A Second Front: The Israeli Dilemma

Rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government forces captured a border crossing between Syria and Israel in the disputed Golan Heights. While Syrian forces are attempting to recapture the crossing near Quneitra, the outlook is bleak; Syria also lost the Tabqa airbase in the country's north, the site of a gruesome mass execution of prisoners of war - a war crime from any perspective. The Nusra Front, linked to al Qaeda, participated in the Quneitra battle and represents a wakeup call for Israel as it settles the country's border.

(Source: The Times of Israel)

It is unlikely that the Israelis are interested in a two-front war, having just disengaged from 50 days of warfare in Gaza just a few days ago. This ceasefire itself may only prove to be temporary. The Israelis have fought several two-front wars in their past (1948, 1967, and 1973) and have conducted operations on multiple fronts since; however, handling two distinct conflict zones is not something that is desired.

Israel has largely stayed out of the Syrian Civil War, having only sporadically engaged across the border. However, with alert levels raised and the capture of 43 United Nations peacekeepers charged with securing the Israel-Syria border by rebel forces, reality may become necessity. Both Israel and the West may have to choose the lesser of two evils - Assad or the rebels. The US is not expected to work with Assad, but airstrikes against some of the rebel forces, namely the Islamic State, may come. This could place Israel in a precarious position of both defending itself and not being swallowed in regional conflict.

Building on Trust: Why the US Isn't Getting Very Far in Israel

Israel and Hamas are, by all accounts, at war in Gaza. US Secretary of State John Kerry is in the Middle East, frantically working with Israelis and Egyptians to nail down some sort of halt to hostilities, since the United States cannot work directly with Hamas - a designated terrorist organization. He's not getting very far and it's not entirely surprising. 

(Source: Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images via The National Post)

Kerry next travels to France, where anti-Semitic rioting has flared in recent days, to attempt to gain support for a ceasefire among European leaders. Earlier, the Israeli cabinet rejected Kerry's ceasefire proposal, which the US has since downplayed as a disagreement on final wording - that no proposal was formally put forth. Part of that rejection involves Israel asserting its objective to continue to destroy tunnels during any ongoing ceasefire. Nonetheless, Israel and Hamas have agreed to a 12-hour humanitarian ceasefire, beginning at 8 AM local time.

It's not shocking to see Israel and the US disagree lately; there's very little substance to the US-Israel relationship under the Obama administration. In fact, it could be argued that there's likely no trust at all among leadership in the two countries. Just this past week, Kerry was caught criticizing the Israeli operation in Gaza. In backtracking, Kerry could only come up with the something trite: "...war is tough. We defend Israel's right to do what it is doing..." Well, of course. In 2011, at the G20 meeting, President Obama was also caught making an offhand remark about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, suggesting that he was "fed up with him" and perhaps even agreeing with then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Netanyahu was a liar. Earlier in 2011, Obama rebuffed meeting Netanyahu in the US, a surprise given the close US-Israel relationship in the past. The two have met as recently as this past March, with Netanyahu clearly stating that he would do nothing that would hinder Israeli national security. The two have spent more time attempting to lecture one another than to truly discuss options for peace.

The nonexistence of any legitimate relationship clearly undermines cooperative efforts to bring peace to the region. The damage done to the relationship may prove to solely be superficial - something a change in leadership on either side (or likely both sides) may correct. At the same time, the failure to secure any significant gains, not only in Israel, but in the greater Middle East as a whole, is a legacy that the Obama administration does not desire. In addition to the current Israeli-Hamas war, there are wars, on one level or another, in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Mali and political strife in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Bahrain, and Iran (I'm sure I missed some). The toll in Syria alone may be as high as 160,000, not something that history or the administration can (continue to) easily brush aside.

The only options that remain during Obama's final few years in office are to make significant and serious decisions. The Washington Post suggests disarming Hamas; after all, how many political parties typically have a military wing (though it is important to note that some have in the past, including Israeli ones). Such bold action will not be easy, but any easy solutions have long since passed. It is time to make difficult decisions that bring change. Only with change can there be peace.

Coup? What's a Coup?

...our month-long summer hibernation is over...

Coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government (Oxford Dictionary)

Coup: a change in government that is not in the nation's interest, when we decide that it's not, and not any sooner (United States government definition)

There is, of course, a formal definition likely somewhere buried in the government's glossary, but it's not quite relevant. It is clear in everyone's eyes that Egypt's change in government was a coup, whether or not the United States supported the change.

