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
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.
RSS
Director of ‘Emilia Pérez’ and Star Zoe Saldana Respond to Karla Sofia Gascon’s Hateful Comments About Hitler, Islam
Adriana Paz, Edgar Ramirez, Selena Gomez, Jacques Audiard, Karla Sofia Gascon, and Zoe Saldana, winners of the Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy award for “Emilia Perez,” pose at the 82nd Golden Globe Awards in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., January 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni/File Photo
The director of the Oscar-nominated film “Emilia Perez” and its supporting actress Zoe Saldana have both publicly spoken out about the scandal involving the film’s lead star Karla Sofia Gascon and her past comments on X/Twitter, which include praise of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.
In Spanish-language tweets from 2019 that resurfaced last week, Gascon seemingly defended Nazi leader Adolf Hitler for his hatred of Jews. “I don’t understand so much about the world war against Hitler, he simply had his opinion about Jews,” she wrote in one post. She said in another tweet that year: “Hitler believed that his people were divine and belonged to a superior race. They all wiped him out, now the swastika can’t even reproduce itself. The church, Islam, etc. have caused millions more deaths throughout the history of humanity and they are still there. It makes you think.”
In Spanish-language separate tweets, mostly from 2020 and 2021 but also as far back as 2016, Gascón heavily criticized Islam, suggesting that it should be banned and that the religion “violates human rights.” She attacked Muslim attire, language and culture in her native country of Spain. In 2016, she tweeted, “Islam is becoming a hotbed of infection for humanity that urgently needs to be cured.” In separate tweets she called African-Amercian man George Floyd a “drug addict and a hustler” after he was killed by a police officer in 2020 and inspired protests around the US.
“Emilia Perez,” a Spanish-language musical and crime drama about a transgender gangster, received 13 Oscar nominations this year – more than any other film. It includes Saldana’s first Academy Award nomination, for best supporting actress, and a nod for director/co-writer Jacques Audiard. The film set a new record for the most Oscar nominations earned by a non-English film and marks the first time an openly trans actor, Gascón, has been nominated for an Oscar.
Audiard told Deadline on Wednesday that Gascon’s past comments on X are “inexcusable.”
“It’s very hard for me to think back to the work I did with Karla Sofía,” he said. “The trust we shared, the exceptional atmosphere that we had on the set that was indeed based on trust. And when you have that kind of relationship and suddenly you read something that that person has said, things that are absolutely hateful and worthy of being hated, of course that relationship is affected. It’s as if you fall into a hole. Because what Karla Sofía said is inexcusable.” Audiard added that he has not spoken to Garcon since the controversy erupted last week, “and I don’t want to.”
“I’m not getting in touch with her because right now she needs space to reflect and take accountability for her actions,” he explained. “She’s really playing the victim. She’s talking about herself as a victim, which is surprising. It’s as if she thought that words don’t hurt.”
Garcon apologized for her past social media activity in a statement on Jan. 30 via Netflix, where her “Emilia Perez” is streaming. “As someone in a marginalized community, I know this suffering all too well and I am deeply sorry to those I have caused pain,” she said. “All my life I have fought for a better world. I believe light will always triumph over darkness.” Gascón has since deactivated her X account.
Later, in a lengthy Instagram post, she apologized again but also defended herself, saying in Spanish that her posts were taken out of context. She insisted that she’s “not racist” and that she was not given the option to explain the “real intention” behind her comments on X. “I have always fought for a more just society and for a world of freedom, of peace and of love. I will never support wars, religious extremism or oppression of races and peoples,” she wrote.
In an interview with Variety published on Wednesday, Saldana expressed sadness and disappointment about the situation.
“I’m sad. Time and time again, that’s the word because that is the sentiment that has been living in my chest since everything happened,” she said. “I’m also disappointed. I can’t speak for other people’s actions. All I can attest to is my experience, and never in a million years did I ever believe that we would be here.”
Gascon told CNN Español that her “Emilia Perez” co-stars Saldaña and Gomez “support me 200 percent,” but Saldaña would not confirm that claim while speaking to Variety. Instead, Saldana said: “I do not support any negative rhetoric of racism and bigotry towards any group of people. That is what I want to stand for.” Saldana made similar comments in London last week during a Q&A for “Emilia Perez.” She said at the time: “I don’t have any tolerance for any negative rhetoric towards people of any group,”
The post Director of ‘Emilia Pérez’ and Star Zoe Saldana Respond to Karla Sofia Gascon’s Hateful Comments About Hitler, Islam first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump’s Vision, and Gaza 2.0
US President Donald Trump looks on as he signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, US, Jan. 31, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results, then the outrage over President Donald Trump’s announcement on his vision for Gaza misses the failures of the “international community” and the Palestinians themselves over the years:
• Pushing Israel to withdraw from land in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza.
