Peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians have resumed in Washington. However, to say that I'm holding my breath and expecting a breakthrough would be an exaggeration, to say the least.

I think that two important indicators could signal to us when this all turns into a serious exercise:    

The first would be a new coalition in Israel. My impression is that, by now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands – intellectually – that the occupation must come to an end. But politically he isn’t ready for a change; his current coalition government is composed of parties and individuals (see my previous post 'No Peace, I’m afraid') who are just too right-wing to accept a deal with a two-state solution at its heart. Thus, any progress on the peace process will require a new government in Israel. This could be achieved either through new elections, or a change of the coalition’s composition.

The second indicator would be a willingness of President Barack Obama to intervene personally in the negotiations and put pressure on Israel. As I’ve already put it in 'It has nothing to do with my rude comment about balls', the lesson of history is that the Israelis only move under pressure, and the one who could apply the necessary pressure on them is the President.  

Alas, President Obama is up to his eyes with domestic and other problems, and I don’t really expect him to press the Israelis, at least until after the US midterm elections in November.

In the meantime, extremists will try to sabotage the peace talks. The other day, a Palestinian attack on an Israeli car near Hebron killed four settlers. It’s unlikely that this will, and perhaps
other attacks, derail the talks and, anyway, we shouldn’t expect any significant progress at this stage.

Contract article -

In On Spies and Introductions I’ve already referred to the unfortunate Marwan Affair.

I knew Ashraf Marwan, the son-in-law of Egypt’s former President Gamal Abdel Nasser, quite well. In Israel’s Wars I hinted that he was an Egyptian spy who misled the Israeli Mossad, and I went on to provide more details in A History of Israel.

However, my concealed references to him in these and other publications, led to a serious spat between us: Marwan responded with an outright denial in an Egyptian newspaper, dubbing my version of events a “silly detective story”, and I – then - unmasked him, challenging him to prove that he wasn't the agent in question. News of the spat was widely reported in the Middle Eastern press.

Then came the plot twist that even the most audacious writer of fiction might balk at: Marwan made contact with me and we met in person for the first time, on 23 October 2003, at the Intercontinental Hotel in Park Lane; we would keep in touch for five years. In our meeting I suggested to Marwan that I write a book about his life, but he had a better idea. He said, “I’ll write the book myself and you’ll be my consultant … I‘ll consult you from time to time”, which he did.

On 26 June 2007, we spoke on the phone – as we would often do - and agreed to meet the next day. Several times I popped up from my basement office at Strand Bridge House to get mobile reception to see if Marwan had called, but eventually I gave up and left. That day Marwan was found dead after falling from the balcony of his fourth-floor flat in central London.
The post-mortem determined that Marwan had died as a result of a rupture to the aorta, caused by the fall, but beyond that little is certain. The police investigation took three years to complete and last week a coroner in London held an inquest into Marwan’s death.

I was invited to give evidence and was asked about our 26th June telephone conversation, the meeting that never happened, and about the manuscript of his book that has not been seen since his death; as far as the family is concerned, the missing book is one of the strongest indications that he was murdered.   

After three days of deliberations the coroner, William Dolman, rejected suggestions of suicide or murder and he returned an open verdict on the death. He said, “there are many unanswered questions [that involve the] murky and secretive world of espionage. We simply don’t know the facts, despite careful investigation. Did he jump or did he fall? Here the evidence does not provide a clear answer”.

His wife Mona – the dignified daughter of Gamal Abdel Nasser – welcomed the verdict but she insists that, “he was murdered … I’m sure that there was somebody else involved”.

The family have vowed to continue their search for the truth, but for now it seems that Marwan's enigmatic life and death will continue to remain a mystery.

Contract article -

I promised myself I wouldn’t utter a word about the unfortunate Israeli Navy attack on the flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip, knowing that I would say things and later regret it. 
   

But the other day I saw Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing the nation, defending the Navy’s raid, and I’ve decided to react to it. So here we go:
   

What the Prime Minister was doing was to complain that his commandos who stormed the ships from helicopters: “were mobbed, they were clubbed, they were beaten, stabbed … And our soldiers had to defend themselves.”
   

And I thought, “Wait a minute Mr Netanyahu, to say something like that is like having a rapist complaining that his victim hit back at him”.
   

And I also wonder: what did Mr Netanyahu expect? That his commandos would be showered with flowers? or with scented rice? That the people on the ship take out a red carpet and unfold it on the ship’s deck?
   

