|
News
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to the MESI Analysis
|
|
|
|
MESI Map
|
|
|
Media Point-Counterpoint
|
|
|
|
Multimedia
|
|
|
|
|
MESI Issue Of The Week Archive :
Search By Categories :
The Russian-Georgian War: Implications for the Middle East
16/08/2008
Ariel Cohen
|
Regional Affairs
Moscow formulated far-reaching goals when it carefully prepared - over a period of at least two and a half years - for a land invasion of Georgia. These goals included: expelling Georgian troops and effectively terminating Georgian sovereignty in South Ossetia and Abkhazia; bringing down President Mikheil Saakashvili and installing a more pro-Russian leadership in Tbilisi; and preventing Georgia from joining NATO.
Russia's long-term strategic goals include increasing its control of the Caucasus, especially over strategic energy pipelines. If a pro-Russian regime is established in Georgia, it will bring the strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Erzurum (Turkey) gas pipeline under Moscow's control.
In recent years, Moscow granted the majority of Abkhazs and South Ossetians Russian citizenship. Use of Russian citizenship to create a "protected" population residing in a neighboring state to undermine its sovereignty is a slippery slope which is now leading to a redrawing of the former Soviet borders.
Russian continental power is on the rise. Israel should understand it and not provoke Moscow unnecessarily, while defending its own national security interests staunchly. Small states need to treat nuclear armed great powers with respect.
U.S. intelligence-gathering and analysis on the Russian threat to Georgia failed. So did U.S. military assistance to Georgia, worth around $2 billion over the last 15 years. This is something to remember when looking at recent American intelligence assessments of the Iranian nuclear threat or the unsuccessful training of Palestinian Authority security forces against Hamas.
More...
|
|
The Reach of Hizbullah as Iran's Surrogate
29/07/2008
Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi and Ashley Perry
|
Hizbollah
Over the last few years, Iran's proxy Hizbullah, has been spreading its influence far and wide. In its brinksmanship with the West, Iran has learnt much from the two neighbouring Gulf Wars. As opposed to Saddam Hussein, whose threats of an all-out campaign against the West was largely rhetoric; Iran takes a global view and is diligently preparing terrorist networks all over the world which will spring into action when the word is given. Hizbullah receives millions of dollars a year from Iran to finance its operations. After the Second Lebanon War it received even more funds to compensate for its military and civilian losses and to rehabilitate the Shi’ite villages which supported it. The Iranian funds are transferred to Hizbullah by the Al-Qods Force of the Revolutionary Guards, the Iranian foreign ministry and official institutions with branches in Lebanon. The ramifications of Hizbullah's reach are the very real threat they pose in many corners of the world. Iran has understood that to truly threaten and hold the West hostage it must create a multi-faceted menace to the citizens of these nations and their interests. Hizbullah's web of terror cells provides them just that.
More...
|
|
Talking to Terrorists: The Myths, Misconceptions and Misapplication of the Northern Ireland Peace Process
16/07/2008
John Bew and Martyn Frampton
|
UK Affairs
In some instances, the willingness of a state to negotiate might encourage the terrorists to believe that their opponents are ready to concede – even when this is not the case. In June-July 1972, for example, top IRA operatives were flown to London in order to meet senior British politicians, leading the IRA to believe its violent campaign had forced the British to the negotiating table. After the talks failed, on 21 July 1972, the IRA exploded 22 bombs in Belfast in the space of 75 minutes – killing 9 and injuring another 130 on what became known as “Bloody Friday.” By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Republic of Ireland had become a force for stability and peace in Northern Ireland and worked in close cooperation with the British government in the search for a settlement. The same cannot be said of Israel’s neighbors. On the contrary, Iran and Syria continue to support Hamas and encourage its violent campaign, offering it arms, funding, training, and sanctuary. For the British government, formal negotiations with the IRA could only occur in a context in which republican violence had been brought to an end. With the IRA in a position of declining military and political fortunes, it sought to extricate itself via the peace process. The perception of the republican leadership had become – rightly – that IRA violence had held back the political prospects of Sinn Fein. The aims of the IRA posed no existential threat to the British. This is not the case where Israel and Hamas are concerned, however. The objectives of Hamas require the destruction of the State of Israel. Moreover, whereas the political goals of the IRA were confined locally to the future of the island of Ireland, Hamas, by its own admission, is part of a global Islamist movement, known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, diplomatic engagement with Hamas has broader international implications.
