Connect with us

RSS

The Gaza War and Europe

An Israeli tank maneuvers, amid the Israel-Hamas conflict, near the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, July 9, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen

JNS.orgEurope borders the Middle East, and the continent cannot insulate itself from events in this region. Its options, however, are limited: Europe is hardly a strategic actor with the political will and requisite capabilities to intervene. Moreover, the Middle East is not easily amenable to foreign intervention. Nevertheless, Europe cannot ignore developments that impact its national security, and if it concentrates its efforts it may have a modest input in ensuring that pro-stability forces gain the upper hand.

The Gaza war reflects two important features of Middle Eastern politics, as well as the ongoing competition in the global system. In large parts of the Middle East, we see failures in grappling with the challenge of state building. The Hamas Islamist militia took over Gaza in a bloody coup in 2007, as the Palestinian Authority failed to maintain a monopoly over the use of force in the territory under its control. Palestinian Islamic Jihad operated alongside Hamas in Gaza, and several clans had armed militias. Similarly, militias are vying for control in Iraq (in the wake of the American departure), in Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Libya. Hezbollah, a Shi’ite militia, has taken over Lebanon, despite the parallel existence of a national government and army. Hezbollah started a war of attrition with Israel in October 2023 without consulting the Lebanese government.

The Gaza war is also a manifestation of Iranian ambitions for hegemony in a region once part of the Persian empire. Iran’s Islamic Revolution has sought to wage perpetual and unbridled holy war against Western civilization and to take over Sunni Arab lands—it also targets Israel in this jihad. Many of the region’s militias have been trained, equipped and supported by a religiously motivated Iran. While not all are fully subservient to Tehran, they act in unison against Israel and Western interests. Iran and its proxies are the main challengers to the status quo and are actively threatening the national security of Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Sudan and Israel. Recently, Cyprus, a member state of the European Union, was added to the list of threatened states.

The Gaza war also mirrors the main struggle in the international system against American predominance, that is being conducted primarily by the quartet of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The war in Ukraine has strengthened this alliance. For years, Iran has conducted a multi-front war against Israel, an American ally, and the only state that has the power to oppose its aspirations in its campaign to drive the United States out of the region. The quartet shares this aim.

In the absence of the capability to defeat Israel on the battlefield, Hamas implements the Iranian-inspired strategy that targets its civilian population, hoping this will leave it under duress. The premeditated atrocities perpetrated and filmed on Oct. 7, 2023, were intended to terrorize Israeli citizens, in the same way as the missile attacks that rained down on Israeli civilians. Israel had no choice but to counterattack and to its dismay discovered global sympathy for Gazans (an overwhelming majority of whom have shown support for Hamas and the evil it committed on Oct. 7), accompanied by a huge wave of antisemitic acts and statements.

Europeans initially expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself, but much of their behavior (including their voting record at the United Nations) undermined Israel’s quest to destroy completely the military capability of Hamas and the efforts to increase pressure on the organization to secure the release of the Israeli hostages. Moreover, several European states recognized the non-existent state of Palestine, thus rewarding the dysfunctional Palestinian national movement and Hamas’s terrorist activities.

How can Europe play a more positive role in making the Middle East more peaceful? What can the Europeans do to curb the current inclinations in the region toward despotic regimes, terrorism, religious fanaticism and nuclear proliferation?

The developments in the Middle East have underscored an old truism. Outsiders have very little influence over Middle East outcomes; these are determined primarily by domestic forces and ingrained local political culture. Despite heroic efforts and vast financial investment, the United States has failed to create an Iraq in its image. Afghanistan was even more resistant to Western reform efforts. This should not be a surprise, as British and French colonial rule over several decades also did not change the way the “natives” conducted business.

Western attempts to intervene during the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Egypt ended in a similar failure. The ambitious project conducted by the European Union to create a “civil society” in the Palestinian territories has only enriched academics and cunning civilian entrepreneurs with little influence over Palestinian political culture. Political engineering by outsiders is doomed to fail in the Middle East. Therefore, an active interventionist European foreign policy to move societies into a democratic track is unlikely to produce positive results. Europeans tend to forget that it took European states centuries to adopt a democratic system.