One good thing, though, comes of this sorry affair: it draws the world’s attention to the medieval siege the Israelis have imposed on the Gaza Strip, where the military, for three years now, decides what foods will go into the Strip and what the Gazans will have on their daily menus: Rice – yes, but pasta – no. Tuna fish – yes, but canned fruit (it’s a luxury) – no. 
   

This is now the time to press the Israelis to end the Gaza blockade. Israel, as I put it elsewhere, only moves under open pressure, and their recent terrible clumsiness – acting like pirates, attacking a Turkish ship on the high seas, when it was bearing humanitarian help to the Gaza Strip – is an opportunity to help the Gazans.
   

Expect the Israeli usual response: They will moan that, “the world is against us”, and they might even resort to their ultimate weapon (no - you silly reader – not their atomic bombs! They’ve got none), using the magic word “anti-Semitism”, which is a potent and effective weapon.  
   

This, however, should be ignored in order to help the Israelis – who have totally lost their way in recent years - help themselves, and also to save innocent people from perhaps another stupid Israeli scheme.

Contract article -

 Well done to the ICSR for bringing Israeli Minister Benny Begin to speak to us about “Israel’s Strategic Priorities in Peace Negotiations”.

I found Begin junior to be as eloquent and pompous as his late father Menachem Begin.
Otherwise, my main conclusion, after listening very carefully to what he had to say (which was essentially that Arabs are bad and threatening and Israelis are peace-loving), is that with people like him in government there is little chance of any progress in Middle Eastern peace talks.

Contract article -

 

 

 I came across the following in the course of my research for a new book. It is, I think, a most interesting message:

 “K – You know my position of standing firmly with Israel … we are now Israel’s only major friend in the world. I have yet to see one iota of give on their part. This is the time to get moving [with a peace process] – and they must be told that firmly … The time has come to quit pandering to Israel’s intransigent position. Our actions over the past have led them to think we will stand with them regardless of how unreasonable they are …” (emphasis in the original)

The “K”, let me tell you, is US National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and the note was sent to him by President Richard Nixon in February 1973.

Nixon, sick and tired of Israel’s intransigent positions, tried during this period to put pressure on the Israelis to compromise with their Arab neighbours by evacuating occupied lands. But to no avail. 

We all know what happened a few months after Nixon sent this message to Kissinger: a terrible Middle Eastern war which came to be known as the Ramadan, or the Yom Kippur War, and in which Egypt and Syria struck at Israel in an attempt to recover their lost lands.

Some 37 years after the 1973 conflict and the Middle East resembles, yet again, a powder keg, with growing tensions between Israel and her neighbours. Nobody wants to see another Middle Eastern war, but the conditions, you’ll agree, are ripe for a confrontation. Even a minor incident could easily ignite it all.

Much is dependent on Israel’s behaviour, as militarily it is the strongest Middle Eastern nation, and its activities in the Occupied Territories – particularly in Jerusalem – strongly influence Arab behaviour. 

Washington, which is still, to borrow from Richard Nixon’s words, “Israel’s only major friend in the world”, must make it clear to the Israelis that, “this is the time to get moving” with a peace process. As a first step the Israelis must stop building settlements in the occupied lands as this provokes the Arabs, leads to rising tensions, and is also illegal according to international law of occupation.

I’ve already said in “It has nothing to do with my rude comment about balls”, that the Israelis “only move under open pressure”. And as they also do not understand nuances, they must – and again I borrow from Nixon’s words – be told “firmly” that enough is enough, and that the US will not stand with them (Nixon again) “regardless of how unreasonable they are”.

Contract article -

Britain, the other day, kicked out the Mossad station chief in London after Israel was held responsible for the use of cloned British passports in the assassination of a Hamas commander in Dubai.
The British decision to expel the Israeli "diplomat" follows an investigation by the Serious Organised Crime Agency into how copies of the documents were obtained from British citizens.

In announcing the decision to throw out the Mossad chief, Foreign Secretary David Miliband said:

"Given that this was a very sophisticated operation, in which high-quality forgeries were made, the Government judges it is highly likely that the forgeries were made by a state intelligence service … taking this, together with other inquiries, we have concluded that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports …"

 

Note the words Miliband uses: "highly likely" and “compelling reasons to believe". In short, while the minister doesn't have the "smoking gun" to show Israeli involvement in the forgeries, he, nontheless, believes that the weight of evidence is such that one could safely assume that the Israelis are the culprits. 

