RSS
The Future of Syria Is Uncertain; Here’s What Israel Should Be Doing (PART TWO)
Syria’s de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Golani, waits to welcome the senior Ukrainian delegation led by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, after the ousting of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, in Damascus, Syria, Dec. 30, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Part One of this article appeared here.
Former UK Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs referred in one of his articles to the book Radical Uncertainty by British economists John Kay and Mervin King. The book makes a distinction between risk and uncertainty. Risk can be calculated, but uncertainty cannot. Therefore, in situations of uncertainty, the authors recommend focusing on understanding the situation. This should be accomplished not by calculating probabilities but by observing what is actually happening on the ground with eyes that are open to new perspectives and new threats.
This approach should apply to the current shake-up of the regional system in the Middle East.
The Turkish orientation towards the leadership of al-Julani, leader of the rebels, warrants great concern. Turkish President Erdogan has never hid his ambition to renew the Ottoman Empire. The prospect of an occupation of Damascus by Sunni Muslim forces has an exciting power that could reunify radical Islamic forces to the point of reestablishing an al-Qaeda state in Syria. The third purpose of the IDF’s operations in the region is to focus on these concerns.
Meanwhile, under Erdogan’s leadership, the Kurdish region east of the Euphrates River is under threat of a military attack meant to eliminate it. This will test the ability of the American administration to stand up for its Kurdish allies.
With the collapse of the state order built with the Sykes-Picot Agreements at the end of World War I, an opportunity has arisen to correct an injustice. The international community’s concern for the right to self-determination of minorities has focused over the past century mainly on the Palestinians — but some 30 million Kurds have been trapped for a century without any possibility of a state.
The United States, as a superpower, is facing an unprecedented challenge to its ability to influence emerging trends in the regional chaos that has arisen in Syria.
In all of Israel’s past wars, including the War of Independence, the end of the war was determined by agreements with countries with a recognized identity that existed before the war and continued to exist after it. Now, for the first time, the State of Israel is facing an unknown reality.
Israeli disillusionment in Syria
The collapse of the Assad regime and the trends emerging in Syria in recent weeks required the State of Israel to respond immediately, which entailed abandoning its longstanding security perception of the “villa in the jungle.” In addition to needing to defensively penetrate the expanses of the buffer zone between Israel and Syria, Israel had to assign a special strategic purpose to the effort to maintain Israeli control of the Syrian space in front of the border: to project Israeli military power onto the trends developing in Syria.
This expressed the understanding that if Israel were to take a passive position of simple observation in defending the Golan Heights border line without daring to go beyond the “walls of the villa,” it would not have the appropriate levers to create a position of influence and bargaining to secure Israeli security interests in the emerging system in Syria and Lebanon. Miraculously, the developments in Syria forced Israeli security policy to shatter the barriers of the “villa” perception that had bound it.
A controversy from the beginning
From the beginning of the Zionist enterprise, the Jewish community both openly and covertly struggled with the tension between the two trends — convergence to the borders of the “villa” or integration into the Arab space. This tension was also expressed architecturally. While the settlements of the first aliyah were built along a main axis, such as Kfar Tavor and Yavne’al, in a way that allowed the movement of Arabs and Jews through the colony, the settlements built in the third aliyah and onwards were built off the main road in the form of a closed camp. As a result, with the confrontation of events (especially those of 1936-39, and the activity of Yitzhak Sadeh and Orde Wingate’s field companies), a dispute arose over the question of exiting the fence into the space.
In her book The Sword of the Dove, Anita Shapira describes the way in which Wingate tried to lead his men into active defense activities outside the fence. Wingate’s approach provoked resistance among the kibbutzim of the Jezreel Valley, stemming from this question: where is the line along which it is clear to everyone that they are defending their existence? Is it the fence line or is it beyond it? This debate was not only conducted in the moral dimension. It began as an operational issue. Sadeh’s and Wingate’s concept of defense required engaging in friction in the space outside the fences of the settlements. This was the concept of the guards at the beginning of the formation of the Hebrew defense force. For them, free movement in the space outside the settlements was not only a necessity to fulfill the defense mission but an expression of their desire to integrate into the space in the cultural dimension as well.
