UN Security Council resolution on Syria, the US may formally call for President Assad to step down. No doubt, this call will be a welcome development from a people who have faced the terror of being targeted by their own military. However, a more desperate Assad may also be a more dangerous Assad. The US must be clear about how it will handle the inevitable resistance the Syrian president will put up for calls to step down. It will need to walk the fine line between intervention and interference.

Give Israeli Youth A Voice In Government

2011-08-07T19:34:00.010-04:00

Last night, about 300,000 protesters crowded Israel's streets. Protests in support of the demonstrators have arisen in New York City and Washington, D.C. as well.

Some can argue that the protests are the product of leftist agitation. Even if this is the case, it is no longer a relevant consideration. Protesters are a substantial constituency in both the center and periphery of Israel, and enjoy support from the Israeli public. They constitute a salient political entity with which the government must contend. What the protesters want more than anything, it seems, are alternatives to the status quo. Yet these alternatives cannot be created overnight, and governments must balance competing interests in designing them.

One of the key long-term considerations for these alternatives will be inclusion of the youth voice. Because Israel votes on a closed-list system and is only 63 years old, the status quo tends to remain the status quo. This system has allowed the grievances of protesters, many of whom are youth or at least not "old guard," to accumulate. Because of this, it would be unfair to blame Prime Minister Netanyahu alone for a generation-long failure to provide alternatives.

However, creating a change in the status quo requires creating a change in those legislating it. For too long, the concerns of the young generation have been underrepresented in Israeli politics. Taking steps to strengthen the youth voice would help to allay the current concerns of protesters, and prevent similar protests in the future. Inclusion of the youth would allow the government to preemptively identify and react to the political demands which are now putting the governing coalition in serious jeopardy. More importantly, a country whose politicians are constantly willing to reexamine the status quo are is a country who will be aggressive at providing for its citizens and serving its national interests. The people of Israel deserve nothing less.

Humanity Is The Story In Utoya

2011-08-02T16:07:00.009-04:00

In the past week or so, articles have appeared regarding the political leanings of the summer camp in Utoya where Anders Breivik shot 68 civilians in a terrorist attack which has shattered Norway and the international community. The camp, run by the Labor Party in Norway, evidently held very liberal views with regards to Israel. It is a tidbit worth considering, but ultimately dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of the senseless human tragedy which occurred there.

Unless of course, you are the far right. Pamela Geller notes regarding the camp's political leanings that "Glenn Beck was not so far off when he compared it to the Hitlerjugend or Young Pioneers." since after all, "the day before the shooting, an pro-Palestinian rally was held."

Barry Rubin of the Jerusalem Post says the camp held a "pro-terrorist program," evidenced by the fact that it "was lobbying for breaking the blockade" and calling for an "immediate recognition of a Palestinian state." Rubin concludes the editorial asserting that "many Europeans will accept terrorism against Israelis or even Americans; very few will applaud terrorism against fellow Europeans."

Manfred Gerstenfeld of YNet concludes that the Norwegian Foreign Minister, "in calling for the dismantlement of the security barrier...was thus indirectly promoting terrorism against Israelis." Gerstenfield's editorial was later re-tweeted by the Government Press Office of the State of Israel.

To address these claims on the basis that they are reactionary, offensive, and without merit would be an exercise in futility. But more importantly, it would be disrespectful and beyond the boundaries of basic human decency.

The story in Norway is the senseless murder of innocent people. It is the children who swam for their lives as a gunman attacked them. It is the government workers who were trapped in bombed-out buildings. The mainstream media has not ignored the story about the camp's ideology because of bias. It has done so because this story is completely irrelevant in the face of such the cruel and senseless attack perpetrated against our fellow human beings.

There will be time aplenty to discuss the political implications of the attack. Breivik will likely stand trial, and the issue of terrorism is not likely to go out of vogue anytime in the near future. Thus, our duty for now must be to transcend our political leanings and show true compassion for the victims of the attack. This commitment to the value of respect for our fellow human being must transcend our commitment to petty ideological hackery.

Tolerance includes being tolerant of the intolerant. The far right need not change what it believes. But until the victims, their family and friends, and the country of Norway have had some time to grieve and some closure, giving it a rest is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of basic respect and decency.