I was not surprised by the Israeli response: "We have never been given proof that Israel was involved in this affair", by which they meant: But where's the hard evidence to link us to this case?

I agree with the British foreign secretary and reject the Israeli approach. I think that the world stage isn’t a court room, and it isn't always necessary to produce a smoking gun as a proof. Often, as in this case, the weight of evidence is sufficient.

And here's why '’m telling you this story: I strongly believe that the Israelis assassinated Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Do I have the smoking gun to show that this was indeed the case and that the Israelis are linked to Arafat’s death? No, I don't. But the weight of evidence – and I will not go into all the details here - shows that it is "highly likely" and that there are "compelling reasons to believe" - if to use Miliband's words - that Israeli agents poisoned Arafat.

Contract article -

Fred Burton is a good friend and author of the bestseller memoir, Ghost: Confessions of a Counterterrorism Agent.

Fred is a former State Department counter terrorism Special Agent and one of the world's foremost experts on security and terrorist organizations.

In this clip he is talking about the assassination, in a Dubai hotel, of Mahmoud al-Mabhough, a top Hamas commander.

Contract article -

I'm retiring …
This is to announce that I’m retiring. The reason for that is the translation into Chinese of my A History of Israel and its publication in China.
    

I strongly believe that A History of Israel, which the Chinese titled The History of Israel, by which they probably mean that this, in their view, is the definitive history of Israel, will sell well in China.
  

I have just Googled "population of China" and I can tell you that it stands at a number which I can't really read: 1,330,044,605.
  

I'm not an idiot and I do acknowledge that some Chinese (particularly in small villages) are unlikely to buy my book. But even if, say, 10 per cent of the total Chinese population does purchase this masterpiece, at its current paperback price of 35 Yuan 元 (which is £3.15), then I’m still financially safe and can afford an early retirement.
    

My readers and admirers are asked to please email me their thoughts on the follwing: 1. destinations to which I could retire. 2. Books I should carry with me should what is proposed above is an isolated place (say, an island); but please no Bible, nor books on the Middle East.

Thank you.

Contract article -

The subtitle of my 2005 book Elusive Peace is How the Holy Land Defeated America. And after listening to President Obama's annual address to Congress and the nation's televisions, I can categorically say that the Holy Land defeated America again.

In his speech, Obama did not refer at all – not even a single word - to the Middle East peace process. True, he is facing huge problems and pressures at home, but not to mention the peace process which, in the past, was quite high on his agenda, is also to admit failure.  

It would not be fair to put the blame for failing to resume peace talks in the Middle East on Obama alone, as Israelis and Arabs are not easy clients to deal with; but no doubt mistakes have been made by the Obama team.  

Back in July 2009, I wrote in Words are easy and many that, "Obama is now losing momentum…" Indeed, Obama's principal mistake was his attempt to squeeze concessions from Israelis and Palestinians before bringing them together; to force the Israelis, for instance, to stop building settlements on the disputed land before the renewal of peace talks. He failed, however, to realise that in the never-ending-Middle-Eastern-souk, trying to squeeze concessions takes time and, in the meantime, you lose momentum. Instead, Obama had to take advantage of his (then) huge popularity and drag Israelis and Arabs to the negotiating table, forcing them to compromise then and there.   

So what's next? As I have already argued in He's a nice guy, I have held barbecues at the Sea of Galilee and elsewhere, the way forward is to put on ice the complicated Israeli-Palestinian peace track and focus, instead, on trying to sort out the less complex Israeli-Syrian dispute.
Ahron Bregman

Contract article -

The temperature is rising between Egypt and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. The reason: Egypt is constructing a massive steel barrier, which will reach a depth of between 18 and 30 metres, along its 11 kilometre-long-border with the Gaza Strip; an electronic fence is also going up along the same route, equipped with cameras and electronic eyes. 

 

This barrier is still under construction, but when completed it will replace the light fence which existed before and – as Egypt and Israel hope – it will curtail the smuggling of weapons from Egypt's Sinai into the Gaza Strip; these weapons are often used to fight Israel. 

 

The weapons are smuggled through a system of at least 500 tunnels, running under the Gaza-Sinai border. But here's the problem: in addition to weapons, the tunnels serve as a key conduit to bring into the Strip other products, such as food, medicine, petrol, construction materials, electronic goods, livestock, small cars and even drugs and prostitutes. And if the barrier does succeed in killing off the smuggling of weapons, it might well also cripple Gaza's already shaky economy. 

