Overview:

The year started with a bang, or many bangs to be precise. The events of late December- mid January one year ago set the stage for relations between Israel and the rest of the world. Israel launched Operation Cast Lead on the Gaza Strip to attempt to end the incessant rocket fire into southern Israel. The country used a military strategy to prevent the possibility of any soldier abductions by Hamas, thereby resulting in the air force playing a prominent role as opposed to ground troop incursions. Both the United Nations and Arab countries condemned Israel, causing tension between Israel and Turkey, the cancellation of anticipated peace talks between Syria and Israel, and accelerated tensions between Hamas and both the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. Against the back drop of disunity among the Palestinians, new U.S. President Barack Obama attempted to restart negotiations between newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who was forced to forge a coalition with right-wing groups, and PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who subsequently threatened to resign at the beginning of next year. The peace process, Palestinian reconciliation, Syrian peace, and efforts to secure the release of Gilad Shalit largely remained stagnant. However, one front did show significant developments- the Iranian nuclear threat. The Israeli military mobilized parts of its naval fleet, performed preparedness exercises, asserted its right to defend the country, and pushed the United States to act on the issue.

Person of the Year:

The FPA Israel Blog person of the year is not U.S. President Barack Obama or any of his surrogates who pressured Israel to thwart settlement activity. It’s not Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who acknowledged the goal of obtaining an independent Palestinian state and is being pulled between domestic, pro-settler factions and international pressure to freeze all settlement activity. It’s not “kingmaker” Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman who threw his weight behind Netanyahu to establish a Likud, and not Kadima, led government. It’s not Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas or Prime Minster Salam Fayyad, who developed an extraordinary plan to take ownership of state building efforts through institution building. All those would make acceptable, albeit predictable, choices.

Instead, we only heard directly from this person once this year, but those words resounded with Israelis and his supporters fueled domestic turmoil and debate. Abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit has been in captivity since 2006. His capture resulted in domestic and military readjustments by Israel. On the military front, the IDF continues to fear losing another soldier and Israeli citizens to terrorists. The government authorized the IDF to use aerial force on its attacks on the Gaza Strip. The strike on Gaza, which resulted in what many international critics called an unnecessary loss of life, halted the Syrian peace process, produced a row with Turkey, and led the United Nations to investigate. Domestically, supporters of his release pressured both outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Netanyahu to swap terrorists held in Israeli prisons for Shalit. Meanwhile, opponents rallied, saying a trade would encourage terrorists to attempt and abduct more soldiers and result in the release of dangerous terrorists back into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Similarly, many international officials, notably Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, attempted to use their influence to secure Shalit’s release. At this juncture, the Israeli government could be nearing completion of a deal to free Shalit and after over three years in captivity, he’ll be returned to his family. The failure of a deal would result in resumed domestic debate on the issue but also represent a severe blow to negotiations with Hamas over Shalit’s release. Of greatest note, Israel swapped dozens of female prisoners for a video showing Shalit is still alive. Regardless of the position of Israelis on the prisoner exchange, the video resounded among Israelis, who saw not only a scared young man, but the possibility of their sons and brothers standing in his shoes. Gilad Shalit, and the issue of his release, influenced every facet of Israeli politics including military strategy, foreign policy, the peace process, and domestic stability, all while touching hearts and souls of Israelis from all backgrounds and political persuasions.

Most Unexpected Event:

How often do you hear about a leader -but especially a Palestinian leader- voluntarily stepping down? When Mahmoud Abbas said he would no longer serve as Palestinian Authority President over frustrations with the peace process, he threw open the door for another Palestinian leader to take over sovereignty efforts and, if successful, become a legend in Arab and Palestinian circles for generations to come.

What to Watch for in 2010:

Peace Process: In two words- who knows? Too many factors and too many variables will affect this front. U.S. involvement and concessions the Obama Administration can elicit from Israelis, Palestinians, and the Arab world will shape this debate. The right-wing Likud-led coalition could easily collapse in the event Israel agrees to certain concessions. The status of Palestinian reconciliation and pending Palestinian elections will either establish a negotiating partner for Israel, resume the status quo of stagnation, or create an all-out internal Palestinian struggle for domination. Any major military action –either involving strikes on Hezbollah, Hamas in Gaza, or Iran- will put the peace process on the back burner. Conversely, developments in peace negotiations with Syria or improved relations with the Gulf States could help pave the way for a long-awaited peace deal.