Israel Holds Its Government Accountable

2011-07-30T19:30:00.010-04:00

Israeli news sources report that over 100,000 people in Israel took to the streets tonight protesting the cost of living in Israel. In Tel Aviv, as of about 7:30 pm EDT, there are reports of protesters being arrested. Protesters demonstrated in Jerusalem, Haifa, Beersheva, Nazareth, Kiryat Shmona, Modi'in, and Ashkelon as well.

In the wake of the protests which began as small demonstrations over housing in Tel Aviv July 25th, politicians have mobilized. Leader of the Opposition Tzipi Livni has echoed Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) in his call to cancel the Knesset's summer recess to pass a housing bill. Netanyahu had presented a plan last Tuesday (July 26) but it was met with a charge of insufficiency from those protesting.

But the protests aren't about coalition politics and Knesset inside baseball. The Israelis protesting tonight are demonstrating out of a sense that politics as usual cannot continue, and that the government has failed to address the public interest. It is likely that the protesters have been mobilized not only by the housing issue but also by other issues affecting Israeli domestic society. Indeed, the status quo of the past decade - and the government's lack of viable alternatives to that status quo - have bred deep cynicism in Israel over the country's future.

In the wake of the protests, many are likely to speculate about their deeper meaning. Some may consider these protests the rebirth of the Israeli left, but this analysis is erroneous. The protesters aren't reacting against a new right-wing government policy on housing because there is no such salient policy to begin with. Rather, they illustrate the cavernous space between the government's ideological policy agenda and the pragmatic needs of the Israeli public. The protests highlight that while those from the fringes drive debate over loyalty, BDS, and inquiry commissions, the basic needs of normal Israelis are being neglected.

Don't Blame The Right For Oslo

2011-07-26T16:07:00.006-04:00

The way in which some extreme conservative columnists and editorialists have spun the Oslo terrorist attack is disagreeable to say the least. Many of them have ceased to be relevant voices in the policy debate for their sheer inability to acknowledge that they view the world through a thick prism of fear, mistrust, and partiality.

Upon learning that many of these authors are quoted in Anders Breivik's manifesto, there are those who would lay blame at the feet of the neo-conservative right. While clearly not directly responsible, the mindset of fear and imminent danger these ideologues promote may have been one factor which influenced Mr. Breivik.

But as distasteful and reactionary as they may be, extreme right-wing authors are not responsible for the horrific terror attacks in Oslo and Utoya. Nor should they be blamed.

First, of the millions of people who read extremely right-wing authors, only one of them committed a terror attack on Friday. While many of these authors advocate viewpoints which are ludicrous and policies which are beyond offensive, none of them advocate terrorism. Anders Breivik drawing inspiration from the far-right demonstrates only that their brinksmanship and fear-mongering tactics are undeniable, not that they are complicit in terrorism.

Second, by blaming these ideologues for outright terrorism, moderate and liberal observers are simply buying in to the same guilt-by-association logic they detest from the far right. Carrying this logic to its full extension, the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz also bear responsibility for Oslo since they were both quoted in the manifesto. So does the Telegraph. So does Wikipedia. A culture of guilt-by-association, furthermore, has a chilling effect on free speech. The idea that an individual should avoid expressing an idea because someone might link it to radicals who support that idea creates serious limitations on freedom of expression. If a far right-wing, non-violent voice is censored, let it be done by free participants in the marketplace of ideas who ignore the voice.

Finally and most importantly, blaming the far right for Oslo detracts from the share of the blame shouldered by Breivik himself. Especially given that Breivik's lawyer is claiming that Breivik is insane, an understanding of the full moral and legal weight of his actions is warranted. It was Breivik alone who premeditated the mass killing of civilians for political gain, built explosives, kept meticulous records, and executed the attack effectively over a time span of hours. He hid his actions from the police, demonstrating complete understanding of the ethical lines he was crossing. All the wacky right-wing blogs in the world could not have made the ultimate sane choice Breivik made to pull the trigger, again and again, and murder the innocent.

The thought that society cannot stop every terrorist is scary, but it is the cold reality of human free will. And since Breivik alone committed the attack, the Norwegian government is justified fully in pursuing the full course of legal action against him.