 

There is strong opposition to the project in Gaza and in the Arab world, but Egypt seems determined to proceed anyway. It is even building, along with the underground barrier, a giant pipe to carry water from the Mediterranean and flood the tunnels, which will inundate broad areas on both sides of the border. 

 

It is likely that the resourceful Sinai smugglers – mainly Bedouin tribes – will find ways to circumvent the new obstacle, but the barrier will make life harder for them and complicate their task. 

 

How this new reality along the Sinai-Gaza border will affect Hamas' grip on the Gazans is an open question. But if public resentment in Gaza grows because, for instance, food prices rise, then Hamas might well attempt to divert attention from its troubles at home by renewing war with Israel.

Contract article -

Mazel Tov to the wizard of words Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace prize! He is a nice guy, a good speaker, and I do like him.

But what a terrible timing to earn a Nobel Peace Prize: just a week after announcing the dispatch of extra 30,000 troops to Afghanistan (thus bringing the US total to 100,000, close to the number of Soviet troops in the country during the 1980s).

Well, I wish Obama all the best but, frankly, I think that all this Nobel Peace Prize business is, at this stage, a bit premature and, in fact, I am pretty sure that the perspective of history will regard Obama as war president. I hope, though, that the scenario I describe in This is how we'll get out of Afghanistan will never materialize.

We should also recall that the Middle East Peace Process was high on Obama's list of priorities. Do you remember "Remarks by the President on a New Beginning", which was Obama's speech at Cairo University on 4 June 2009? Well, let me just tell you that, in spite of huge efforts by Obama's special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, thus far the verdict is: zero results.

And as I commented on Obama and the Middle East peace process in one of my previous post: "Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare".

Contract article -

B'Tselem is an Israeli human rights group. This week it commemorates its 20th anniversary with the release of data collected over a 20-year-period. It makes for grim reading:

In the last 20 years Israeli security forces killed 7,398 Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories. While 1999 saw the lowest level of Palestinian casualties - 8 altogether - in 2009, the number of Palestinian killed rose to 1,033.

During the same period Palestinians killed 1,483 Israelis, of whom 488 belonged to Israel’s security forces and 995 were civilians. And while – again - 1999 saw the lowest number of Israeli casualties - 4 in all - in 2002, which was a bloody year of suicide attacks on Israeli towns and cities, 420 Israelis were killed.

Of the measures used by the IDF in the Occupied Territories, house demolition is one of the most controversial. According to B'Tselem, in the last twenty years, Israel has demolished at least 4,300 Palestinian houses, either for being built without a permit, or as punishment. This figure, however, does not include the destruction of property during military operations which amounts to some 6,240 Palestinian houses.

As for Jewish settlers: while in 1989, 69,800 lived in the West Bank and 118,100 in East Jerusalem, today - over 300,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and 190,000 in East Jerusalem.

Contract article -

The UN General Assembly, last Thursday (5 November), adopted a resolution asking Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to deliver to the Security Council the Goldstone Report, which accuses Israel and "Palestinian armed groups" of committing war crimes during Israel's military operation in Gaza ("Operation Cast Lead") in winter 2008/9. Denying any wrongdoing, Israel expects the United States to use its veto power in the Security Council to bury Goldstone for good. 

In the meantime I had a go at Professor Asa Kasher. An eminent Israeli philosopher, Professor Kasher, in 2004, headed a team of experts in developing a Code of Conduct for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which emphasizes how it should behave in low intensity warfare and when operating in densely populated areas.

The other day, Professor Kasher gave a TV interview which seriously upset me. Here was perhaps the most important Israeli philosopher of war discussing the IDF, "Operation Cast Lead" and the Goldstone report, leaving the impression, at least on me, that all was well with the IDF and its conduct in Gaza while, on the other hand, criticizing the Goldstone report.