Since the overthrow, the United States has been on the "what do we do!?!" fence for what has seemed like an eternity. Formally labeling the change in government a coup leads to all sorts of ramifications, domestically and abroad. Namely, the US aid agreement with Egypt would likely be invalidated by the coup definition. This could complicate matters with the silent, but reciprocal aid given to Israel to avoid a perception of favoritism in the Middle East. Save for Afghanistan, Egypt and Israel are at the top of the list for United States military aid, and largely have been so since their 1979 peace treaty. At home, the government could be on the hook for the contracts that would terminate as a result of halting aid to Egypt - and the price is not cheap.

Quietly, over the past week, reports have leaked that aid to Egypt is not only under review, but may have already been suspended. Of course, this could be a technicality with a time lag - purchases already made for the fiscal year could be in the past and the looming cut so far in the future that it is still under discussion. Other funding tranches may simply not yet be due. Nonetheless, the positive side is sending a signal. The mess needs to be cleaned up and in an orderly fashion - not with civilians bleeding in the streets. Egypt may turn out, after all, to be a comparison against the change in regime in Iraq. What path is the one that leads toward a better future? Only time will tell.

To Do What Feels Necessary

Reports early this morning indicated that Israel had struck inside Syria, though details were slim. At first, there was speculation that the Israelis had struck a chemical weapons site. This would have changed the dynamics of the Israel-Syria relationship, which remains in a technical state of war. Despite espousing concern over Syria's chemical weapons over the past month, Israel has not ventured into the conflict itself, likely at the behest of the United States, who belatedly continues to review and grow concerned with the atrocities inside Syria.

It seems, later reports indicate, that Israeli planes did not enter Syrian airspace (though they did enter Lebanese airspace) to conduct the airstrike. In fact, the target was another weapons convoy to Hizbullah, much like the previous strike in January. Therefore, in fact, as the day has gone on and the details have come out, this story has died down. It is not a new phase in the war, but Israel's continuance of doing what is necessary in order to keep itself secure.

Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons

President Obama's visit to Israel this week would be an excellent opportunity for some serious, evenhanded discussion on what's going on in Syria. In fact, the President should pull in  his national security team and ask Benjamin Netanyahu to do the same. Frankly, the testy relationship between the two leaders is reflected in the countries' differing statements on Syria's use of chemical weapons.

See, the Israelis are affirming reports that Syria has begun to use chemical weapons. The Syrians, of course, blame it on the rebels. As does Russia. The United States, however, is not so sure and is not jumping to any conclusions so quickly. In fact, the United States is "deeply skeptical," which of course sits none too well with Russia and Syria, who are demanding an investigation.

What seems likely is that someone used a chemical (or biological) agent of some sort. Given the levels of frustration and the severity of factions in rebel forces, it is impossible to rule out rebel use, perhaps even to attempt to trigger larger retaliation. President Obama's line in the sand will perhaps turn out to be a moving target. Does it truly mean only if government forces use them? Do dirty agents count, or only official ones? All these questions gloss over the point - the line in the sand is meant to protect the people. If anyone uses chemical agents to any extent, the line has been crossed. Moreover, continuous retreat is seen as a sign of weakness in the region (as well as elsewhere). One must hold their ground if resolution is truly a desired result. Lastly, the relationship between the United States and Israel could further be strained if they are unable to agree on the events and repercussions of those events in Syria, much like how the relationship has been strained over Iran.

Therefore, the time for action, on some level, is on the horizon. Even nominal air support, with drones perhaps, would indicate that the United States' position is firm and the line in the sand doesn't move with the wind. Such action will, in time, bring Syria closer to resolution, as well as likely continue to repair the relationship with Israel. It is not the time to let technicalities get in the way.

Israel Bombs Syria, Everyone Stays Quiet

Reports surfaced today of an apparent Israeli aerial incursion into Syria, destroying a convoy near Damascus. Other reports indicate a research facility of some sort (biochemical weapons is assumed) was attacked. Syria denies that the Israelis attacked a convoy headed for Lebanon and presumably Hizbullah.