Nevertheless, Europe or the European Union can do more to support pro-stability forces in the Middle East and weaken sources of instability. First, it should adopt a realpolitik lens and throw away its rose-tinted view of human nature. This is how Middle Easterners view the world. They often muse over European naiveté, which is occasionally despised. Similarly, the discourse about creating trust is simply nonsense in the region’s political parlance. Trust is not a currency used in Middle East politics. The employment of force and fear are more useful.

Some of the actors in the Middle East are evil, and engaging them diplomatically is rarely productive in limiting their mischief. Similarly, applying economic sanctions often has only meager results. Iran has been subject to such sanctions for over two decades without any change in its behavior. Europeans must overcome their reluctance to see military force as a useful tool in punishing and deterring destabilizing actors. Calling for restraint and fearing escalation when a bad guy is being beaten is counterproductive.

This means accepting Israel’s objective of destroying Hamas military capabilities in order to give its citizens a respite from missile attacks. Moreover, trying to save an Islamist mini-state that serves Iranian interests on the shores of the East Mediterranean is strategic folly; over-sensitivity to the human cost in eliminating it makes little strategic sense. Its location near the Suez Canal, an important choke point and sea route, as well as to offshore gas deposits, lends importance to who rules this area. The Europeans should appreciate efforts to minimize the presence on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean of Islamic radicals whose influence has already spread to Turkey, Syria, Lebanon Libya and the Sinai Peninsula.

A new European attitude toward the use of force also means an understanding of Israel’s need to launch a war against Hezbollah to allow its displaced citizens to return home to a normal life. A military blow to Hezbollah may also provide an opportunity for Lebanon to free itself of Islamist influence and become the tolerant and prosperous state it once was. Moreover, it signals to Iran and its proxies that their actions carry costly consequences. Exacting pain for misbehavior is the ABC of international relations.

The timidity of the United States and its European allies in dealing with the Houthis, an Iranian proxy blocking the Bab el Mandeb Strait, an international waterway, is intriguing. Forcing naval traffic to go to Europe around Africa, instead of the Suez Canal, carries financial costs and inflicts significant damage to the economy of Egypt, a pivotal pro-Western state in the Middle East. Tolerating this situation only encourages Iran to become more aggressive in its actions in the region and less fearful of Western retaliation.

Indeed, nowadays Iran is the main source of trouble in the Middle East. If Europe is serious about minimizing the dangers emanating from the Middle East, it must adopt a more confrontational posture toward the mullahs in Tehran. This has become more urgent as Iran progresses quickly toward the bomb. Europe must support all actions, including the military option, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power whose missiles can reach the old continent as well. Everything should be done to halt a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. A nuclear multipolar Middle East would become a strategic nightmare for everybody in the region and its vicinity. An Iranian nuclear umbrella for Tehran’s proxies would further embolden them. The United States, which is geographically remote from Iran and thus has a lower threat perception, needs a more energetic Europe particularly on this matter.

Europe must realize that constraining the activities of radical Islamists does not amount to Islamophobia. For example, the absurd distinction between the political and the military arms of Hamas is still accepted by some European governments. The radical anti-Western ideology of Hamas is inextricably intertwined with its violent modus operandi. Europe should outlaw Hamas in all its forms, forbid its fundraising activities and pursue all its supporters on the continent. This of course also holds true for Hezbollah.

This should not be construed as a pro-Israeli policy, but as a policy that strengthens moderate Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Jordan. They all abhor the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt and its offshoots such as Hamas in Palestine, as well as Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and a large part of his Justice and Development (AK) Party. They are all concerned about the freedom enjoyed by the followers of this movement in Europe. The MB is a larger danger for the Arab states than for Israel. Europe should be critical of Qatar, which plays a unique role in destabilizing the Middle East by funding the MB, while its Al Jazeera media network is the MB’s mouthpiece in instigating against Arab regimes. Turkey, which hosts Hamas on its soil and spreads the MB message in Europe and elsewhere deserves similar critical treatment.