Now, I am experienced enough to know that it is always a good idea to count to ten before reacting, especially to matters that really upset you. But on this occasion I simply reached for my keyboard and typed a message:    

Dear Prof Kasher,
I've watched your interview … I have no doubt whatsoever that the perspective of history will identify a clear pattern from you being a bright, eminent philosopher … to someone who, later, became … "the national whitewasher" … someone who … at the philosophical level, gave approval for terrible, terrible things that have been done by Israeli troops, particularly during "Operation Cast Lead".
Yours,
Ahron Bregman

It took me no longer than the time between hitting the "send" button and the "your message has been sent", to realise that my terse message was inappropriate, something which I was soon to learn straight from the horse's mouth:

 

Dear Dr. Bregman:
Thank you for your message.
Your views about my views seem to rest on two wrong assumptions:
1. That you have sufficient knowledge of the facts. Reading Goldstone, The Guardian, Haaretz and some NGO reports is never tantamount to becoming knowledgeable about what the IDF have or have not done.
2. More personally, that you are sufficiently familiar with my views and activities. The depiction of a person as one who is willing to sanction everything the IDF does is not less than a libel. I published (with Amos Yadlin) papers, in scholarly journals, during 2005, way before the 2nd Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead. Our papers are full of arguments. One may disagree on grounds of counter-arguments, but the rhetoric of some circles is never argumentative and respectful, but always bashing and smearing. It is a contemptible style, utterly incompatible with genuine pursuit of human dignity.

Sincerely,

Asa Kasher

 

Well, I must admit that Professor Kasher inflicted a serious blow (especially in his number 2), leaving me with a bloody nose.

Having said that, I still believe that by working so intimately with the IDF, many of whose troops are now suspected war criminals, Professor Kasher caused himself an irreparable damage. For even if the Code of Conduct he helped to develop is fine on paper, and even if some elements in his criticism of Goldstone are correct (and I'll not go into it now), still when one counts the bodies, particularly of children, left by the IDF in the streets of Gaza in 2009, one becomes suspicious of all those involved in the Gaza saga: the troops who used indiscriminate fire, the politicians who dispatched them to operate in crowded Gaza, various advisors linked to the military, including army lawyers and – yes – philosophers of war too.

Still, the "rhetoric", as Professor Kasher put it in reference to my style, was indeed inappropriate and did little to help me convince this grand philosopher that, while the killing in Gaza was in no way his fault, it was however within the context of his 2004 Code of Conduct that the IDF did what he did there.

Contract article -

"My son is 20 years old and I am his mother aged 43", wrote Mrs Lauderdalle from Yorkshire to Prime Minister Clement Attlee in February 1948. She went on to say: "I appeal to you to let my boy come home from Palestine".

Another mother sent a letter to the Prime Minister saying, "I am writing to you to demand my son to leave Palestine before he is slaughtered by the Arabs or Jews. I am enclosing this picture published in the Daily Mail today. Thank God! It is not my boy. As I saw the face, I thought for a moment it was him, and I was absolutely devastated. But they are some other mother's boy. Why should our boys die for the sake of lousy Jews and Arabs? It is not our war".

These are two out of hundreds of letters sent to Prime Minister Attlee urging him to withdraw from Palestine. And now we’ve got to do the same: to send hundreds and thousands of letters and emails to Prime Minister Gordon Brown to pile pressure on him to get British troops out of Afghanistan.

We must not, however, delude ourselves: our messages will not change the situation overnight, and it is likely that British troops will continue to patrol Afghanistan for many years to come. You see, it is relatively easy to invade a country, but it is always much more complicated to disengage. As a young captain in the Israeli army I was one of those who invaded Lebanon in an operation which was supposed to last between 48 and 72 hours; troops then stayed in Lebanon for 18 years. What eventually brings about disengagements (the US disengagement from Vietnam, the Israeli retreat from Lebanon, and so on) is a combination of blood and public pressure. And this is how we are going to get out of Afghanistan:

Although they do not know it yet, many British troops will be killed in Afghanistan and return to Britain in coffins. With the growing number of casualties, public pressure on the government to get out of Afghanistan will also increase, but ministers will repeat, like parrots, the mantra that Britain is a "safer place", as long as British troops operate in Afghanistan, and that eventually “we will defeat the Taliban”.

Some ministers will utter this nonsense because they are expected to do so, others because they are ignorant – they either do not know history, or have learned nothing from history. And then more casualties ("Breaking News: 74 British troops were killed when a helicopter ferrying them was shot down in Afghanistan") leading to even more public pressure on the government.

And then a new Prime Minister will be elected (well, as I write, the poor guy is probably still at school) and he will ask: "What's the purpose? Why are we still there? We've already lost 2,744 young men …" He will then set up a committee which will report back that the entire Afghan affair is pointless, because you can not defeat the elusive Taliban and chasing them in the Afghan mountains would not turn Britain into a safer place. The committee will then recommend to get out of this hell-of-a place within 5, 7 or 10 years.