Naturally, the Israelis are quiet. Surprisingly, so is most everyone else. (The US did confirm it was an Israeli strike)

Israel has been wary of the civil war in Syria for quite some time. That uneasiness has only increased as Assad's power wanes and the situation becomes ever more desperate. Many analysts worry that this strike only raises the instability in the region. Apart from all out regional war, how much more unstable the Middle East can get is really questionable.

With Syria continuing to supply weapons to Hizbullah, the Israelis are concerned that those weapons may begin to include biological and chemical agents. However, with Syrian forces engaged all across its own territory, the likelihood of counterattack in response to a strike is limited. The press release  from Syria disguised as a news article may be the most that can be spared. Therefore, the logic behind this military action can be seen clearly.

Apart from these facts, it seems more likely for Assad to take any possible weapons with him in retreat to the Alawite territory than to give it to Hizbullah. Selling the excess of what cannot be brought, however, may be a possibility, but it is unlikely that Assad has reached that stage yet. Instead, any possibility that it had, or the option to eliminate a weapons delivery of any sort, with minimal repercussions, was taken.

The most interesting non-news piece of this entire incident is how quiet everyone is. Russia called the action "unacceptable," but is also "clarifying" the incident. Little to no information from other countries can be found. It seems that Syria really has no friends left these days. Perhaps it is time for Assad to make for that exit, or retreat, whatever the wish is.

Hamas & Fatah to Meet, Rehash Disagreements

Hamas and Fatah, leaders of the governments in Gaza and the West Bank respectively, have apparently agreed to meet in Cairo under the mediation of Egypt's president, Mohammed Morsi. Although ties have warmed of late, Hamas and Fatah remain polar opposites in their approach toward sovereignty,  independence, and Israel. While Hamas refuses to renounce violence or acknowledge Israel's right to exist, Fatah, through the PA, has already engaged Israel for decades and has pushed for recognition through the United Nations. Unfortunately, Fatah's engagement with Israel has not proved beneficial, with many now viewing Fatah as a mere pawn and Hamas as the voice of the Palestinians. Nonetheless, reconciliation can have many benefits, including a possible return to the peace process. As in any process, two significant roadblocks exist: time and trust. Hamas and Fatah have been enemies not only politically, but also on the street. To imagine their peaceful coexistence under the current framework is difficult. Trust will be difficult to build quickly, and time is short, and yet moves ever slowly in the Middle East. Changes in government, policy, and even public opinion in both other Arab countries (including Egypt itself) and Israel can play havoc on the differences that exist between Hamas and Fatah, differences that may not be resolved in time for reconciliation. A two-state solution with contested multi-party democracy in the Levant may continue to be a dream as disagreements continue to resurface.

The Grass Isn't Always Greener on the Other Side

Revolutions, in all their forms, rarely setup a country to be exactly what the revolutionaries wanted it to be. Take for example how Iran emerged out of its 1979 revolution (theocratic), or how Russia has developed following the "transfer of power" from Vladimir Putin to Dmitry Medvedev (dictatorial). Egypt is no outlier to the post-revolutionary balancing act wherein a country seeks to redefine itself on the international stage and appease the populace who clamored for revolution.

In the West, it is therefore troubling that one of the first trips by Egypt's new President, Mohammed Morsi, is to China and Iran. In China, Morsi will focus on business and development. These are important objectives: China is sought after as an alternative to Western influence throughout the world and Egypt is in dire need of an economic kindling in order to validate the revolution. In Iran, he will attend the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement. Morsi will not visit the United States until the upcoming United Nations meeting.

This trip scheduling may be just logistics, but it will also be seen as a poor choice in the West (Thomas Friedman in particular doesn't like it). The United States is one of the largest aid donors to Egypt and no friend of Tehran's. At the same time, relations with China remain cool, and could head for a downturn if an incoming American president labels China a currency manipulator. Therefore it is troubling that Morsi chose to visit Tehran in person - which no Egyptian president has done since its 1979 treaty with Israel - rather than send a deputy or via alternative diplomatic means.

Morsi is clearly attempting to solidify a position as a moderate. The question everyone wants to know the answer to is: Is he one? At the same time as his trip abroad began, Morsi, albeit in somewhat vague terms, reaffirmed Egypt's position to the treaty with Israel as well as its terms regarding the Egyptian military's presence in the Sinai. One thing to remember is that eventually, everyone is aligned (even if you are aligned with the non-aligned) and the grass isn't always greener on that other side. It might behoove Mr. Morsi to consider not only where a significant amount of Egyptian aid comes from, but also which countries may most benefit the business, development, and political prospects of Egypt for years to come.