Palestinian Reconciliation: Palestinian elections are currently slated for the beginning of next year. The winner is likely to try and unite the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip with the West Bank’s Palestinian Authority. The success of that effort will hinge almost entirely on who wins and the role Abbas intends on continuing to play in the Palestinian politics. Some of the potential candidates (ie. Marwan Barghouti) could potentially unite the two factions while other candidates (ie. Mohammed Dahlan) would retain limited, if any, credibility from Hamas and fail on this front.

Political Stability: The coalition cobbled together by Netanyahu includes some parties that could bolt at any time. It’s happened before and could easily happen again. In particular, Israel Beitenu (the right-wing party led by Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman who could step down due to a corruption probe) is gaining strength in the country and holds a significant role in the formation of Netanyahu’s government. With Israeli Beitenu withdrawing from the government, Netanyahu would have to woo opposition leader Tzipi Livni to forge an alliance, a prospect she would likely deflect, thereby resulting in new elections. Livni’s Kadima party won more seats in the Knesset than Netanyahu’s Likud, and this fact could encourage Livni to strengthen her party’s representation in another round of elections and even potentially result in a Kadima-led coalition taking the reigns of government.

Settlements: A majority of the year will include the implementation of a ‘temporary’ settlement freeze. The freeze, at this point, does not include Jerusalem. Netanyahu is sure to face international pressure to halt construction in Jerusalem and additional Arab evictions from Jerusalem will undoubtedly result in international condemnation and, at worst, spark a third intifada. Further, the United States insisted on a settlement freeze at the beginning of this year and then pulled back on its pressure. The role of settlements in U.S.-Israel relations may resurface in a more prominent position (especially if settlers continue to burn down mosques as they did this month) or take a back seat to other considerations, such as the Iran threat or simply renewing the peace process.

Gilad Shalit: The year began with Israelis unsure of whether abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit was even alive. Late in the year, Israelis, and the Shalit family, received incontrovertible evidence that Shalit is not dead. The end of the year included speculation and apparent preparations for an anticipated prisoner swap between Israel and Hamas and that Shalit is even receiving medical attention in Egypt. This three year-plus saga could end as I write this post. Or, the Shalit family could be forced into one more year of being without their son. In any event, the domestic debate will continue: should Israel do whatever necessary to secure the release of abducted soldiers or would negotiations with terrorists only result in more abductions of Israelis and establish a pattern that results in the release of dangerous terrorists back into society.

The Syrian Front: Both sides, for years, have asserted their desire for the resumption of apeace process, possibly with Turkish mediation efforts. Will this happen again- probably. Will talk turn into action- probably not. But, in the event the two countries do agree to a peace deal, an agreement would hinge on the status of the Golan Heights and result in immense domestic pressure on Netanyahu from both sides of the political spectrum.

Hezbollah: Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has traded barbs with Israeli officials all year and I would not expect any of those threats to stop. However, taking threats to the next level is another story. A prisoner swap for Gilad Shalit may embolden Hezbollah to attempt to kidnap an Israeli soldier on the border or an Israeli citizen in a foreign country (Hezbollah tried this in Sinai and was thwarted by Egyptian security forces). In the event of a successful kidnapping, the Israeli military may not wait three years and could launch an immediate rescue mission/Hezbollah-dismantling campaign that would heighten the situation into an international crisis situation.

The Iran Threat: It does not sound like Iran will heed international threats of increased sanctions and other potential ramifications of continuing to develop a nuclear program. Israel is unlikely to sit idly by for another year as Iran threatens the country with annihilation. If a U.S.-led economic or military campaign to stop Iran’s nuclear program does not commence and Iran continues to defy international pressure, expect Israel to forge a clandestine alliance with some Arab countries (ie. Saudi Arabia) to unilaterally strike Iranian nuclear facilities (although, the United States would likely covertly sign onto any plan).

The Iranian government supplied the terrorist group Hezbollah with chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction protective gear, according to officials quoted in a Kuwaiti daily today. Hezbollah reportedly stored the chemical weapons in a warehouse that exploded in mid July, killing eight terrorists. The terror group refused to grant Lebanese military and UN workers access to the site until traces of the chemical weapons could be removed, according to the officials. Iran supplied Hezbollah with the chemical weapons via Syrian airports, according to the report. Hezbollah officials insist the blast occurred as a result of collected, undetonated shells from the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006.

Stressing the devestating capabilities of Hezbollah, one source quoted in reports warned:

“You’re going to be reporting a lot on Hezbollah in the future… They already have people on the ground in Europe and elsewhere. They are just waiting for orders to act - they are not in a hurry.”