Europe should announce its full support for Israel with all its means if the Jewish state is attacked by a terrorist organization. Such a statement amounts to strategic and moral clarity. Europe’s human rights nitpicking for violations during warfare in Gaza are a result of ignorance regarding what a modern battlefield looks like and the unprecedented efforts by the Israel Defense Forces to limit the loss of civilian lives.

Europe should also overcome its obsession with the two-state solution. As noted, the Palestinians have failed miserably to meet the Weberian test of statehood—monopoly over the use of force. They established weak, corrupt and fragmented polities. The Palestinian political trajectory leads toward a civil war waged by a variety of militias, similar to other Arab states, or to a Hamas-dominated entity. Moreover, all polls show that the Palestinians are still far from relinquishing their revisionist dreams and becoming peaceful neighbors of the Jewish state.

The Palestinians’ real problem is not where the border between the Palestinian state and the State of Israel lies, but the very fact that there is such a border, because so many believe that there is no legitimacy for a Jewish nation-state in the Middle East. Pushing for Palestinian statehood at this stage will only increase the chances of a deadly Israeli-Palestinian war in which both sides will suffer, but in which the Palestinian pain will certainly be greater. The status quo—not ideal—is probably the less destructive alternative.

A peaceful Middle East is not on the cards anytime soon. Limiting the power of the bad guys is a realistic objective, however. In addition to a more astute American foreign policy, a coherent and realistic E.U. strategy toward the Middle East could contribute toward attaining such a goal.

Originally published by The Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.

The post The Gaza War and Europe first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Trump Nominates Marco Rubio for US Secretary of State

US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, Sept. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

US President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday confirmed that he will nominate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to serve as secretary of state in his incoming administration, a potential signal that the next White House will take a more adversarial posture toward Iran. 

Trump’s confirmation came a couple days after several media outlets reported that he was expected to tap Rubio, 53, to head the US State Department. The move to place a lawmaker known for his hawkish foreign policy views as the nation’s top diplomat has mollified concerns among some critics that the second Trump administration would adopt a more isolationist approach to international affairs.

“Marco is a Highly Respected Leader, and a very powerful Voice for Freedom. He will be a strong Advocate for our Nation, a true friend to our Allies, and a fearless Warrior who will never back down to our adversaries,” Trump said in an official statement. “I look forward to working with Marco to Make America, and the World, Safe and Great Again!”

Rubio issued a brief statement advocating an approach of “peace through strength” to international relations.

“As Secretary of State, I will work every day to carry out his foreign policy agenda. Under the leadership of President Trump we will deliver peace through strength and always put the interests of Americans and America above all else,” Rubio said on X/Twitter.

Since his election to the Senate in 2010, Rubio has developed a reputation as a foreign policy hawk, advocating for greater investments in the US military and a tougher approach to adversaries such as Iran, China, Cuba, and Venezuela. 

Rubio’s policy views have previously resulted in conflict with more isolationist members of the Republican Party, who have argued that the US should step back from international conflicts and increase focus on domestic issues. 

The selection of Rubio also indicates the incoming Trump administration will be diplomatically supportive of Israel

In the year following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7, Rubio has steadfastly signaled his support for the Jewish state, resisting calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and underscoring the importance of Israel achieving a decisive win against Hamas.

He stated in October 2023 that Israel has “no choice but to seek the complete eradication of Hamas in Gaza,” adding that “this tragically necessary effort will come at a horrifying price” and that “the price of failing to permanently eliminate this group of sadistic savages is even more horrifying.”

In May 2024, the senator cautioned that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization in Lebanon, could soon break out into full-scale war.

“The imperative that Israel has at some point to address it, even though there’s a real threat there of a full-scale war with Hezbollah, which militarily is a lot more challenging and destructive,” Rubio said.