The Breivik Manifesto: Summary and Assessment

2011-07-24T19:50:00.008-04:00

The Manifesto

Anders Breivik's manifesto is an exhausting read at over 1500 pages long, and it would be nearly unfathomable to have read it word-for-word since Friday. The manifesto is divided into three books and is written by a number of different authors, some of whom use pseudonyms such as "Fjordman." The first book is relatively tame, discussing the history of Marxism and Islam from a decidedly conservative perspective. The second book is a bit more extreme, but still within the cognitive boundaries of a very far-right columnist. It is primarily about Islam and the threat it poses to Europe.

The third book is the most radical, and where an analyst should economize their time reading. In it, Breivik outlines the long term plan of the Templar Knights for fighting Marxism and Islam. His thesis is that Marxism promotes multiculturalism. Islam then takes advantage of multiculturalism to colonize Europe and destroy European culture.

The book begins with an legalese-filled indictment of the leadership of Western Europe, accusing them of sitting idle while "Europe is the victim of cultural genocide on par with that of Tibet." Breitbart then introduces the Templar Knights and lays out their long-term plan:

- Phase 1 (1999-2030): Cell based shock attacks, sabotage attacks etc.

- Phase 2 (2030-2070): Same as above but bigger cells/networks, armed militias

- Phase 3 (2070-2100): Contribution with the effectuation of the coup and responsibilities in relation to security and executions of category A and B traitors.

Members of the police are referred to as "system protectors" a la The Matrix.

Breivik then discusses in detail his armor and ammunition. Interestingly, he mentions a 4GB AEE PD80 Mini DV DVR Camera which can be used "to document your operation." Breivik also discusses wearing a police combat uniform replica to "create confusion and hesitation when engaging hostile agents." Later in the book he jokes about having a costume for next Halloween.

Breivik then outlines a list of targets, which includes "government buildings with high concentrations of category A and B traitors." Category A refers to "Political leaders, Media leaders, Cultural leaders, and Industry leaders," while Category B refers to "cultural Marxist/multiculturalist politicians."

Surprisingly, Breivik considers a distinction between "traitors" and civilians. He considers targeting civilians illegitimate. Even for "category D individuals...[who] have little or no political influence but are facilitating category B and C traitors," the prescribed "punishment" is listed as "none."

Breivik expresses willingness to martyr himself noting that by doing so, "you will be forever celebrated by your people as a martyr for your country." He then discusses issues plaguing Europe. In the category of "STDs" he mentions that his half-sister was infected with Chlamydia and his mother with Genital Herpes, and that they "have not only shamed me but they have shamed themselves and our family." At the end of the manifesto, Breivik provides seven pictures of himself: 2 in Knights of Templar uniform, 2 in combat gear, 2 profile pictures of himself, and one picture with him and his mother. Freudian psychologists, eat your heart out.

The Author

Throughout the manifesto, Breivik comes across as completely sane and extremely intelligent. He is very different from the paranoid social outcast Jared Laughner type. The manifesto is well-written and relatively well organized. As the seven pictures of himself suggest, he has narcissistic tendencies and notes his preparations for the attack in vivid detail. This contrasts with his research on Marxism and Islam which while extensive, draw from a mix of periodicals, right-wing blogs, and Wikipedia. It appears that Breivik saw himself as someone special or extraordinary, who would be lauded as a hero in future generations.

Ideologically, Breivik references Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer (the director of JihadWatch) extensively. The manifesto includes links to the movie Obsession which documents the phenomenon of so-called "Islamofascism," an article by Daniel Pipes, and references to Caroline Glick. Clearly, none of these individuals are responsible for the violent actions of a single terrorist acting of his own free will, but Breivik drank their ideological Kool Aid hook, line, and sinker.

Breivik gives his CV in the manifesto. He discusses a crossroads at which he switches from being a political actor to becoming an entrepreneur. He worked as a day trader as a "front...with the purpose of financing resistance/liberation related military operations." Such an occupation would have fit well with Breivik's intelligence and sense of determination.

Yet Breivik describes disillusionment with his life:

"You become a zombie where the highlight of your day is purchasing a 1000 Euro garment or a 100 Euro sushi meal, or getting a blowjob from someone you met outside the toilet at a club that Saturday. On your way home you see a girl getting gang-raped by 4 Somalis. You don’t offer it much thought as the slag probably had it coming anyway."