Recently Israeli and Hezbollah officials began threatening one another, increasing tension along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon. While Israel claimed that the war diminished Hezbollah’s military capabilities, many analysts contend that the terror group fully replenished its supplies. Moreover, Israelis fear that new Hezbollah missiles could reach as far into Israel as Tel Aviv, an explicit threat right from the mouth of Hezbollah Chief Hassan Nasrallah.

Meanwhile, the Russian military intends to sell the Syrian government MIG fighter jets capable of attacking multiple targets from a distance of 180 kilometers, according to a Russian report. The move would improve Syria’s aerial capabilities to support any strike on Israel, a realistic event due to increased tension between Israel and Syrian ally Iran. Moreover, the fighters could defend Syria from any Israeli strike, such as the September 2007 strike on the Syrian nuclear facility.

Earlier this week, the Russian military also became involved with missiles reaching the Middle East, although this time in preventing the munitions’ delivery. While original reports accused Israel of hijacking a ship suspected of carrying Middle East-bound munitions, later reports suspected the Russian government itself stopped the boat.

Photo taken from Debka File.

The Israeli government did a U-turn on its policy involving negotiations with Syria, stating that Jerusalem would only agree to direct talks with Damascus instead of moderated talks through Turkish officials. Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon stated in an interview with Reuters that moderated talks were clearly failing and that only through direct negotiations could Israel and Syria come to an agreement on the Golan Heights, support for terrorism, and an overall peace agreement to end their decades-long struggle. Ayalon praised the Turkish efforts while placing blame squarely on Damascus for failing to invest in peace negotiations. The negotiations through Turkey ceased following Operation Cast Lead although Turkish officials have indicated their desire to renew the process.

Many observers of the Middle East contend that Syria represents the lynch-pin to disarmament of terror groups, preventing a nuclear Iran, and establishing a viable Israel-Palestine peace process. Syria reportedly supports multiple terror groups and maintains its alliance with Iran. By putting Syria in the “peace camp,” Iran and many terror groups would lose a significant ally in the region and therefore feel pressure to ascribe to the Obama administration’s peace and nuclear nonproliferation initiatives.

In the interview, Ayalon stated:

“If they [Syria] are really serious on peace, and not just a peace process which may serve them to extricate them from international isolation, if they are really serious, they will come and sit with us.”

Photo taken from ynetnews.com.

U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell and Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu

In the midst of the Israel-U.S. dispute over settlements and a potential Israeli strike on Iran, four senior American officials will arrive in Israel this week, although U.S. officials contend that the high concentration of American presence in the region is purely coincidental.

U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday in order to encourage the Israeli leader to resume peace negotiations and freeze, at least, the bulk of settlement construction. Mitchell met a month ago with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in lieu of meeting with Netanyahu, reportedly at the request of Israel.

Mitchell traveled today to Syria for meetings with Syrian President Basher al-Assad and declared the need for a resumption in peace negotiations with Israel. Last week, Turkey also expressed an interest to resume its role as a moderator in those discussions.

On Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will visit Israel reportedly to dissuade Israel from military action against Iran in order to halt the Islamic country’s nuclear ambitions. Israel’s recent  anti-ballistic missile tests and military mobilization, coupled with Iranian officials’ comments that they would strike Tel Aviv in retaliation to an attack on their territory, sparked concern that Israel would unilaterally attack Iran. National Security Advisor James Jones and White House Special Assistant Dennis Ross will also visit Israel this week.

Photo taken from the State Department website.

The Turkish government seeks to resume facilitating an Israeli-Syrian peace process, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said today after meeting with Syrian President Basher al-Assad. Resumption of the peace process could result from increased overtures from the United States towards Syria, most notably the appointment of an ambassador to Damascus alongside various trips from high-ranking U.S. officials.

Turkey previously served as a mediator between Israeli and Syrian officials in order to end the decades-long hostility between the two countries. Due to the Israeli offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip in December and January, the Syrian government halted the peace process in protest.

However, Syrian ties with Iran and certain terror groups could pose a threat if Israel decides to use military force against Iran in order to halt the nuclear program. In the event of a strike, many analysts believe that terror activity from groups allegedly sanctioned by Syria could pose significant security concerns for Israel.