More...
|
|
What Iranian Leaders Really Say about Doing Away with Israel
27/06/2008
Joshua Teitelbaum
|
Iran
Over the past several years, Iranian leaders - most prominently, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - have made numerous statements calling for
the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. While certain experts have
interpreted these statements to be simple expressions of dissatisfaction
with the current Israeli government and its policies, in reality, the intent
behind Ahmadinejad's language and that of others is clear.
What emerges from a comprehensive analysis of what Ahmadinejad actually
said - and how it has been interpreted in Iran - is that the Iranian
president was not just calling for "regime change" in Jerusalem, but rather
the actual physical destruction of the State of Israel. When Ahmadinejad
punctuates his speech with "Death to Israel" (marg bar Esraiil), this is no
longer open to various interpretations.
A common motif of genocide incitement is the dehumanization of the target
population. The Nazi weekly Der Stürmer portrayed Jews as parasites and
locusts. Ahmadinejad said in a speech on October 26, 2005: "In the Middle
East, they [the global powers] have created a black and filthy microbe
called the Zionist regime."
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini in
1989, has made statements about Israel similar to Ahmadinejad. On December
15, 2000, he declared on Iranian TV: "Iran's position, which was first
expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those
responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from
the region."
Michael Axworthy, who served as the Head of the Iran Section of Britain's
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, notes that when the slogan "Israel must be
wiped off the map" appeared "draped over missiles in military parades, that
meaning was pretty clear."
There is an ample legal basis for the prosecution of Ahmadinejad in the
International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for
direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity.
More...
|
|
The Hamas Interest in the Tahdiya (Temporary Truce) with Israel
24/06/2008
Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi
|
Hamas
Hamas regards the temporary cease-fire as a tahdiya and not a hudna. A tahdiya - "a period of calm" - is used by Hamas to describe a simple cease-fire. A hudna implies recognition of the other party's actual existence, without acknowledging its legitimacy. In an interview with Al-Jazeera (April 26, 2008), Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal clarified that for Hamas, a tahdiya is "a tactic in conflict management." He added that it "is not unusual for the resistance...to escalate sometimes and to retreat a bit sometimes as the tide does....The tahdiya creates a formulation that will force Israel...to remove the siege...and if it happens it will be a remarkable achievement." Official sources in Israel have explained that Hamas' interest in a lull in the fighting is a result of its "distress." But the organization did not experience "distress." Hamas has introduced and maintained law and order in Gaza, strengthened its overall control, suppressed opposition, and achieved broad popular support for its policies.
An important objective for Hamas is winning the Palestinian presidential election, which will be held when Mahmoud Abbas finishes his term of office in December. The lull will permit Hamas to prepare the field to take over from Abbas. Hamas is liable to claim that, according to Palestinian law, administrative authority should be passed on to the chairman of the parliament, who is a Hamas leader, or should be decided by the parliament itself, where Hamas has an overwhelming majority.
More...
|
|
Egypt Prefers the Israeli "Occupation"
18/06/2008
Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi
|
Gaza
The ongoing deliberations over the management of the Rafah Crossing have proved that Egypt and the human rights organizations prefer the continuation of the Israeli “occupation” of the Gaza Strip to an independent Palestinian rule. Egypt is conducting a cynical political campaign against Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people, which has turned into a pawn in Cairo’s game of interests, and the human rights organizations have rubber stamped Egyptian policy.
More...
|
|
What Drives Ahmadinejad?
15/06/2008
Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi and Ashley Perry
|
Iran
President Ahmadinejad of Iran does not conceal his motives and intentions, to set the stage for the appearance of the Mahdi, the Shiite messiah. This is known as Mahdaviat. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, this term means "belief in and efforts to prepare for the Mahdi." The elimination of the state of Israel and conflict with the West is deemed a prerequisite for this to happen. Ahmadinejad's determination to acquire nuclear weapons is also construed as being part of the signs of messianic redemption, as he and his associates view the showdown with the international community to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology, as one of the ways to prepare the ground for the appearance of the Mahdi.