One possibility is that becoming more active in his radical activities brought meaning to Breivik's upper-middle-class lifestyle and his tendency towards compulsion. Breivik notes for example that at age 25 he took a year off to play World of Warcraft. The years of planning involved in Friday's attack may have seemed a much more meaningful use of time.

The manifesto is of course but one indication of the psychology of Anders Breivik and his motivations for the slaughter of nearly 100 innocent people. Psychologists who meet with Breivik in person will be much better able to understand his psyche, and real counter-terrorism analysts will be more adept at identifying the salient root causes of this attack. But a look at the manifesto is a good first indication of the factors at play, and will be the first step towards trying to make sense of this unspeakable tragedy.

Oslo Update, In Defense of Will McCants

2011-07-23T18:55:00.006-04:00

The perpetrator of yesterday's terror attack in Oslo and shooting attack on a children's summer camp in Utoya appears to be Anders Behring Breivik, a 34-year old Norwegian Christian Fundamentalist with strong anti-Muslim and anti-Marxist tendencies. His attacks have killed at least 95 innocent people, many of them children.

Yesterday's post on this blog was a full translation of a statement from a group called Ansar al-Jihad al-Alam, obtained from Will McCants and the Jihadica blog. Today, Mr. McCants has fended off serious criticism for posting the statement which turned out to be from an opportunist Muslim extremist with nothing to do with the attacks. Some have claimed that by posting the statement from the Shmukh forum, Mr. McCants misled the media into thinking that Muslim extremists were responsible for the attacks.

However, Mr. McCants was careful to note that the alleged claim was less than credible. The decision to translate it here at The Camels Nose (with an attached disclaimer about its credibility) was made to empower non-Arabic speakers to assess the content of the statement and provide transparency to what little information was available concerning the culprit of the attacks. In a crisis, preventing rumor from being represented as fact requires dissecting the rumor into its transparent and component parts. The greater the transparency and detail of information, the easier it is to assess it as credible or not. This idea is a basic axiom of policy analysis.

Mr. McCants was therefore correct to post the statement. He was honest about its credibility, mentioned when the group retracted the statement, and did due diligence to a crisis situation in which the truth was difficult to obtain. Those who choose to misrepresent the facts should not be confused with those who bring new evidence to light.

And those who have made this statement into a political issue should not draw attention away from the victims of this tragedy, and the support they will need in the weeks and months ahead.

Possible Oslo Attack Claim Translation

2011-07-22T15:18:00.004-04:00

The following is a full translation of the Arabic statement regarding today's attack in Oslo appearing on the Arabic jihadi forum Shmukh, and re-posted by Will McCants of Jihadica. It bears noting that according to Jihadica, this statement was later retracted for an unknown reason. Regardless, the statement gives insight into what the possible motivation behind the bombings were, assuming the attack was in fact linked to an Islamist group. Given that this linkage has yet to be established in any way whatsoever as of 3:45 EDT, this statement should be taken with a grain of salt.

Full translation:

Praise be to Allah and victory to his united servants, who revealed unto to the idolators and community of infidels, and prayers and peace upon our Prophet Muhammed the sign of the prophets and upon his family and companions.

Hereafter:

The almighty said: "So fight, [O Muhammad], in the cause of Allah ; you are not held responsible except for yourself. And encourage the believers [to join you] that perhaps Allah will restrain the [military] might of those who disbelieve. And Allah is greater in might and stronger in [exemplary] punishment." [al-Nisa, 84]. And now the countries of Europe have received another message from the Mujahideen, and the countries of Europe have further proof that the Mujahideen will not stand idly by towards their war against Islam and against Muslims.

Today, Norway was targeted to be a lesson and is to be considered as such to the rest of Europe, which had already threatened us since the Stockholm attack by increasing operations. We had asked the European countries to withdraw their armies from the land of Afghanistan and stop its war against Islam and Muslims. We reiterate our warning to the countries of Europe, and say to them to carry out the demands of the Mujahideen. What you have seen is only the beginning, and more will follow.

Furthermore, the reasons for targeting Norway are many, but most important is its participation in the occupation of Afghanistan and the abuse of our Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him).

Praise be to Allah who enabled his servants the Muhajideen...And we pray to Allah to save our brothers and Mujahideen everywhere.

Glory and praise be to Allah. I bear witness that there is no god but You, and offer repentance to You.