Coexistence & the Two-State Solution

It can be claimed that Israeli society is as polarized as it has ever been. Critical rifts run through: secular vs. religious, Jewish vs. Muslim, immigrant vs. native, and many others within those labels as well as across them.

Recently, a group of Jewish teenagers beat an Arab teenager to within inches of his life (he has since been released). Unsurprising to many observers, a general lack of enmity toward Arabs by religious Jewish populations may have been an underlying cause. Many Israelis recognize the inevitability of coexistence and the two-state solution - the alternative is all-out war and annihilation. However, some continue to believe that they are participating in a zero-sum game. In reality, the situation is one where both sides can benefit. It is therefore positive to see that Israel ordered its schools to discuss the beating, as well as the feelings that may have fueled it. What would be even more positive would be to see would be for this incident to be labeled, officially speaking, racist and the charges being level with the hate crime category in the United States. The government should take the stance that this kind of activity will not be tolerated in the society that Israel seeks to build.

When do we start helping Israel with the Middle East's dirty work?

In 1981, Israeli planes bombed and destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor just south of Baghdad. The operation was vehemently lambasted by the United Nations. At the same time, many believe that the attack set back a developing nuclear weapons program by at least a decade. This not to say that work on weapons of mass destruction halted entirely after the attack, but that efforts to meet those ends were harmed. Even the expansion of those efforts and their hidden nature did not, it seems, bring Iraq back to where it would have been had the reactor remained.

More than 20 years later, in 2007, Israeli commandos and planes destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria. Reaction, this time around, was softer with largely silence throughout the Middle East. Reports quickly confirmed that the destroyed facility was an undeclared nuclear reactor with possible military implications.

Come to 2012, and the question of Iranian reactors lingers. Israel has been repeatedly asked to back off and avoid repeating the 1981 and 2007 incidents. It seems though, that patience is wearing thin. For Israel, the question is not of politics, or even military ability; the question is existential. Will the Israelis carry out a third strike on a nuclear reactor in the Middle East in (just about) 30 years?

This time around, the environment is different. Calculations are more complex. The Israeli public is arguably more comfortable with the international environment and more wary of a war with a (relative) neighbor, or at least one with the missile capacity to rock Israeli cities and towns.

The US, the West, and the UN, have tiptoed around the issue of Iranian nuclear development for years. Perhaps it is time we draw a hard line and help our supposed ally, thereby possibly also avoiding an all-out conflict that could drag in other neighbors, including those with fledgling democratic reforms.

Gaza: An Opportunity for Israeli-Egyptian Cooperation?

The truth is that neither Egypt nor Israel is particularly pleased with the long-term development of Gaza since Israeli disengagement and less so since Hamas took control. Hamas' access to third-party support, financial and otherwise, outside of its neighbors, largely from Iran, gives it significant leverage to develop activities aimed at destabilizing both. With little to no aboveboard economic activity, Gaza's legitimate ties to its neighbors are nothing more than lines in the sand.

Last week, a brazen attack by militants left 16 Egyptian soldiers dead near the border crossing with Rafah. The goal, seemingly to create security problems for both neighbors, is worrisome. While the attack was into Egypt, one vehicle was reportedly driven into Israel for nearly a mile before being destroyed. Egypt has since arrested several suspects, but it's not clear whether this will truly mitigate a growing problem of lawlessness in Sinai, promoted by Hamas and its supporters (even regional news outlets largely share this view). Nonetheless, the Rafah crossing is under constant attack, putting Egypt on the defensive. The border is not the only issue - the problem stems far into Sinai, as evidenced most recently by the attack on peacekeeping forces at its heart. Since Hamas controls the arms, as well as the smuggling tunnels, in Gaza, is there anyone else to blame for the "militant" attacks?

While it is easy to look at the glass half-empty - another security problem in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the region - it can also be seen half-full - an opportunity for two "new" partners (considering Egypt's recent political transition) to cooperate to secure their shared interests. Egypt and Israel have, in the past, cooperated on improving the Rafah crossing in order to benefit legitimate crossing and to mitigate militant operations. Perhaps it will be clearer now that increased cooperation is needed, to secure the border above the sand, destroy the tunnels beneath it, and even to reassert Egypt's presence in Sinai outside of its periphery.