More...
|
|
UCU's Dubious Moral Standards
08/06/2008
Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi
|
UK Affairs
Although taking a principled stand against injustice is theoretically to be welcomed, there appears to be a highly dubious double-standard when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In strident contrast to the harsh criticism of Israel, the UCU has failed to issue any condemnation of the Hamas government terrorist policy, and the day to day terrorist attacks emanating from the Gaza Strip aimed at Israeli towns and cities. UCU's moral stand in inviting Palestinian academics is even more dubious. Following a decision by the UCU Congress 2007, a delegation of Palestinian academics was invited to undertake a speaking tour of UK universities and colleges. Four colleagues from PFUUPE (the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees) attended meetings across the UK during April 2008 and represented the Palestinian universities of Bir Zeit (Ramallah), Al-Najah (Nablus) and Bethlehem. The discussions between UCU and PFUUPE were concentrated on promoting fields of cooperation and supporting the Palestinian academia, ignoring the fact that in all these universities there is a strong presence from the Palestinian terrorist organizations.
More...
|
|
Syria: Between Negotiations with Israel and the Iranian Axis
02/06/2008
David Schenker
|
Syria
Splitting Syria off from Iran could have a profound effect on the Middle East, so it's no wonder that policy-makers in Israel and Washington have contemplated initiatives with an eye toward achieving this goal. Israeli officials, however, continue to be preoccupied with this vision of a new Middle East with Damascus firmly planted in the pro-Western camp. For Israel, of course, the split would be the primary benefit of an agreement with Damascus. After all, for decades, the Golan has been Israel's quietist border, even more so than its borders with its peace partners in Egypt and Jordan. As such, the only tangible benefit of peace with Damascus would be the corresponding diminished military capabilities of Hamas and Hizbullah that presumably would follow. The sine qua non for any agreement would be an end of Syrian support for these groups, a move that would undermine relations between Damascus and Tehran. Despite the fact that the Assad regime has given no signal that it might be tempted to move out of Tehran's orbit - and indeed, the Syrians repeatedly proclaim they will not - Israel's political leadership (as well as many of the state's leading Syria analysts) seem to believe that now is the time to test Damascus. In April 2008, Prime Minister Olmert seemingly stated publicly and without prompting that Israel would be willing to cede the entire Golan for a peace agreement with Syria. While this Israeli position is not new - it is essentially a repeat of the 1993 "Rabin Deposit" - it was an opening that touched off intense speculation that an Assad-Olmert summit might be in the offing.
More...
|
|
The Golan Heights and the Syrian-Israeli Negotiations
25/05/2008
Ambassador Dore Gold
|
Syria
Israeli negotiators will quickly discover three core areas in their discussions with the Syrians that they will not resolve easily: delineation of an agreed boundary, security arrangements, and the Syrian-Iranian alliance. If Israel were to agree to the June 4, 1967, line, as Syria demands, it would be rewarding Syrian aggression. Moreover, it could compromise Israel's control of its largest fresh water reservoir. Israel should not have to be arguing with the Syrians over the question of whether a future Israeli-Syrian boundary should correspond to the June 4, 1967, line or to the older international border, for neither of these lines is defensible. Even if, by prior agreement with Tehran, the Syrians took steps that appeared to be downgrading relations, Israel's concession of the Golan Heights would be irreversible, while the political orientation of states in the Middle East is notoriously changeable. It would be a cardinal error for Israel to put into jeopardy its own security by agreeing to come down from the Golan Heights.
More...
|
|
Lebanon on the Edge of the Abyss
13/05/2008
Zvi Mazel
|
Lebanon
No response has been found to Hezbollah's illegitimate activity. The latest revelations point to the severity of the situation and the announcement of the coalition majority signals panic. The Arab states and the West have failed in all their diplomatic efforts and now stand helpless. Everybody is aware of the danger of chaos hovering over Lebanon and the possibility that it will fall into Iranian hands, but nobody seems to have a suitable answer.
More...
|
|
The Diplomatic Dance with Hamas
05/05/2008
Efraim Karsh
|
Hamas
Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, sees the struggle for Palestine as neither an ordinary political dispute between two contending nations (Israelis and Palestinians), nor even as a struggle for national self-determination by an indigenous population against a foreign occupier. Rather, it sees Palestine as but one battle in a worldwide holy war to prevent the fall of a part of the House of Islam to infidels.