Abu Suleiman al-Nasser

From Ansar al-Jihad al-Alam

Knesset Coalition Breakdown?

2011-07-21T18:21:00.006-04:00

In a continuation of his escalation against Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman today condemned the Prime Minister for considering an Israeli apology to Turkey over last year's flotilla incident. In the wake of yesterday's Knesset vote on establishing panels of inquiry into left-wing NGO's, Netanyahu now has the task of reaffirming his conservative credentials within the limits of American Jewish, US Government, and international expectations.

Yet Netanyahu and Lieberman still have overlapping bargaining ranges. Ultimately it would not be in Lieberman's interest to quit the coalition right now any more than it would be in Netanyahu's interest for him to leave. In a sad microcosm of Israel itself, the lack of a credible alternative forces two dissatisfied parties to maintain the status quo. Eventually this will shift such that one side defects from the coalition, but at the moment things are likely to remain as they are.

One key indication of how long the status quo will last is the extent to which Netanyahu is able to broker a covert agreement with Lieberman. If Netanyahu can make under-the-table promises, he will be able to maintain the coalition while saving face. However, Lieberman may call on Netanyahu to make a public commitment. If that is the case, Netanyahu will have a much more difficult time navigating the myriad contradictory constraints he is under as Prime Minister.

NGO Bill Puts Bibi In A Bind

2011-07-20T18:01:00.006-04:00

Today the Israeli Knesset defeated a bill to create panels of inquiry examining left-wing NGOs by a vote of 57 to 28. Six members of the Prime Minister's Likud party voted against the bill. Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin and Prime Minister Netanyahu, both from Likud, voted against the bill as well.

In response, Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu's coalition partner from Yisrael Beiteinu and Israel's Foreign Minister, escalated tensions between his party and Likud. While Lieberman originally expressed "surprise" and "disappointment" with Netanyahu's opposition to the bill, he called today's opposition vote "grotesque" and "a mistake." He also changed Yisrael Beiteinu's position on the coalition. While Lieberman originally said the bill did not put the coalition in danger, he said today that "If I want an excuse to leave [the coalition], there are reasons every day. I hope they don't put us in a corner."

Today's vote failed because the key intra-party split occurred in the Likud party rather than in Kadima. The bill itself was proposed by MK Danny Danon and MK Faina Kirschenbaum, both of Likud, but also opposed by several senior members of that party including the Prime Minister. Since Netanyahu did not enforce party discipline, internal divisions on the bill became clear.

This blog has documented the slow tightening of the screws on Prime Minister Netanyahu as he negotiates between the US, US Jewry, Yisrael Beiteinu, the Israeli public, and the international community. His margin of error was razor thin going into last week's vote on BDS, largely the result of stalled peace negotiations with the Palestinians. On previous votes the coalition was strained. Today, it cracked.

Prime Minister Netanyahu miscalculated the ill-will the BDS bill would generate in the American Jewish community, and thus had to oppose today's vote as a reaction rather than a proactive strategic move. This shifted the locus of initiative closer to Yisrael Beiteinu, which is now making no secret of the internal tensions between Likud and itself.

But the Prime Minister is in a bind. It will be very difficult to support Yisrael Beiteinu's conservative party line within the short timeline they would require for a demonstration of commitment to the coalition. This is because the American Jewish community and Israeli left-wing community would not support such moves, and it would exacerbate Israel's isolation in the international community ahead of the UN Palestinian statehood vote. In addition to the pressures of maintaining Israel's security and diplomatic posture, Netanyahu will now have to factor the coalition into the balance. A statehood vote will almost definitely not bring down the State of Israel. But in light of today's vote, it may very well prove the death knell of the current coalition government.

Correction: Foreign Ministry Played Key Role In Flotilla II

2011-07-19T17:30:00.008-04:00

This morning, the Israeli Shayetet 13 elite commando unit boarded the Dignite - al-Karama ship, the last remaining vessel in the Gaza flotilla. The ship had 10 passengers aboard, and there were no casualties. The IDF was prepared this time, incurring no casualties of its own, and providing what can only be referred to as epic hasbara.