• Watching terrorists build arsenals, attack Israel, and raise generations of people to believe violent death is holy as long as it also kills Jews.
• Pouring in “aid” and money, which the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah steal while the agencies feed the people, perverting the idea of productivity, earning power, and self-determination.
• Watching terrorists fire rockets at Israel and demanding a ceasefire when Israel fires back.
• Being sympathetic when individual Israelis are killed in terror incidents, but blaming the lack of “progress” on Israel’s unwillingness to concede a Palestinian state.
Rinse and repeat.
The response to Trump’s plan also misses the progression in the president’s own pronouncements regarding the future of Gaza. The first came in January 2020 at a meeting in Washington with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to introduce his “Vision for Peace,” which, several months and much negotiation later, became the Abraham Accords.
“The Vision” was 180 pages long and meticulously detailed. The high points are these:
First, the complicity of Arab countries in the miserable situation of Palestinians. “It is time,” Trump’s report said, “for the Muslim world to fix the mistake it made in 1948, when it chose to attack instead of to recognize the new state of Israel. The Palestinians are the primary pawn in this adventurism, and it is time for this sad chapter in history to end.”
By recognizing that the Palestinians were left hanging by their Arab brothers between 1948 and 1967, he made the solution to the Palestinian plight the Arab states’ responsibility, as well. That showed up again this week.
Second, while he was extraordinarily sympathetic to the Palestinian people — particularly young people whom he lamented are “growing up with no hope” — he said that there were things the Palestinian Authority does that are unacceptable to both Israel and the United States. He did not mention Hamas at the time, but the point holds. Those claiming the President is advocating “ethnic cleansing” or something worse aren’t paying attention — and don’t want to.
Third, he offered recognition of “Palestine as the nation-state of the Palestinian people” with a capital in Jerusalem (which would remain undivided and under Israeli sovereignty), “where the US will proudly open an embassy,” plus massive international investment. In exchange, the President told them to “meet the challenges of peaceful coexistence”:
• Adopt laws ensuring basic human rights and protecting against financial and political corruption.
• Stop malignant activities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• End incitement against Israel; and
• Permanently halt financial compensation to terrorists.
Let’s face it, these constitute a very low bar for any decent and humane society.
Giving up those unacceptable things before the US would support the Palestinians’ desire for an independent state is what some people call “preconditions.” Yes — that’s precisely what they are. Said the president, “It is never too late. It is time to rise up and meet the challenges of the future. If they do it, it will work.”
Except they didn’t.
The PA is an active sponsor of terrorism. It also steals from its own people and represses them politically and — for Christian Arabs, religiously. In Gaza, Hamas did that and more.
Rather than suggesting yet another ceasefire and hoping to work that into a “two-state solution,” or giving the PA control in Gaza, or giving terror-sponsor Qatar the right to redevelop the devastated places by hiring its Hamas buddies to do the work and steal the money, Trump looked at it another way.
The US will do it. There are details to be parsed here — and they will be — but the most important point is, actually, the one Palestinians and their international enablers have been making through their tears — that Gaza is their home; they are Gazans. A Gaza journalist, Tariq Dahlan, apparently told BBC reporter Alice Cuddy, “People in Gaza, like all in the world, are deeply connected to the place where they were born, raised, and have been living all their lives … Every one of us is deeply connected to our homes and we would reject any eviction. We will stay put on this land even though there is death and destruction.”
But if it’s their land and their government — and they are currently situated there — how can they continue to be refugees? The answer is that they are not “refugees.” (Goodbye UNRWA.)
Now, there is a conversation no one wants to have. Except, perhaps, President Trump. In 2020, Palestinians chose not to participate in The Vision, which became the Abraham Accords by the end of that year. In 2025, the deal is different. Less favorable to the Palestinians in the short term, perhaps, but that’s the price of losing the war they started.
The post Trump’s Vision, and Gaza 2.0 first appeared on Algemeiner.com.