The Jews Bring Their Sons Home

Today, Israel transferred 5 Lebanese POWs, including Israel's most reviled prisoner, Samir Kuntar, in return for the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Kuntar was captured on April 22, 1979 at the age of 16, when he kidnapped a young father, Danny Haran, and his 4-year-old daughter, Einat, taking them to a nearby beach in Nahariya. He was found guilty of murdering Danny in front of Einat, then turning to the child and crushing her skull against a rock with the butt of his rifle. This is what the Lebanese celebrate.... Kuntar was given a hero's welcome at a red-carpet state ceremony in Beirut today, where yellow Hizbullah flags lined the streets. Lebanon has declared a national holiday, and posters cover buildings, showing the Lebanese excitement. One poster read: "Israel is shedding tears of pain. Lebanon is shedding tears of joy."

A few months ago, I was debating with a Lebanese supporter of Hizbullah, and I made the point that Hizbullah was the aggressor by initiating The Second Lebanon War through their kidnapping of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. His response: "Come on, you know that Hizbullah has never hurt the captives that it takes. It just holds onto them in order to get back the people Israel keeps captive."

There is a very twisted picture in this statement that clearly shows how deeply Hizbullah-propaganda resonates with the Lebanese people. Hizbullah has become a master at using propaganda and twisting stories in order to gain popularity. The 2006 Lebanon War is another clear example of this. Where by any technical calculation, Israel seems to have won the war (They caused much more damage than the opponent, they took the battleground whereas Hizbullah terrorists didn't touch Israeli soil, Hizbullah sued the UN for a cease-fire, etc.), it has become generally accepted that Hizbullah was the victor. All that needs to be done in order to accomplish this is film a few Hizbullah attacks, and declare victory, and that is precisely what Hizbullah did and what they're doing again now. This prisoner exchange strengthens Hizbullah because it understands the propaganda game, which unfortunately, Israel does not.

But just because Hizbullah got stronger from this exchange does not mean that Israel is weaker. The sacrifice that Israelis have made today proves that we are on the moral and ethical high-ground. Bringing back our soldiers, even if they have fallen, has always been one of Israel's and Judaism's highest priorities, and we need to look at their return with pride.

We cannot allow these soldiers to have died in vain, and we cannot allow Nasrallah to mock us. We pity them that they celebrate the release of an animal who crushed the skull of a 4-year-old girl. We pity that they rejoice. Today's events are a victory for the Nation of Israel, because we have proven to the world that we are One Nation with One Heart. The Arabs have Palestinians massacring each other with Hamas and Fatah. They have Hizbullah massacring other Lebanese civilians just to gain political points. They have Iraqi terrorists massacring hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Arabs.

The Jewish people, on the other hand, remain strong and united, and the Arabs are jealous of that. We have proven to the world our strength, while Hizbullah continues to spread lies to its own people. The unity that we have is our greatest asset, and we must never forget that.

Syria: Part 1

Syria has long been one of the least understood Arab countries in the Middle East, and very unfortunately so, given its extreme importance in Arab politics. Questions like "Why does Syria, unlike Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, support Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas?" and "Why does Syria feel the need to control Lebanon?" are big issues that are not properly understood. These issues are very deep and complicated ones that are beyond the scope of one blog post, but over a few of the next posts, I'm going to try and shed some light on the mystery that is Syria.

To anyone who has been following the news lately, Syria has made a few surprising moves over the past month or so that have caught the West's eye. Firstly, the Israeli-Syrian peace track has been renewed with indirect talks through Turkey. Secondly, Syria, as well as 40 other countries, including Israel, attended a conference held by France this week, strengthening Syrian ties with the West. And thirdly, Syria and Lebanon have announced that they will establish ties by opening embassies in each other's country.

The question that needs to be asked is "What are Syria's motives for being more friendly towards the West, and are these gestures really genuine?"

Any understanding of Syrian actions, first of all, requires an understanding of Syria's internal politics. Syria is the most diverse country in the Arab world: 60% of the population is Sunni Muslim, 13% is Christian, 12% Alawite, 9% Kurdish, 5% Druze. About a third are not Muslim, and 10% are not Arabs Moreover, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite (not Muslim), which Muslims largely consider to be heretics (like Druze). How is it that Syria remains as stable as it is?

The answer is that it was not always stable. From 1946 until about 1970 when Bashar's father Hafez Al-Assad became President, Syria was one of the most unstable countries in the world, lacking any sort of coherent identity, world-view, or system. When Hafez took over, he united the country under the banner of Arab nationalism, intentionally making religion secondary, in order to appeal to the Sunni majority, and hiding the fact that he was not Muslim. In many ways, Syria is similar to Iraq, in that Saddam also ruled a Shi'a majority country as a Sunni country through Arab nationalism. Both used a hatred of the West and Zionism as a rallying point. "The reason your life is not better is due not to your government's incompetence, greed, and oppression but to the Zionists and imperialists. They hold you back from progress, so in order to fight for your rights, you must rally behind your dictator." Thus went the propaganda.

The Arab tendency to blame any and all problems on Israel, Zionism, and the West was taken advantage of in order to solidify Assad's regime. At the same time, the internal situation did not improve at all. The economy, school and health systems, roads and transport, communications and buildings, and all other economic and social progress moved nowhere. All Assad had to do was blame others for everything. Egyptian President Nasser followed a similar approach, and today, Egypt remains a wasteland filled with people who are poor, illiterate, and backwards.