Yet while this blog has historically given the IDF the bulk of the credit for smart tactics, to say that the Foreign Ministry played no part in the diplomatic hiccup of Flotilla II would be inaccurate. There can be no question that the Foreign Ministry successfully used its leverage in Greece and elsewhere to create an end state which was wholly in Israel's favor. Offering to deliver the humanitarian aid, running practice drills showing the IDF acting in accordance with international law, and keeping the official Israeli narrative focused elsewhere were also key elements to the success of today's interception. That the saboteurs of two of the flotilla ships were untraceable helped Israel as well. However, involved governments were willing to look the other way (officially) so as to preserve their relations with Israel in the first place.

Given this success, the Foreign Ministry should apply the best practices of its response to Flotilla II elsewhere. Diplomacy may be soft, less decisive, and less exciting than other approaches. However, when done effectively, it is simply the most efficient way of advancing Israel's security and political interests. A Foreign Ministry which uses similar tactics to kill a Palestinian statehood bid at the UN this September likely will see a certain amount of success.

So does this mean Israel's isolationist and confident foreign policy has not harmed it's diplomatic posture? If the flotilla was stopped successfully, doesn't that delegitimize claims that Israel is suffering diplomatically in the international arena?

The key is here is that Israel's partners and allies are motivated by stability in the region. Since stopping the flotilla preserves stability, they supported it. However, issues like settlements, which exacerbate instability, will continue to be opposed. While the Israeli diplomatic corps deserves full credit for conveying the instability which would have resulted from a flotilla interception, the argument they used to do it does not have universal salience. Moving forward, the Foreign Ministry will need more than snarky videos to defend other Israeli policies which exacerbate instability in the region.

BDS, Beiteinu, and Bibi

2011-07-13T17:30:00.015-04:00

Reaction from the American Jewish community to the Israeli anti-boycott bill has been mixed, and not in a good way for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Responses range from tepid (ZOA) to openly antagonistic (ADL). In addition, the US Department of State has implied criticism of the bill, despite its assertion that it does not intervene in internal Israeli politics. Reaction in Israel has been mixed as well. Both the liberal Haaretz and the conservative Jerusalem Post have run editorials in the past few days overwhelmingly against the bill. For its part, the Israeli public may not be openly antagonistic to the bill, but does not appear thrilled with it either.

But while general opposition is clear, the effect this opposition will have on Israeli domestic politics is not. The Yisrael Beiteinu party has gotten exactly what it wanted from debate over the bill, but will likely demand more in the future. Kadima was split on the bill, and this disagreement has now exacerbated internal divisions within the party.

Despite some ambiguity, the biggest impact of the bill appears to be that it re-engages the Prime Minister on the settlements. The bill treats settlements as legally equivalent to Israel "proper." Also, the majority of Israeli BDS movements are focused on Israeli companies operating from the West Bank. Settlements continue to be the litmus test of where Netanyahu is aligned at any given moment. In 2008, Prime Minister Netanyahu fought the US on the issue of settlements in alignment with Yisrael Beiteinu. In 2009, he shifted and approved a partial settlement freeze to curb the degradation of ties with the US. In May, the Prime Minister took issue with President Obama's rhetoric on the "indefensible 1967 lines," an indirect show of support for settlements.

Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, settlements are about to become a hot issue on multiple fronts. The Palestinian statehood bid in September will undoubtedly invoke UN Resolution 242, which calls for a withdrawal from "territories occupied during the 1967 war." A poll out today identifies lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a cause of Arab disapproval of the US, putting pressure on the Obama administration to create progress. Settlements may very well be involved in US initiatives on this front. Finally, the Quartet's vitality has also been called into question for failing to even come up with a joint statement on the conflict after a long dinner meeting at the State Department. Settlements are highly likely to play a role in future quartet discussions.

While the traditional American Jewish leadership will not call out the Prime Minister on settlements, their alienation over the anti-boycott bill is a matter of concern for Israelis. A Prime Minister who alienates the US and the US Jewish community will lose popularity for doing so. Netanyahu will have to provide assurances to the diaspora, even if these assurances are under the table, that he will defend basic civil rights in Israel.

On its own, the anti-boycott bill is not likely to lead to new elections. Kadima is too divided to call a vote of no-confidence and Yisrael Beiteinu is too satisfied to quit the coalition. However, the return of settlements as a key issue puts the Prime Minister in a difficult position. He will be balancing between an Israeli public ambivalent about settlements, a far-right coalition whose constituency is based in settlements, and a US government with a UNSC veto and experience from 2008 in dealing with the settlement issue. While the Prime Minister is not to be underestimated, the anti-boycott bill narrows significantly his margin of error.

