Foreign Policy In Focus

Haaretz on the December 29 arrests:

Security forces arrested prominent right-wing activists in the West Bank early Thursday, over suspicions they had been monitoring Israel Defense Forces in the region.

To say that Palestinian measures have come to Israel proper would be a bit much (as administrative detention has been applied to Israeli citizens before, such as Kach member Noam Federman), but here we are -- more from Haaretz (emphasis added):

Netanyahu approved issuing administrative detention orders for the Jewish extremists, as is usually done with Palestinians suspected of being a security risk. 

Moreover, the prime minister approved trying the Jewish activists in military courts, which would effectively expedite their sentencing and make their punishment more severe.

Early Thursday, a joint operation by Israel Police and Shin Bet forces...  The arrests took place in Jerusalem as well as in West Bank settlements of Yitzhar, Itamar, Harsha, and Kiryat Arba.

It is not clear if the "orders" refer to the Administrative Detention Order that the IDF enforces in the West Bank against Palestinians or the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law, though it is likely the latter since the accused are Israeli citizens, not Palestinians. 

Arutz Sheva, whose editorial pages strongly oppose the administrative detention of settlers, has a bit more information. The rightists are accused of helping organize the settler protests near Ramat Gilad: "Police said that the six did not actually enter the base, but did organize the group that did."

Paul Mutter is a graduate student at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at NYU and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

972Mag devotes itself to reporting and commentary on Israel and the Palestinian territories. On Friday, October 28, one of its columnists, Larry Derfner, posted about the explosive op-ed that Israeli Nahum Barnea, who he calls "the best-connected, most influential  journalist in Israel" recently wrote.

He’s calling out Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak for cooking up an attack [on Iran], maybe before this winter, maybe afterward, even though the security establishment, foreign governments and  relatively level-headed members of this  government are completely against it. 

Then, on Wednesday, October 2, Derfner wrote:

They’re freaking out in Jerusalem over the shitstorm that Barnea’s “Atomic pressure” column started. “All sorts of systems and people have gone mad. This has no logical explanation or precedent,” [Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor] Lieberman told IDF Radio. Dan Meridor, the proper, level-headed minister of intelligence and atomic energy, made Ma’ariv’s top story today by saying, “Anat Kamm (just imprisoned for 4-1/2 years for leaking classified IDF documents to a journalist) is nothing compared to what’s happening here. This is really crazy. I don’t think there’s ever been a public discussion like this.”

Consequently, yesterday, October 3, Haaretz reported:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed Shin Bet [Israel's internal security service] chief Yoram Cohen to begin investigating the information recently leaked to the media regarding Israel's preparations for a military offensive against Iran's nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti al-Jarida newspaper reported Thursday.

According to the report, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin are those responsible for leaking information to the media regarding an attack on Iran.

"The two recruited prominent journalists in Israel and disclosed false information in order to politically harm Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak," the newspaper quoted an Israeli source.

According to the source, Diskin wanted revenge for not receiving the post of Mossad chief and Dagan was disgruntled since his term as Mossad chief was not extended. [Emphasis added.]

Dagan and Diskin couldn't have had any other reason -- such as keeping Iranian missiles from raining down on Israel with no guarantee that Israel's could knock out Iran's program -- could they? Never mind the security of the Israeli people, along with self-aggrandizement (acting "Churchillian," in the words of his supporters), revenge and disgruntlement may be among the only motives which Netanyahu can understand.

Following the 8/18 terrorist attacks near Eilat, the IDF launched air strikes at Rafah, Gaza, killing at least six Palestinians (including members of the Popular Resistance Committees, who Israel alleges are behind the attacks). Further IDF action in Gaza, apparently directed at Hamas targets, began in the early morning hours of August 19.

The Commander-in-Chief of Israel's Southern Command has stated that "terrorists carrying explosive devices, weapons, and grenades entered Israel from Sinai." Mortar fire was also reported as being directed at Israeli targets from the Sinai, and the IDF claims that the attackers infiltrated and exfiltrated Israel through the Sinai Peninsula. Egyptian leaders deny that any armed group could have accomplished this.

Israel also says it already knows the ultimate point of origin of the attacks: Tahrir Square, Cairo!

Tahrir Square?

Yes, Tahrir Square. "It is clear that the Egyptian revolution that began in Tahrir Square and spread through other Arab states has now made its way into Israel," according to a Haaretz analysis of the attacks. Ynet states that "Sinai turns into terror hotbed – and Israel is first to pay [the] price." The official Israeli response clearly intimates the unreliability of the "new" Egypt in maintaining Israel's security (militarily, though, the official response is focused on Gaza for now). Defense Minister Ehud Barak told reporters that "the incident shows the weakening Egyptian grip on Sinai and the widening operation of terrorists there," though he concluded that "the source of these terror acts is in Gaza and we will act against them with full force." CNN opines that the Egyptians now "have something else to worry about: the use of Egyptian soil by Islamist extremists to recruit, train, acquire arms, and take the fight to Israel." U.S. officials have stated that "the attacks reinforce concerns about the ability and willingness of the Egyptian government to safeguard its borders against the passage of militants and weapons" (Egypt, as a major U.S.-aid recipient, ought to be worried over these Beltway rumblings, especially since popular demonstrations are still going on Egypt ).