Although, this policy does not solve any problems, it definitely keeps regimes stable. And in a region where political survival is more important than doing what's best for your country, this has become a very popular tactic. The latest leader to start using this tactic is Hassan Nasrallah.

So to sum up a bit, Bashar al-Assad's regime's stability relies on his manipulation of Arab nationalism and pride, aiming Arab anger, which would otherwise be pointed at him, towards Israel. What Syria does best is cause the most amount of mischief in the Middle East that it can without getting itself into too much trouble. It supports insurgents in Iraq, Lebanon, and the West Bank and Gaza, and supports Iran, yet has avoided any major attack on its soil. It supported Hizbullah and caused mischief there, but let the Lebanese people suffer the consequences. Bearing all this in mind, it does not really seem to make sense why Syria would want peace with Israel. It seems to go against Assad's vital interests, because as soon as his scapegoat is gone, so is his rallying point, which unifies his diverse population. To be continued....

What to do with Iran?

Over the past few weeks, tensions between Israel and the US on the one hand and Iran on the other have rapidly escalated, and yesterday, these tensions reached their peak when Iran tested 9 missiles, including Shahab-3 missiles, a long range model that Iran claims can reach up to 1250 miles. Parts of western Iran are within 650 miles of Israel.

Iran’s war games are an effort to prevent any attack on the regime, as speculation that either the US or Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. These tests came a day after Iran announced that if it is attacked, “Tel Aviv and the US fleet in the Persian Gulf would be the first targets to burst into flames receiving Iran’s crushing response.”

A few weeks ago, Israel ran what American officials call “a rehearsal for a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.” This drill lit many sparks, and since then, Iran has been making many more hard-line statements.

Honestly though, I don’t see where America is going with this. Attacking Iran would be disastrous for America. Oil prices would nearly double, with some estimates saying that prices would skyrocket to $300 a barrel, up from the current $144. The US already has a tremendous debt because of the Iraq war, and it simply doesn’t have enough soldiers. But then again, an attack on Iran would be very different from the type on Iraq. An attack on Iran would not lead to an occupation of the country, like in the case of Iraq; they would probably only seek to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would give Iran an excuse, though, to start attacking Israel. And the Iranian display of missile launching is clearly an effort to show the US and Israel what it can do. Accordingly, the US has downplayed the significance of the testing.

Iran is very easily winning the psychological battle that is going on between these countries, and America has to do a better job at anticipating Iran’s actions, which so far it has simply not been able to do.

Another possible course of action that might be deployed is that Israel strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, and as quickly as possible, before Iran has time to develop more missiles and possible nuclear weapons. In fact, the US has allowed Israel to use Iraqi air space about a month ago, according to Iranian intelligence, and the Israeli Air Force is planning on revealing military aircraft capable of spying on Iran in the near future. In addition, the US has been trying to install a strategic missile defense program, which would be able to intercept possible Iranian missile attacks. Earlier today, Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Minister, announced that Israel will attack Iran if there is no other option.

Terrorist Bulldozer?

The latest attack in Jerusalem last week shocked a lot of people. Obviously, this was a very unconventional way of carrying out an attack, and in fact, many observers have questioned whether this was a terrorist attack at all. After all, the guy had no connection with any political groups, the Arabs who lived near him said he wasn't that religious, etc. He seemed to simply be insane.

Personally, I also think that it was purely a spontaneous act by an individual with a criminal record, who was very unstable; nevertheless, I also think that this act by an otherwise unaffiliated Palestinian is the reason that a two-state solution simply will not work. By the very fact that it was an individual acting on his own accord, we can derive that the Palestinian leadership, no matter who it might be, does not have enough control over their own people to pass a peace deal. This attack came while no one wanted it: PA President Abbas obviously doesn't want attacks on Israel in order to strengthen his own position in the eyes of Israel and the West and in order to get a permanent solution to this conflict on paper by this year's end, and Hamas also didn't want this attack as we are in the midst of a truce, albeit a shaky one.

That neither major Palestinian group wanted this attack to happen clearly shows that the Palestinian leadership simply does not have adequate power over their own people to prevent them from doing similar things after a peace deal is reached. Who is to say that, if a Palestinian State is erected and Israel and the Palestinians achieve peace, there won't be more crazy individuals who will spoil this peace because they disagree with their leadership's position--and disagreeing with their leadership's position tends to be a very popular thing in the Arab world. If a peace deal is reached and 60% of the Palestinians support the deal (which is a pretty generous estimate), then how can the Palestinians prevent the other 40% from continuing to attack Israel?


This attack clearly shows that the Palestinian leadership is incapable of that. Statistics have repeatedly shown that a large Palestinian majority will not be satisfied with only the West Bank and Gaza as their state; they want all of Israel. That is the major obstacle to a peace agreement in this part of the world. The Palestinian stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise, shown in their rejections of the 1937 Peel Partition, of the 1947 UN Partition,
and at Camp David in 2000, guarantees that a two-state solution will not be enough for them. To steal a line from Alan Dershowitz, "As soon as the Palestinians want their own state more than they want the destruction of the State of Israel, we will have peace."

Unfortunately, Israel cannot make peace with 60% of a population....