Rumors Of Israeli Democracy's Death Are Premature

2011-07-12T17:02:00.009-04:00

In the wake of the Knesset's passing of an anti-boycott bill, many in the policy blogosphere and Twitterverse have decried the "death of Israeli democracy" or see the bill as a turning point in the erosion of civil rights in Israel. While debate over the contentious bill is well-founded, this bill in and of itself is not the doomsday legislation many contend it is. Here's why:

1) Legislatures are often reactionary. Many legislatures, including the US Congress, are apt to play on the fear of their constituents rather than the principles of good policy-making since they are incentivized by reelection. Those who execute foreign policy, on the other hand, are often more cautious since they bear responsibility for dealing with the costs. Democracies are designed to withstand these competing pressures. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak did not appear for yesterday's vote, and there is a good reason why. Dissociating from the debate over the bill curbs the international political costs the legislation has already incurred. But it also indicates that the Israeli leadership understands that the international community will find this law's limitation on freedom of expression problematic. The situation is less ideal than an active "no" vote, but is hardly the death of democracy.

2) Impactful legislation introduces instability into parliaments. One of the reasons progress has been slow in Israel is that if the Prime Minister introduces impactful legislation, he runs a high political cost for doing so. Opposition parties thrive on opposing such legislation, and radical hardliners make accusations that the Prime Minister does not support such legislation enough. The bottom line is that maintaining stability in a parliament while making drastic political changes is difficult. A parliament may very well pass a series of bills which harm democracy, but each bill raises the chance the government will fall. As a result of the anti-boycott bill, Prime Minister Netanyahu will face an even more precarious balancing act than before. Leftist parties will decry his "fascist government" while right wing parties will accuse him of not being invested enough in the right-wing agenda to vote on the measure. This is parliamentary democracy at work.

3) The law is controversial, even in Israel. Speaking in the Knesset yesterday, Meretz MK Ilan Gila'on called the bill "Black Dysentery" and "an affront to Israeli democracy." The legislation did not only take heat from the far left. MK Shlomo Molla from the centrist Kadima party mocked the state of Israeli democracy created by the bill. In addition, Kadima MK Yohanan Plesner questioned the legality of the bill and called it "a violation of the core tenet of freedom of expression." While the bill ultimately passed, it did so only after six hours of debate, and already faces a number of legal challenges from Israeli human rights organizations. These reactions are consistent with democratic society, even if they are being triggered by a bill which some argue limits freedom in the first place.

While the content of this legislation - and similar legislation - may be concerning, these laws are being passed in a political context which, at least for now, remains democratic. The fact that Israel has garnered so much criticism in the first 24 hours of the bill's passage indicates that despite the pessimism of pundits, Israel is still being held to the standards of liberal democracy by Israelis and non-Israelis alike. These expectations are the best indication that even if democracy has been wounded in Israel, it is far from dead.

Air Flotilla Response Is Bad Security Policy

2011-07-07T15:41:00.009-04:00

Israel has come under significant criticism (including by Israelis, see here and here) for its response to the planned arrival of pro-Palestinian activists into Ben Gurion Airport beginning about now and continuing throughout tomorrow. The establishment of a military command post, among other steps, is seen by many as an overreaction to a group of activists who wish to engage in peaceful and non-violent protest of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. When heckled during his speech to Congress May 24, Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out that "In our free societies you can have protests." Evidently, the Prime Minister considers free society to end at the International Arrivals Hall.

Were a group of international activists to come to Washington DC to protest the war in Afghanistan, it would be a headache for the US government. It would also take a certain amount of mishegas, especially if the protesters were not Iraqi nor affected directly in any way by the war. But would the US establish Army command posts at Dulles airport to prevent them from coming? Most likely not, since it would be a waste of military resources on a non-security threat.

It is simply bad security policy for Israel to divert military resources to a political problem. Such steps are only the latest in a line of attempts by the current government to use the IDF as a shield for some of its more short-sighted policies. Doing so escalates the issue rather than burying it in the 24/7 news cycle, and diverts resources from the very real security threats the state faces. Police and army resources would be much better put to use in cases where Israel faces real security threats and challenges to public order and safety. With regards to the protesters, the government must stop blaming delegitimization and hiding behind the state security apparatus. Policy shifts are the best way to prevent continued protests which are a political liability to the State of Israel.