Recognizing the need for active regional integration, the State of Israel, under Ben-Gurion’s leadership, turned to proactive activity in areas outside the country’s borders in its early years. While Israel was still under a regime of economic austerity, Israeli delegations operated in African countries in the fields of agriculture and security. In the 1960s, Israeli paratroopers assisted the Iraqi Kurds in fighting against the Iraqi army.
The essence of the perceptual gap
Between the approach that confines itself within the borders of the “villa” and the approach that requires active involvement in the space beyond the borders, there is a deep gap in the perception of reality. The aspiration for confinement is based on the assumption that a country’s security situation can be stabilized by creating a status quo of borders, with each country limiting itself to activity within those borders. Switzerland, for example, succeeded in maintaining a status quo that is perceived as final and permanent within European historical circumstances.
The second approach does not hold with the assumption of the ability to preserve one’s existence in a stable and final status quo. Human reality, certainly in terms of the system of ties between countries, is subject to change and unexpected upheaval. The strategic position of a country is examined in this approach not only by what it manages to stabilize within its sovereign territory, but also by the alliances it maintains with entities in the space and its ability to actively engage in spheres of influence that shape regional trends. This is how Turkey operates in Libya and the Horn of Africa and is the thinking behind its current moves to establish military bases in the heart of Syria. Egypt has recently been involved militarily in Somalia, and Qatar, through its financial capabilities, is operating both in the region and far across the ocean.
The Mossad and its agents have operated and continue to operate with distinction in both close and distant circles outside the State of Israel. However, an overt presence is also required. The trend of Israeli confinement within the borders of the “villa” — with its security and cultural implication — has been revealed as a failure. In this dimension as in others, the Israeli national security concept requires a fundamental update.
Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen is a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He served in the IDF for 42 years. He commanded troops in battles with Egypt and Syria. He was formerly a corps commander and commander of the IDF Military Colleges. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The Future of Syria Is Uncertain; Here’s What Israel Should Be Doing (PART TWO) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Azerbaijan State Oil Deal With Israeli Gas Field Signals Growing Role in Trump’s ‘New Middle East’ Vision
Workers on the Israeli Tamar gas-processing rig some 25 kilometers off the Israeli southern coast of Ashkelon. Noble Energy and Delek are the main partners in the gas field, estimated to contain 10 trillion cubic feet of gas. June 23, 2014. Photo: Moshe Shai / Flash90.
A deal struck this week between Israel and Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR, has underscored a geopolitical reality often overlooked: Azerbaijan’s emerging role as a strategic player in the evolving Middle East.
While the Abraham Accords reshaped regional alliances under the first administration of US President Donald Trump, a second Trump term will usher in what some analysts call a “New Middle East” — one that prioritizes regional security cooperation to counter Iran while favoring diplomacy over conflict, all while recalibrating America’s presence in the region.
At the heart of this shifting landscape is Azerbaijan, a country that shares hundreds of border miles with Iran while maintaining deep ties with both Israel and Turkey, straddling multiple power blocs in ways that could prove crucial to Trump’s ambitions.
According to Ze’ev Khanin, a professor of Eurasian geopolitics at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Azerbaijan is a key part of strategic alliances that he calls “unclosed triangles,” with Baku comprising the missing link.
“We are living in the world of so-called unclosed triangles, which is unlike what we had in the 19th century and 20th centuries — when the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the friend of my friend is also my friend,” he told The Algemeiner.
One prominent example is the unclosed triangle of Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Israel. Despite strained ties between Turkey and Israel, Azerbaijan continues to use Turkey as a transit point for energy exports to Israel. “The Turks didn’t stop the stream of Azerbaijani energy through Turkey to Israel,” Khanin said, adding that Ankara was eager to position itself as a transit hub for energy exports to Europe.