While all of these individuals have a point - the Sinai has become a greater security issue in 2011, for both Israel and Egypt - the Israeli government (and American neoconservatives) has been questioning Egyptian "reliability" for months, and not just over the Sinai. Egypt's reliability is being questioned because Israel's long-time ally, Mubarak, is now on trial after being deposed by the army and demonstrations. The new situation in the region (unrest in Syria is increasing as well) unnverves the government: better the devils you know - Mubarak and Assad - than the ones you don't.

Assertions that the "Arab Spring" is undermining Israeli security (FM Lieberman concluded in May that the "Arab Spring" will end in an "Iranian Winter," a view echoed in the U.S. as well) are exactly what the attackers, whether Palestinian, Egyptian or even members of al Qaeda, want to hear: Israel condemning the "Arab Spring" because it poses a threat to Israeli security (never mind what Egypt's army does to Egyptians; just keep the borders sealed).

Haaretz's military analyst Amir Oren had this to say:

"Israel has lost a cold but tough partner. Mubarak also had difficulty imposing authority on Sinai, but his deposers and heirs aren't even trying."

[Snip]

"Israel does not border on the Suez Canal or the Nile. Egypt is a hostile state that enables Israel's enemies [the popular resistance committees and Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Iran] to attack it."

Oren evinced the growing sense of siege that the Israeli security establishment feels today:

"Without Mubarak, and with Hamas in Gaza, with a Jordanian king fearing for his throne and an American administration that doesn't believe in Israel's judgment, what comes next could be even worse."

This is very much in line with statements made by the Netanyahu government, particurally Foreign Minister Lieberman. Lieberman is to be taken seriously (not only is the Foreign Minister, but he is also the leader of the small but influential right-wing Yisrael Beitenu party in Netanyahu's government): he, among others, regards the seizure of power by pro-Iranian Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia, and other Arab countries such as Syria and Libya as very real possibilities (though with Bahrain, Israel probably has little to worry about; the U.S. and the Saudis are doing a job of keeping things quiet down in the Gulf).

Yet Oren and I do agree on one thing in our analysis: that the real damage of this attack will be felt between Tel Aviv and Cairo. Except my understanding of the damage is different from his. The timing of the attacks coincides with ongoing Egyptian military operations against Islamist groups in the Sinai Peninsula (a move Israel endorsed). Since the fall of Mubarak, anti-government fighters in the Sinai have been attacking Egyptian military outposts, infiltrating into towns and blowing up gas pipelines between Egypt and Israel. Meanwhile, Israel, which occupied the Sinai between 1967 and 1982, asserts that Hamas smuggles fighters, supplies and weapons into Gaza through an extensive tunnel system. After Mubarak fell, the Israeli government argued that Hamas had redoubled its efforts to ship weapons into Gaza through these tunnels (indeed, the Egyptian Army's control of the region slackened during the anti-regime protests; the resulting campaign is an effort to reassert control over the strategic peninsula). 

In choosing to attack Eilat, the attackers may have sought to influence Egypt's position towards Israel by stoking the fires of anti-Israeli sentiment in the region (and not just merely take advantage of the chaos in the Sinai for tactical purposes). One of the first things the transitional government that replaced Israel's long-time ally Mubarak promised to do was uphold the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, a treaty which at the time was regarded as an act of craven capitulation by then-Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. The transitional government had absolutely no desire to test Israeli will or American largess by repudiating that treaty, or agreements that followed it. By attacking targets on the Israeli-Egyptian border, the insurgents may hope to win accolades for so brazenly "sticking it" to the two main regional powers. Like a judo master, the attackers are compensating for their small frame by using their opponent's own power and momentum against him.

Israel, though refuses to consider this, responding reflexively by attacking the alleged perpetrators. Netanyahu, judo-like, is turning the attacks into a political victory for his government. For the Israeli government, the latest attacks present an oppotunity to have the country "rally 'round the flag." With the Palestinian statehood initiative at the UN pending and a series of social protests among Israelis of all political colors, this event takes some of the pressure off the latter and allows a refocusing of the debate on the former (Israel opposses the UN initiative). No one wants to be derided as weak on the attackers. The Knesset is already closing ranks behind the PM (how long this lasts is anyone's guess), and the J14 demonstrators will be giving their weekend protests over to solidarity rallies with the Israeli victims of the attack.