Last month, Rubio condemned Iran’s direct attack against Israel after the Iranian regime fired a barrage of nearly 200 ballistic missiles at the Jewish state.

I urge the reimposition of a maximum pressure campaign against Iran and fully support Israel’s right to respond disproportionately to stop this threat. The United States will continue to stand with Israel,” Rubio said in a statement. 

Rubio has also assigned blame to Iran for fomenting instability and chaos in the Middle East, adding that the regime has also acted as the “primary” oppressor of its own civilians. 

“The primary source of violence, conflict, suffering, and instability in the Middle East is the criminal ‘Islamic Republic’ regime which has also oppressed the people of [Iran] for almost [45] years,” Rubio said on X/Twitter. 

Beyond Rubio, Trump has also handpicked other administration members with pro-Israel bonafides. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a lawmaker who has gone viral for her blistering repudiations of university presidents over their response campus antisemitism, has been selected to serve as ambassador to the United Nations. Trump also selected Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) to serve as his next national security adviser.

The post Trump Nominates Marco Rubio for US Secretary of State first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Trump’s Top National Security Picks Have Expressed Strongly Pro-Israel, Anti-Iran Views

US President Donald Trump is interviewed by then-Fox and Friends co-host Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, US, April 6, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

US President-elect Donald Trump’s selections for national security adviser and defense secretary have a history of making statements in support of Israel’s right to defend itself from neighboring threats. 

In the week following his resounding victory at the polls, Trump has swiftly moved to fill his incoming cabinet with allies of Israel.

Among his top national security picks, the president-elect has chosen US. Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) to serve as his national security adviser and nominated Fox News host and Army National Guard officer Pete Hegseth as the next secretary of defense. 

Waltz, a Green Beret and former Pentagon policy adviser, has developed a hawkish reputation on foreign policy matters. He supported Israel’s retaliatory strikes against Iran in October, arguing that the Jewish state should target Kharg Island, a major hub of the regime’s oil exports. The representative also suggested that Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities outside of Tehran. The lawmaker has openly criticized the Biden administration for allegedly holding Israel back from a full force retaliation against Iran.

Waltz has also argued that the US should attempt to weaken Iran through sanctioning the Chinese buyers of Iranian oil, saying that isolating Iran economically would cripple their ability to finance the operations of terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah. He has also helped spearhead bipartisan efforts to recategorize the Houthis in Yemen as an official international terrorist organization, a move that he argues would isolate the group by making financial transactions with them illegal. 

On Tuesday, Trump raised eyebrows by tapping Hegseth to head the Pentagon. Hegseth, a former infantry officer in the Army National Guard deployed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has repeatedly expressed affinity for Israel. Hegseth, a devout Christian, argued on television that Jews have a right to live in Israel on Biblical grounds. In his 2020 book, American Crusade, Our Fight to Stay Free, he stated that Israel is “central to the story of Western civilization” and that the Jewish state is “inextricably linked” to America. 

“If you love America, you should love Israel. We share history, we share faith, and we share freedom. We love free people, free expression, and free markets,” he wrote. “And whereas America is blessed with two big, beautiful oceans to protect it, Israel is surrounded on all sides by countries that either used to seek, or still seek, to wipe the nation off the map.”

During a 2016 trip to Israel, Hegseth said that he was “struck by the pervasive sense of purpose which permeates Israel and its people who understand the special nature of its founding and defense.” He also said that America can “learn from Israel” and that the Jewish state “is indispensable for the future of the West and human freedom.”

Following the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, who headed the Quds Force responsible for overseeing Iran’s proxies and terrorist operations abroad, Hegseth urged then-President Trump to bomb Iran’s nuclear production facilities.

“I happen to believe that we can’t kick the can down the road any longer in trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. They used the killing of Soleimani as an excuse to say ‘we’re scrapping the Iran Deal.’ We all know they were scrapping it anyway,” Hegseth said on Fox News, adding that America should notify Iran of its plans to destroy its “nuclear production facilities,” “key infrastructure,” “missile sites,” and “port capabilities.”