Azerbaijan’s ties with Israel have long been significant, though often under the radar, and Baku has been Israel’s most vital ally in the Caucasus and Central Asia for more than three decades, with a partnership that spans across energy security, defense, and intelligence. As of 2019, more than 60 percent of Israel’s gasoline was sourced from Azerbaijan. Baku has also purchased advanced Israeli defense systems, including the “Barak MX” missile system as well as surveillance satellites.
The recent SOCAR deal investing in Israel’s offshore gas fields has further deepened these relations. Aaron Frenkel, an Israeli businessman, agreed to sell 48 percent of his holdings in the Tamar gas field to SOCAR, making the oil company a significant stakeholder in the Tamar gas field, which is a major natural gas source for Israel and has turned the country into a gas exporter in the region.
This move not only cements Baku’s economic influence in the region but also places it at the crossroads of a growing pro-Western bloc seeking to counter Iran’s regional ambitions. Trump’s vision for the region, as articulated in past speeches and his meetings this week with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, involves shifting security responsibilities to local allies, forming what some have dubbed a “Middle East NATO.” In this framework, normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia is a linchpin, but Azerbaijan’s strategic positioning could offer another key pillar, Khanin said.
“Everybody understands that Iran is not going anywhere,” Khanin said.
Both Jerusalem and Washington recognize that, Khanin said, and see the need to form a strong pro-Western bloc of countries that, despite differing political ideologies, can cooperate because of overlapping security interests.
As Trump seeks to end what he calls “unnecessary wars,” he is looking to prioritize diplomatic solutions over direct military engagement, as evidenced by his comments this week seeking another deal with Iran. Trump also aims to end the war in Gaza, secure the release of Israeli hostages, and “to limit, if not eliminate, Hamas,” Khanin said.
Trump’s comments about a “US takeover of Gaza” notwithstanding, his broader goal is to “outsource the responsibility for Middle Eastern security” to a regional coalition with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other key US allies under American leadership, Khanin added.
For Israel, the SOCAR agreement is more than an economic deal — it is a sign that Azerbaijan’s role in the region is expanding in ways that align with broader strategic goals, Khanin said. As the contours of the “New Middle East” take shape, Baku may find itself in a position of influence it has never held before.
The post Azerbaijan State Oil Deal With Israeli Gas Field Signals Growing Role in Trump’s ‘New Middle East’ Vision first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Spreading Oil Slick of Obsessive Israel Hatred
Pro-Hamas activists gather in Washington Square Park for a rally following a protest march held in response to an NYPD sweep of an anti-Israel encampment at New York University in Manhattan, May 3, 2024. Photo: Matthew Rodier/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Like an oil slick from a disabled tanker, hatred of Israel is spreading to some expected — and unexpected — places.
In January, the annual business meeting of the American Historical Association (AHA), by a lopsided vote of 428-88, condemned Israel for “scholasticide”: what it called the intentional targeting by Israel of Palestinian schools, libraries, and archives, as Israel fights a defensive war against Hamas.
The vote was overruled by the AHA Council, citing the issue as being outside the organization’s core mission. That, in turn, brought howls of protest from such organizations as Historians for Palestine and the National Students for Justice in Palestine, with the former charging the AHA with denying “Palestinian existence.”
The AHA resolution did not mention Hamas and its use of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) schools as weapons depots or — as we have now learned — places where Israeli hostages were held and as classroom laboratories of hatred.
And, of course, nothing was noted in the AHA resolution about Hamas’s use of Palestinian civilians as human shields as a principal tactic of war across Gaza.
The AHA vote was reminiscent of votes in recent years at the annual meetings of the Middle East Studies Association — a group that has frequently taken similar positions highly critical of Israel.