In the words of Hamas foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar: "Islamic and traditional views reject the notion of establishing an independent Palestinian state....In the past, there was no independent Palestinian state....[Hence], our main goal is to establish a great Islamic state, be it pan-Arabic or pan-Islamic."
Hamas' extreme belief that a perpetual state of war exists between it and anyone, either Muslim or non-Muslim, who refuses to follow in the path of Allah does not permit it to respect, or compromise with, cultural, religious, and political beliefs that differ from its own. Its commitment to the use of violence as a religious duty means that it will never accept a political arrangement that doesn't fully correspond to its radical precepts.
More...
|
|
Winning Counterinsurgency War
15/04/2008
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror
|
Terrorist Threat
Contrary to popular belief, conventional armies can indeed defeat terrorist insurgencies. This study details the six basic conditions which, if met, enable an army to fight and win the war against terrorism, among which are control of the ground where the insurgency is being waged, acquiring relevant intelligence for operations against the terrorists themselves, and isolating the insurgency from cross-border reinforcement with manpower or material.
It also examines the factors that can help drive a wedge between the local population and the insurgent forces seeking its support. The principles of war are also analyzed in terms of their applicability to asymmetric warfare to show how they still serve as a vital guide for armies in vanquishing terror.
Finally, the study warns that if the U.S., Israel, or their Western allies incorrectly conclude that they have no real military option against terrorist insurgencies - out of a fear that these conflicts inevitably result in an unwinnable quagmire - then the war on terrorism will be lost even before it is fully waged.
More...
|
|
Arab League Disorientation
02/04/2008
Editor
|
Arab League
The recent Arab League meeting in Damascus displayed the internal disputes within the Arab world to the outside. The main themes of discontent appeared to be the crisis in Lebanon and unhappiness at growing Iranian influence in the Middle East.
As a result of these two not unrelated events, three of the Arab world’s heavyweights, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, downgraded their attendance to the meeting to low level representation. In all, nine heads of state from the Arab League's 22 members did not attend the Damascus gathering. This was an open snub to the meetings host, Syria, who many are blaming for interfering in the internal politics of another sovereign state, Lebanon.
Lebanon boycotted the summit completely, the first time an Arab country has refused to send a delegation since Arab leaders began holding annual summits in 2000. The Western-backed government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora accuses Syria of blocking attempts to elect a new Lebanese president.
It is increasingly clear that Iran, never the warmest friend of many in the Arab world, is now being openly reprimanded in a far more belligerent manner. This is attested to by the diplomatically harsh language that the ‘Damascus Declaration’ has used against issues of interest to Iran.
The Sunni hegemony is sorely being tested by a growing number of actors who, if not Shiite, have placed their interests alongside that of Iran’s, like Syria.
More...
|
|
“Unacceptable Behaviours”?
25/03/2008
Editor
|
UK Affairs
Recently, Moshe Feiglin, a member of the Likud party, was sent a letter by British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith informing him that he would not be allowed to enter the UK. Mr Feiglin, a staunch opponent of the Oslo peace accords in the 1990s, was told by the Home Office that he was considered to be “seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK”.
The Home Office said that as such, his acts fell into a list of “unacceptable behaviours,” which was created in the wake of the London bombings. The letter further stipulated that there is no means of recourse or appeal.
However, in February, the chief editor of the Hizbullah-affiliated newspaper Al-Intiqad and former editor-in-chief of al-Manar, Ibrahim Moussawi, was not obstructed from entering the UK. This even after Conservative leader David Cameron called on Gordon Brown to exclude Moussawi from the UK. Moussawi was banned from entering Ireland and France for similar speaking tours.
Moussawi should a prime target for the list of “unacceptable behaviours” which prevents the likes of Feiglin from entering the UK. While Moussawi defends, lauds and supports an officially designated terrorist organisation, Feiglins’ comments, whatever ones opinion of them, have never led to actual violence. There must be something rotten in a system which allows someone who happily allies himself to an openly genocidal and terrorist organization to enter the UK and speak freely in this manner.
More...
|
|
|
|