Hegseth also argued that attempts to restrain Israel from direct confrontation with Iran are “ridiculous” and that the Islamic regime represents an “existential threat” to the Jewish state.

“Israel wants to deal with Iran, we should let them … If it was not for Israel, Iran would have had the bomb already,” he said.

The post Trump’s Top National Security Picks Have Expressed Strongly Pro-Israel, Anti-Iran Views first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

American Jewish Organizations React to Trump’s Choice for US Ambassador to Israel

Mike Huckabee looks on as Donald Trump reacts during a campaign event at the Drexelbrook Catering and Event Center, in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania, US, Oct. 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

American Jewish organizations were quick to react to US President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he would choose former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to be the next US ambassador to Israel after he assumes office in January.

“Mike has been a great public servant, governor, and leader in faith for many years. He loves Israel, and the people of Israel, and likewise, the people of Israel love him. Mike will work tirelessly to bring about peace in the Middle East!” Trump wrote in his announcement.

Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, has long been a vocal pro-Israel voice.  He has repudiated the anti-Israel protests that erupted in the wake of Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7 and criticized incumbent US President Joe Biden for sympathizing with anti-Israel protesters during his speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC). The incoming ambassador also lambasted the anti-Israel encampments at elite universities, stating that there should be “outrage” over the targeting and mistreatment of Jewish college students.

Ted Deutch, the CEO of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), posted on X on Tuesday that his organization “looks forward to working with Gov. Huckabee and newly appointed Special Envoy for the Middle East Steven Witkoff to strengthen the US-Israel relationship, bolster Israel-diaspora relations, and promote strong connections between American Jewry and Israel.”

Other Jewish communal organizations, such as the Jewish Federations of North America and the Anti-Defamation League, have so far not made statements.

The Republican Jewish Committee (RJC) said it was “thrilled” with the choice. “As a man of deep faith,” the RJC wrote, “we know Governor Huckabee’s abounding love of Israel and its people is second to none.”

It continued, “As the Jewish state continues to fight an existential war for survival against Iran and its terrorist proxies, Governor Huckabee will represent America’s ironclad commitment to Israel’s security with distinction.”

On the other side, however, the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) called Huckabee “utterly unqualified for this role” and argued that “his extremist views with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not further the national security interests of the United States or advance prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

Huckabee told Israel’s Army Radio in his first interview since the announcement of his ambassadorship that “of course” the annexation of the West Bank is a possibility during Trump’s second presidential term.

“Unfortunately, when it comes to the US-Israel relationship,” the JDCA concluded, “Donald Trump will continue to only be motivated by his own narrow self-interest, and we’re deeply concerned about what that means for the United States and Israel.”

J Street also opposed the choice, writing in a statement that “Huckabee, a right-wing, evangelical minister with a long history of championing settlement expansion, annexation, and a radical ‘Greater Israel’ agenda, holds principles and espouses views that — if now implemented — would shatter the foundations on which a healthy and strong US-Israel relationship has been built over the past 75 years.”

J Street on Monday urged the Biden administration to withhold offensive weapons from Israel as part of a partial arms embargo, arguing that the United States needs to hold Israel accountable for alleged human rights “violations” before Trump takes office.

Huckabee has taken positions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict considered further to the right than most American Jews and politicians. The former governor has defended Israel’s right to build settlements in the West Bank, acknowledging the Jewish people’s ties to the land dating back to the ancient world.

“There is no such thing as the West Bank — it’s Judea and Samaria,” Huckabee has said, referring to the biblical names for the area. “There is no such thing as settlements — they’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There is no such thing as an occupation.”

Huckabee has also argued, including during his 2008 US presidential campaign, that any future Palestinian state should be created from land in Arab countries, rather than from territory that Israel captured in 1967 during the Six-Day War.

The post American Jewish Organizations React to Trump’s Choice for US Ambassador to Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News