Alon Pinkas, a former advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, discusses the three peace processes currently relevant to the the  new Israeli administration in an interview with Middle East Progress. He evaluates the Israel-Palestine track, the Israel-Syria track, and proposals to secure peace between Israel and all the Arab countries. He concludes that an all-encompassing peace process remains most tempting for Israel even though Netanyahu retains a hard-line approach towards both the Palestinians and Syria. Netanyahu refuses to affirm publicly and unequivocally the need for a two-state solution and has not expressed a willingness to return (or give-up on, depending on your political point of view) the Golan Heights to Syria. Notably, Pinkas states:

“There are three circles here. There is the Israeli-Palestinian circle, there is the Israeli-Syrian track and then there is an outer envelope of the regional approach. Now in the regional approach, there are two manifestations, one is the Arab League Initiative of 2002 that is obviously going to be modified and repackaged. But there is another manifestation, a very recent one, and that is King Abdullah of Jordan’s plan—what he calls the 57-state plan, which to many Israelis including President Peres and Defense Minister Barak, a) seems to be a very appealing, and b) a framework that should be acceptable to Israel as long as it is a framework for deliberations and negotiations, rather than a take it or leave it attitude.

 

I think Netanyahu is going to say that the two-state solution is a wonderful bumper sticker, it appeals to many people’s logic, but realistically and practically on the ground it is just not viable at this point. Which is why he is going to argue that we need to invest in a nation-building system—not in a patronizing way that we will build their state for them, but nation-building in the sense that Israel will be able to assist economically, administratively and any other way. And he’ll call on the world to be engaged in that, and build the institutions. Because clearly, what you see in the Palestinian Authority ever since Oslo is a dysfunctional political system that cannot guarantee security in terms of stemming terrorism. If that leads to the creation of a stable and functional Palestinian Authority, than I think that Netanyahu himself at some point will not rule out a two-state solution. Just declaring it right now seems to him to be catering to formulas that have not worked.”

 

“On Syria, I think something is maybe growing in the midst here that we can’t foresee right now. The strategic advantage in Netanyahu’s eyes of the negotiation process with the Syrians is clear. I think that he understands the price that Israel will have to pay. Supposedly, it’s only a real estate dispute: give the Golan Heights back and you will get peace, not an American-Canadian type of peace, but an Egypt-Israeli peace. Cold peace is better than a hot war. But it’s more than that. Not the fact that they are hosting terrorist organizations, which in itself negative, but let’s assume that is something they can deal with in a relatively short period of time, but the nature of the issue with Syria is its alliance with Iran. Now, obviously Israel is realistic enough to know that you can’t demand as a precondition that Syria sever its ties with Iran just as an exchange to entering negotiations. By the same token, you need to understand fully what you are getting in return or whatever territorial compromises you are going to make on the Golan. 

 

I think that on the Syrian track, Netanyahu is much more skeptical of their intentions and interests and thinks that it is not exactly around the corner. And if anything, Netanyahu awaits further American indication of how they see the Syrians.”

 

“The regional approach is something that is going to be much more appealing because of the Iranian threat. The process itself has the potential of a moderating effect. Everyone is around the table. It is not a substitute for bilateral negotiations and I don’t think a 57-nation roundtable is going to solve the problems that the Palestinians feel they encounter every day. I don’t think for one second Netanyahu has any illusions about that. But the regional approach is much more consistent with American interests and I think that both on the eve of his meeting with Obama, but also we can talk of the aftermath of his meeting, Netanyahu, or Israel for that matter, is going to have to make some adjustments, that would be compatible with how the United States is going to perceive the region. Israel should never relent and never compromise on what it deems absolutely vital for its national security, but everything else that is less than vital for national security, modifications and adjustments and reviewing of policies is going to have to be made.”

 

“The regional approach is something that is going to be much more appealing because of the Iranian threat. The process itself has the potential of a moderating effect. Everyone is around the table. It is not a substitute for bilateral negotiations and I don’t think a 57-nation roundtable is going to solve the problems that the Palestinians feel they encounter every day. I don’t think for one second Netanyahu has any illusions about that. But the regional approach is much more consistent with American interests and I think that both on the eve of his meeting with Obama, but also we can talk of the aftermath of his meeting, Netanyahu, or Israel for that matter, is going to have to make some adjustments, that would be compatible with how the United States is going to perceive the region. Israel should never relent and never compromise on what it deems absolutely vital for its national security, but everything else that is less than vital for national security, modifications and adjustments and reviewing of policies is going to have to be made.”

As the U.S. continues to engage Syria in an effort for stability in the Middle East, an article from INNS last November by Tel Aviv University Prof. Eyal Zisser deconstructs the recent peace negotiations undertaken between Israel and Syria. Since the Second Lebanon War, both Syria and Israel anticipated increased tension along the border, with Israeli aircraft even penetrating into Syrian airspace to destroy an alleged nuclear facility. Along this backdrop, both countries also began negotiations through Turkish mediators, thereby signalling at least some desire to resume a peace process. Regardless of the overtures of peace from both countries, Zisser asserts that the leadership lacks the political will and motivation needed for the actualization of a real peace deal in the near future. He writes:

“Yet despite the renewal of indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria, there are no signs of a breakthrough that will lead to a peace agreement between the two countries and direct them away from the path of confrontation they have pursued for generations. The difficulty in achieving such a breakthrough stems first and foremost from a lack of a genuine vision of peace, along with determination, persistence, and most of all personal and political strength among Syrian and Israeli leaders, as well as in the US administration Indeed, while the Syrian president has made many lofty statements about his wish for peace with Israel, it is questionable whether Bashar al-Asad has the will and the determination to execute a significant political process with Israel, with all that entails, as did Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat.”