Now enters a new player in the “demonize Israel” game in academia and in professional associations: the Journal of Architectural Education (JAE). A periodical of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture founded in 1947, its mission statement notes “it is a platform for architectural educators, scholars, designers, writers, and organizers committed to the ongoing transformation of architectural education and the culture of architectural research toward an inclusive, just, and sustainable future.”
The hijacking of this publication occurred in a call for papers for an issue focusing on “Palestine.” In its outreach to readers and association members, the language leans on the side of the academic, but the message is clear: “In the face of the ongoing genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, this issue …. will build on existing knowledge, research, and publications to learn from and with practices of resistance to the Zionist, militarist, carceral, and capitalist regime of Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid.”
And to make sure it has not left out any of the hackneyed anti-Israel verbiage of the street and campus demonstrations of the past year, the call for papers invites “contributions that document the architectural and special tools that participate in or are complicit in imperial formations of settler-colonial apartheid and genocide. Contributions could evidence how bombing, demolition, destruction, ruination, and scorched earth constitute military strategies planned and implemented for decades to fragment, debilitate, and destroy Palestinian built, social, economic, cultural, and natural environments.”
The call for papers also quotes the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, whose anti-Israel rants are a go-to repository of hate often used by Israel’s incessant global critics. She calls Israel’s Palestinian policy one of “erasure.” And, in the spirit of the American Historical Association’s charge of “scholasticide” the JAE states that “contributors might map, represent, theorize, and historicize genocide, ecocide, spaciocide, terracide, and urbicide.”
The request for papers closes with a revolutionary-style exhortation to potential contributors: “We invite authors to engage with such formations of anti-colonial struggle within and beyond Palestinian geographies, reflecting on how Palestine has inspired pathologies of hope, constellations of coresistance, and infrastructures of resistance the world over.”
There is no mention in the call for papers of Hamas, of the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre against Israelis, or even of a two-state solution.
Well, one gets the point. This special issue will be loaded with paroxysms of doctrinaire anti-Israel bile. But that should come as no surprise. One of the “Theme Editors” was actually born in Haifa and is a graduate of the famed Bezalel School. Think of the hypocrisy: for all of Israel’s alleged policies of “genocide,” this Palestinian professor, now teaching in New York, was the beneficiary of what was most likely an outstanding education at Israel’s premier institution of art and design.
Academics everywhere continue to pile on Israel in a variety of ways, making Jewish students fearful, as they became caught in a vise between anti-Israel students (including many who protest), their professors, violence on the quad, and intellectual bullying in the classroom.
The Trump administration’s executive order addressing campus antisemitism sends an early and strong message to those who believe that chaos and violence will become accepted practice at American universities.
Now, though, the problem is moving from the campus to professional associations. The call for papers and the forthcoming issue of the JAE is one of hatred-creep dressed up in an academic wrapper. The language, the charges of genocide, and “settler-colonialist” occupation (interesting note: the three pages issuing the call for papers contain only two actual mentions of “Israel”; the other references to it are couched in anti-Israel terminology) could have been written in Gaza or Ramallah.
Architecture is a time-honored profession. Every day, we marvel at new buildings and old, and transformed cities and neighborhoods, and the artistic and mathematical creativity that produces such edifices. The turn by some in the field to politicize and demonize Israel is an ugly detour that sullies both the Journal of Architectural Education and those who will surely be submitting a series of heavily biased papers to it.
Daniel S. Mariaschin is the CEO of B’nai B’rith International. As the organization’s top executive officer, Mariaschin directs and supervises B’nai B’rith programs, activities, and staff around the world.
The post The Spreading Oil Slick of Obsessive Israel Hatred first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Says Israel Would Hand Over Gaza After Fighting, No US Troops Needed
US President Donald Trump speaks during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room at the White House in Washington, US, Feb. 4, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Leah Millis
US President Donald Trump said on Thursday Israel would hand over Gaza to the United States after fighting was over and the enclave’s population was already resettled elsewhere, which he said meant no US troops would be needed on the ground.