State Department Savvy On Muslim Brotherhood

2011-07-02T18:22:00.008-04:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Thursday that the US would continue "limited contact" with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt and welcomed "dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood member who wish to talk to us."

The announcement is brave, but is also an extremely savvy move by the State Department. By describing the already-existing contact, Secretary Clinton is preemptively framing future MB engagement as consistent with previous US policy for a Congress who is decidedly against engagement. Given that "limited contact" is not an objective standard by any measure, the State Department also has considerable latitude to increase its engagement while still claiming that overall contact is limited.

For US strategic interests abroad, the move is crucial. Without mandating any concrete policy change, it takes the wind out of the sails of radicals in the Muslim world who claim the US is at odds with Islam and with the Brotherhood. It also opens up opportunities for the US to exert influence over what Islamist participation in the new Egyptian government will look like.

Most importantly, the move demonstrates to Egyptians that the US is responding proactively to the events of the Arab Spring. It shows that the US is trying to shape the kind of nuanced and complex engagement that has been lacking in the past. The move also lends credibility to US claims of democracy promotion since it is engaging with all Egyptian political parties rather than picking and choosing.

US engagement with the Brotherhood should certainly be deliberate, but limited contact meets this standard. Ultimately, the benefits of promoting US security interests far outweigh the cost of lending slightly more legitimacy to the Brotherhood itself.

On The IDF And Non-Violent Protest

2011-06-29T16:22:00.007-04:00

Today's Haaretz contains a story to the effect that the IDF has no way of stopping mass non-violent protest in the West Bank. The story quotes all unnamed commanders, but alleges that a non-violent force of 4,000 Palestinians marching on a checkpoint would be unstoppable by non-lethal means.

Those who spoke with Haaretz reporter Anschel Pfeffer have two aims. The first is to protect the reputation of the IDF. The second is to signal political actors like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Tzahal is pretty darn good, but to expect miracles is a risky policy.

On the record, the IDF claims that it "has ways of dealing with large scale protests" and would likely never admit anything to the contrary. Israel's security, and Israeli public confidence, requires that the IDF maintain this dominant posture. Off the record, the article betrays some well-founded concern that mass non-violent protest may be out of the IDF's ability to handle without creating casualties. A challenge for any army, the IDF is nervous that it will bear the blame for when things go wrong in the wake of the next round of mass protests. By leaking such concerns off the record, the IDF can preempt accusations that it was unprepared for a mass protest.

The second important point is that these apprehensions demonstrate that the IDF is grounded in reality and has a sense of its actual capabilities. Other actors in the Israeli government are not so in touch. In light of the upcoming Gaza flotilla, The IDF has raised its media profile recently in order to create familiarity with its narrative and cast of characters. The relationship this media presence creates with the global public will help lend credibility to the IDF's version of events in the wake of a second flotilla raid. With regards to protests, the IDF publicized its lessons learned from Nakba day and implemented them well during the Naksa Day protests.

But in both cases, the IDF and not the Israeli Foreign Ministry or Prime Minister's Office is defining the narrative. Depending on one's perspective, the IDF is either undermining the authority of the government or picking up after it's many mishaps. When ministers in the Israeli government claim their own government's claims are unsubstantiated, this betrays a serious lack of confidence in the government's ability to exercise a nuanced and pragmatic policy towards the Palestinians. While the IDF takes stock of the threats ahead, the government is playing diplomatic catch-up, needlessly toughening conditions on Palestinian prisoners, and putting vague and unnecessary preconditions on discussions with the Palestinian Authority. None of these steps does anything to delegitimize non-violent protests over the Israeli occupation, or stop a flotilla of so-called activists from embarrassing Israel over its blockade on Gaza.

The IDF should be expected to follow the conventions of war, preserve human life whenever possible, and maintain the security of the State of Israel. However, it should not be expected to single-handedly address the myriad political crises which the current administration's myopic policies have created. Non-violent Palestinian protests are a political reaction for which the government bears primary responsibility. Rather than hide behind the IDF's ability to control reaction to consistently spurned policies, the government would be much more effectively advancing Israeli security by shifting the policies themselves.