Israeli security concerns are valid: terrorists, possibly working to destabilize both Egypt and Israel, have invaded Israeli territory and killed Israeli civilians. But Israeli denunciations of the "Arab Spring" are counterproductive because they only reinforce the perception that Israel supports dictatorial rule in the region. No one's security is being served by Netanyahu's response - including Israel's.

Cross-posted from Mondoweiss. 

Well, that's one way to address the housing crisis in Israel today: build 930 more houses . . . in East Jerusalem.

I can just see Bibi saying to a Cabinet minister: "Housing crisis? I have just the thing!"

Absolutely brilliant (no, really, it is -- well, kind of, at least in that self-defeating way we've come to know and love from Bibi and friends).

The sooner you get the settler protesters out of their tents (the cry of "To your tents, O Israel!" has never boded well for Jewish rulers) and back to the Occupied Territories, the less chance there is that they will turn on you in elections and -- Herzel forbid -- vote for Labour or something crazy like that. Class solidarity is a terrifying thing for a government built on a different kind of solidarity altogether. 

Although it would be a really ungrateful thing for said settlers to do that when right and center-right dominated governments have spent twice as much on the average settler in the Occupied Territories as they do on the average Israeli citizen living in, say, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, Haifa or Acre.

Building new settlements to resolve the housing crisis brings to mind the image of an Ouroboros, aka, the serpent that eats its own tail (one worth US$17 billion, to be precise). And, truthfully, it's just more of the same. It's not a new tactic, but it's a tried and true method for garnering support (and "facts on the ground" for legitimizing the settlements, which are illegal under international law). 

As two +972 Magazine bloggers writing in the NYT note, the roots of this housing crisis lie in decisions made during the 1990s (you know, back when Israeli governments said they were seriously considering giving the Palestinians their own "state") to increase government subsidies for settlement housing over public housing projects within Israel's pre-1967 borders. This encouraged Israelis -- ardent Zionists and otherwise -- to move to East Jerusalem and other destinations in the Occupied Territories (so that de facto annexation would precede -- and justify -- eventual de jure annexation).

I don't praise Bibi's genius enough, I really don't. One, it makes more housing available (though only a certain number of demonstrators would probably want to live in them) and two, it makes East Jerusalem even more "fundamentally" part of Israel. What more could the Israeli right ask for?

(Well, a lot, but you get the idea.)

(Pictured: Meir Dagan and Benjamin Netanyahu in happier times.)

As is its tendency -- simultaneously sober to a fault and arrogant -- the New York Times affixed an unprepossessing headline, A Former Spy Chief Questions the Judgment of Israeli Leaders, to a story which was, in fact, astonishing. Ethan Bronner writes that Mossad's former chief Meir Dagan

. . . contends that Israel’s top leaders lack judgment and that the anticipated pressures of international isolation as the Palestinians campaign for statehood could lead to rash decisions — like an airstrike on Iran.

The former intelligence chief, Meir Dagan. . . . made headlines a few weeks ago when he asserted . . . that a military attack on Iran would be “a stupid idea.” This week Mr. Dagan . . . said that attacking Iran “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” . . .  Mr. Dagan went on to complain that Israel had failed to put forward a peace initiative with the Palestinians and that it had foolishly ignored the Saudi peace initiative promising full diplomatic relations in exchange for a return to the 1967 border lines. He worried that Israel would soon be pushed into a corner.

Dagan also expressed

. . . his belief that his retirement and the retirement of other top security chiefs had taken away a necessary alternative voice in decision making. In recent months, the military chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, and the director of the Shin Bet internal security agency, Yuval Diskin, have also stepped down. . . .  “I decided to speak out because when I was in office, Diskin, Ashkenazi and I could block any dangerous adventure,” he was quoted as saying. “Now I am afraid that there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak. ” . . . This concern was backed by a former Mossad official, Gad Shimron. . . . : “The leadership makes fiery statements, we stepped on the brakes, we are no longer there and we don’t know what will happen.”

Meanwhile Ari Shavit of Haaretz told Bronner

“Dagan is really worried about September,” . . . referring to the month when the Palestinians are expected to ask the United Nations General Assembly to recognize their state within the 1967 border lines. The resolution is expected to pass and to bring new forms of international pressure on Israel. “He is afraid that Israel’s isolation will cause its leaders to take reckless action against Iran,” he said.

Netanyahu and Barak's insulation in their echo chamber parallels Israel's increasing isolation in the world and region.

Meanwhile, with respect to Iran, it behooves the West to heed former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering told Seymour Hersh for his recent New Yorker article:

Get off your no-enrichment policy, which is getting you nowhere. Stop your covert activities. Give the Iranians a sign that you're not pursuing regime change. Instead, the Iranians see continued threats, sanctions, and covert operations.