A day after worldwide condemnation of Trump‘s announcement that he aimed to take over and develop the Gaza Strip into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” Israel ordered its army to prepare to allow the “voluntary departure” of Gaza Palestinians.
Trump, who had previously declined to rule out deploying US troops to the small coastal territory, clarified his idea in comments on his Truth Social web platform.
“The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting,” he said. Palestinians “would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region.” He added: “No soldiers by the US would be needed!”
Earlier, amid a tide of support in Israel for what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Trump‘s “remarkable” proposal, Defense Minister Israel Katz said he had ordered the army to prepare a plan to allow Gaza residents who wished to leave to exit the enclave voluntarily.
“I welcome President Trump‘s bold plan. Gaza residents should be allowed the freedom to leave and emigrate, as is the norm around the world,” Katz said on X.
He said his plan would include exit options via land crossings, as well as special arrangements for departure by sea and air.
In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Netanyahu said there was nothing wrong with Trump’s idea and allowing for Palestinians in Gaza to leave if they wish.
“The actual idea of allowing for Gazans who want to leave to leave, I mean, what’s wrong with that? They can leave, they can come back. They can relocate and come back. But you have to rebuild Gaza,” the Israeli premier said. “This is the first good idea I’ve heard. It’s a remarkable idea, and I think that it should be really pursued, examined, pursued, and done, because I think it will create a different future for everyone.”
Trump‘s unexpected announcement on Wednesday, which sparked anger around the Middle East, came as Israel and Hamas were expected to begin talks in Doha on the second stage of a ceasefire deal for Gaza, intended to open the way for a full withdrawal of Israeli forces and an end to the war.
Regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia rebuffed the proposal outright and Jordan’s King Abdullah, who will meet Trump at the White House next week, said on Wednesday he rejected any attempts to annex land and displace Palestinians.
Egypt also weighed in, saying it would not be part of any proposal to displace Palestinians from neighboring Gaza, where residents reacted with fury to the suggestion.
What effect Trump‘s shock proposal may have on the ceasefire talks remains unclear. Only 13 of a group of 33 Israeli hostages due for release in the first phase have so far been returned, with three more due to come out on Saturday. Five Thai hostages have also been released.
Hamas official Basem Naim accused Israel‘s defense minister Katz of trying to cover up “for a state that has failed to achieve any of its objectives in the war on Gaza“, and said Palestinians are too attached to their land to ever leave.
Displacement of Palestinians has been one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East for decades. Forced or coerced displacement of a population under military occupation is a war crime, banned under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Details of how any such plan might work have been vague. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said different thinking was needed on Gaza‘s future but that any departures would have to be voluntary and states would have to be willing to take them.
“We don’t have details yet, but we can talk about principles,” Saar told a news conference with his Italian counterpart Antonio Tajani. “Everything must be based on the free will of [the] individual and, on the other hand, of a will of a state that is ready to absorb,” he said.
A number of far-right Israeli politicians have openly called for Palestinians to be moved from Gaza and there was strong support for Trump‘s push among both security hawks and the Jewish settler movement, which wants to reclaim land in Gaza used for Jewish settlements until 2005.
Giora Eiland, an Israeli former general who attracted wide attention in an earlier stage of the war with his “Generals’ Plan” for a forced displacement of people from northern Gaza, said Trump‘s plan was “logical” and aid should not be allowed to reach displaced people returning to northern Gaza.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war on Oct. 7, 2023, when they invaded southern Israel, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
Katz said countries that have opposed Israel‘s military operations in Gaza should take in the Palestinians.
“Countries like Spain, Ireland, Norway, and others, which have leveled accusations and false claims against Israel over its actions in Gaza, are legally obligated to allow any Gaza resident to enter their territories,” he said.
The post Trump Says Israel Would Hand Over Gaza After Fighting, No US Troops Needed first appeared on Algemeiner.com.