The Palestinian Authority refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to a Jewish state while Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu mandates the statement prior to the resumption of any peace process. Palestinian officials contend that the PLO already acknowledged Israel’s right to exist in the Declaration of Principles while Netanyahu refuses to support the Palestinians’ right to a state. The United States contends that the Palestinian Authority does not need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state prior to the resumption of talks.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Netanyahu that peace with the Palestinians must coincide with a regional peace plan, including Syria. This strategy falls directly in line with U.S. posture towards the conflict, reinforced by State Department envoy George Mitchell’s comments during his recent visit. Barak’s statements increase support for the Arab peace plan that would grant Israel diplomatic ties with Arab nations in exchange for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.

Regardless of changes to the draft Durban II conference document, the State Department released its final decision to boycott the anti-racism event. An official U.S. statement condemns the final document for reaffirming the first Durban conference in 2001 that singled-out Israel for human rights violations. As of today, the United States, Israel, Holland, Sweden, Australia and Italy intend to boycott the event. The official State Department statement reads:

“The United States is profoundly committed to ending racism and racial discrimination. This abiding commitment to the fight against racism and all forms of discrimination arises from the most painful pages of our history, and the most cherished values of our nation. We believe that people of every color and creed are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that equality and nondiscrimination are fundamental principles of international law.

The United States will work with all people and nations to build greater resolve and enduring political will to halt racism and discrimination wherever it occurs.

The United States is deeply grateful to the many country delegations, including Russia as chair, and senior United Nations officials who have worked steadfastly to improve the review conference outcome document and to re-focus the Durban Review Conference squarely on racism and discrimination. We applaud the progress that has been made. The current document is significantly improved compared with prior versions, which is an accomplishment for all who aim to build a world free of every form of discrimination.

However, the text still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) from 2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to support. Its inclusion in the review conference document has the same effect as inserting that original text into the current document and re-adopting it. The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding “incitement,” that run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech.

Unfortunately, it now seems certain these remaining concerns will not be addressed in the document to be adopted by the conference next week. Therefore, with regret, the United States will not join the review conference. The United States remains fully committed to upholding the human rights of all individuals and to fighting racial discrimination of every form in every context. We will continue to work assiduously in all United Nations fora and with all nations to combat bigotry and end discrimination. “

State Department Middle East Envoy George Mitchell met yesterday with Israeli and Palestinian officials in Jerusalem and the West Bank, reaffirming the U.S. position of the need for a two-state solution. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that the historical approach to the peace process only weakened Israel and led to wars. Instead, Lieberman proposed economic stimulus in the territories as a non-traditional endeavour to bolster peace efforts. Mitchell expressed that the White House welcomes economic assistance to the Palestinians, but the aid cannot substitute a peace process aimed at Palestinian sovereignty. PA President Mahmoud Abbas also met with Mitchell, urging the envoy to pressure Israel to pursue a peace plan. The two even discussed the possibility of forming an international committee to monitor peace efforts. The Obama Administration is urging Israel to pursue concurrent peace plans with the Palestinians and Syria. Officials contend that the actualization of peace on both fronts would weaken Iranian influence, thereby easing negotiations over the country’s nuclear program. The plan under development by the White House resembles the Arab Peace Initiative originally draft by the Saudis, which gives Israel full diplomatic ties with the Arab world in exchange for an independent Palestinian state along 1967 borders. A symbol of the collision course between the Obama Administration and the right-leaning Netanyahu government in Israel occurred yesterday, with Lieberman forgetting to shake hands with Mitchell after a joint statement.

Controversial Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called for the “reconsideration” of the Oslo Accords, days after his installation ceremony when he made dismissive comments regarding the Annapolis summit. Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas urged Israel to promptly accept a two-state solution.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad continues to increase rhetoric on Middle Eastern Peace, this time lauding the need for added U.S. involvement.

A conference in Paris recently concluded congregated the Palestinian diaspora in order to discuss the right of return. Refugees from throughout Europe, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the territories attended the event.