The Era of Dictators Moves to the Era of Islamists
The constant, unabated terrorizing of Israelis does not interest the international community and the media. They only become interested once Israel responds to such attacks.
For those of us in America, Britain and Europe, terrorism may be something which we take seriously, but it is not something we must face every single day. As recent weeks and days should remind us, for Israel the situation is different. Israel must fight a defensive war against terrorists 365 days of the year. Even before recent events, just consider the period from September to October this year.
According to Independent Media Review and Analysis, in October this year 116 rockets and 55 mortar shells were launched against Israel in 92 separate attacks. Compare this to the previous month and you see how swiftly things have been escalating. In September there were only (in what other situation would one write "only"?) 17 rockets, and 8 mortars fired against Israel.
As anybody who has visited Israeli towns and cities in the affected areas will know, ordinary life in such a situation is made everything short of impossible. Even when the missiles do not kill or injure people, as they often do, the bombardment forces people to live with constant terror, never sure of when they will have to throw themselves into a bomb shelter. Hamas has forced a generation of Israeli children to have to grow up like this.
What other people in the world would be able to live with the constant threat of random obliteration at any moment? The answer is none. Yet the international community and the media have no interest in this. The constant, unabating terrorizing of Israelis does not interest them. They only become interested once Israel responds to such attacks.
Since November 10, hundreds of unguided missiles have been fired at Israeli citizens from Gaza. As a response Israel has launched Operation "Pillar of Defense.". This has already taken out multiple Hamas rocket-sites and also – to the seeming horror of much of the world and world's media – one of Hamas's worst terrorists, Ahmed Jabri.
Only once Israel had carried out this targeted strike, the papers and broadcasters became interested. But this means a crucial and dangerous thing happens: It means that the world falls for the idea that it is not Hamas but Israel which started the violence and not Hamas but Israel which will be responsible for whatever happens from here.
This may now be a familiar model, but there is even more reason now than usual to be concerned. In 2009 when Israel launched operation "Cast Lead," the pieces all fell along the usual lines. Neighbors in the region – as well as so-called allies in the West – condemned Israeli "aggression" and called for the usual return to the (intolerable) status quo ante. But that was it. This time the situation is different. This time an old problem is occurring in a new region. This time Israel is going to war in a new Middle East in which the pieces have by no means settled.
There has not been a major confrontation between Israel and Hamas since the Arab revolutions got underway. But what is plain enough already is that the fallout from even a comparatively minor confrontation in the new situation could get very bad very fast.
Even before these latest events, we witnessed the first fraying of the north-eastern border of Israel. The Israeli-Syrian border has been quiet since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. But in the second week of November Syrian government forces fired into the Golan Heights and Israel returned fire.
The Assad regime, desperate to retain its grip on power, may well have aimed to draw Israel into conflict. One of the few lifelines Assad would have would be if he could deflect domestic and regional attention from his own massacring of Syrian people onto claims of "aggression" by the Israelis. Of course the Syrian situation has its own propulsion, but elsewhere events look more than capable of knitting together.
Perhaps the withdrawal of Egypt's ambassador to Israel and the Egyptian government visit to Gaza are only diplomatic posturing. But this comes after an already serious falling-off in relations between the two countries.
We have already seen the fraying and escalation of security breaches in the south at the Israeli border in the Sinai. The new government in Egypt is allowing this border area to become a place in which terrorists are prodding Israel, testing Israel and seeing what it is possible to get away with. This has already led to terror attacks in the south, only – it should be remembered – a short time into the Islamist government in Cairo's life-long period in power.
All these – as well as the most recent – events are linked in one important way. What we are seeing in the Middle East is a breaking down of the unstable but understood ceasefire agreements that held for the best part of a generation. Over the years since the Yom Kippur War ended, Israel made some significant progress in making peace with its neighbors. The treaty with Egypt held, the standoff with Syria was silent and Israel even had success in forging broader alliances with Turkey and other countries.
Recent events suggest that this period may have come to an end. Relations with Turkey have declined sharply during the reign of Erdogan. Assad's Syria is mired in a civil war which could yet explode outwards. And Egypt is governed by the same ideologues that drive Hamas. This is the situation in which Hamas have played their hand again.
The cards may be familiar, but the game has changed: the stakes are higher. A great shift is occurring across the region. We appear to be moving from the era of the dictators to the era of the Islamists.
Whatever is to come, Israel will need her friends abroad, for she has none nearby.
Reader comments on this item
|The Era of the Islamists [233 words]||Max Modine||Nov 22, 2012 01:26|
|What Israel doesn't seem to acknowledge [155 words]||Dennis||Nov 19, 2012 17:48|
|Willing to do what is needed [75 words]||Quiberon||Nov 19, 2012 10:25|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Khaled Abu Toameh
There is growing concern in Ramallah, Cairo, Riyadh and Dubai that the U.S. Administration is working to prevent the collapse of Hamas.
"The Americans mistakenly think that moderate political Islam, which is represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, will be able to combat radical Islam. The Americans are trying to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to the region." — Palestinian official, Ramallah.
The Iranians, with whom the U.S. is now negotiating on nuclear weapons -- amid fears in the Middle East that the U.S. will capitulate to Tehran's demands if it has not effectively capitulated to them already -- have now joined Qatar and Turkey in opposing any attempt to confiscate Hamas's weapons.
The Paris conference was actually a spit in the face to the anti-Hamas forces in the Arab world. By failing to invite the Palestinian Authority to the conference, Kerry indicated that he does not see any role for Abbas and his loyalists in a post-Hamas Gaza Strip.
by Amir Taheri
According to Küntzel, German leaders have at least two other reasons for helping Iran defy the United States. The first is German resentment of defeat in the Second World War followed by foreign occupation, led by the US. The second reason is that Iran is one of the few, if not the only country, where Germans have never been looked at as "war criminals" because of Hitler.
by Malcolm Lowe
Go to Nazareth and you can easily find the mini-mosque. It displays a large poster of Koran quotations denigrating Christianity and urging Christians to convert to Islam.
Overlooked is a fundamental difference between the two regimes. Israel is a state governed by the rule of law. The Palestinian Authority, like most other states in the region, is a personal dictatorship. Arafat started the fashion of simply disregarding the laws.
What is needed in Israel is a central policy unit with the brief of developing long-term policies both to integrate Israeli Christians and to engage with the great variety of Christians in foreign countries.
by Peter Huessy
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler not only invents points the Cheneys did not make, he then casually dismisses "uncomfortable points" they did make. How many Pinocchios is that worth?
Kessler evidently assumes that when intelligence assessments differ, the correct version is only that which differs from the points made by the Cheneys but not by their critics.
Most senior Democratic members of the Senate at the time voted -- twice -- for giving the President the authority to take down Saddam Hussein. How else can Democrats say they made a mistake voting for the war if they cannot now make the case that they were "fooled"?
The U.S. took down Saddam Hussein's regime because on balance the threat-intelligence could not be ignored.