And yes - this is how it will all end. Then, we will all just forget about it, with the only ones to continue and live with this sorry episode being the mothers who, as I write, do not yet know that their world is about to be turned up-side-down.

 

Photo courtesy of Getty Images

Contract article -

I have seriously upset some of my friends with my previous post.

The way they reacted to it, which was to send emails to my private address rather than to our Blog, partly explains why they were so offended: They felt that it was wrong of me to wash Israel's dirty linen in public.

They felt that as a former Israeli I should have acted more discreetly: perhaps by sending "eyes only" letters to influential people, or discuss my thoughts in private with friends and let them deal with the matter in a more diplomatic way.

But, frankly, I am in no mood to act in such a way.

Israel, I know, and this is the lesson of history, only moves under open pressure, and matters are urgent enough at the moment for people like me to join-in and do whatever we can to save Israel from herself, and also save those who, as I write, are watching television, or visiting a shopping mall in Gaza or elsewhere in the Middle East, not knowing that they are going to die, unless we take action to save them.

Do not misunderstand me: saying that Israel only moves under pressure is not an open invitation to attack her physically, although it is safe to say that such a physical pressure did provide good results in the past, benefiting Israel, the entire Middle East and the world. The Arab attack on Israel in October 1973, for instance, was a critical event, pushing Israel to return the occupied Sinai and sign a peace deal with Egypt in 1979; the successful Palestinian first intifada played a major role in convincing Israelis to recognise the PLO and later sign the Oslo Agreements; successful Hezbollah guerrilla tactics forced Israeli troops out of Lebanon after 18 years of occupation; and the second intifada played a major role in convincing Ariel Sharon to pull out of Gaza in 2005.

Back to the present situation, I strongly believe that only open pressure on Israel could ensure that she investigates – for her own sake - the serious allegations made against her in the Goldstone report, where she is accused of "committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity", during her three-week war in Gaza in January 2009. Such pressure – by the US, Europe, by the UN and by ordinary people like me and you - will also achieve another aim (and the following refers to my previous statement about those not knowing they are going to die, unless we take action to save them), which is forcing Israel to rethink her military tactics and be more cautious in using force and fire in heavily populated areas, notably in the Gaza Strip, if and when she operates there again.

There was, to be sure, another matter in my previous post that bothered some of my friends, namely the paragraph where I said that, "I think it is a good thing that some Serbs, Africans, Arabs and – yes Israelis too - who have been involved in conflicts, have their balls (excuse my French) shaking a bit, before landing in such places as Britain, Spain, Belgium, out of fear that upon emerging from their aeroplanes they might be shown the connection flight to The Hague".

Now I know that some of you guys, out there, will immediately think that the criticism emerges from my reference to private parts. But no. What actually upset my friends was that I mentioned, in the same breath, Israelis and … Serbs! It was, apparently, alright to refer to Arabs and Africans, but Serbs? With their reputation of being war criminals?

The truth, however, is that Israelis and Serbs are similar in so many ways; not only in their worldview (where among other things they both believe that, "the world is always against us"), but also in the tough tactics (I would refrain here from using the words "cruel tactics") used by their armed forces against their enemies, and the dogged insistence of both Israeli and Serb leaders that their armies are "the most moral in the world".

Contract article -

Thus wrote George Orwell in England Your England in 1941. He went on to explain:
"They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are 'only doing their duty', as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any the worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil".

I refer to this passage here in connection with Judge Richard Goldstone's report, about which I've written in a previous post, where the judge accuses Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during their three-week war in Gaza in January 2009.

Last week, the UN human rights council voted to endorse this report and this might well lead to an international criminal court investigation should Israel and Hamas fail to mount their own credible independent inquiries into the war crimes allegations within six months.

And why mention Orwell? Because many in Israel, and elsewhere, still believe, if to use Orwell's words, that as they are "only doing their duty" then their country will "absolve them" should things go wrong; for instance if 252 children under the age of 16 perish as a result of indiscriminate fire used in the course of a military operation.

Well, some things have changed since Orwell's days and current international law requires armies to discharge their duties while adhering, even in the heat of battle, to certain rules. When countries seem to try and hide unlawful actions and "absolve" suspected war criminals, the international community often intervenes, as it does in the above case.

While it is impossible to bring such abstract entities as "countries" to justice, it is indeed possible to ask individuals - soldiers, generals, even ministers - to account for their actions. Quite frankly, I think it is a good thing that some Serbs, Africans, Arabs and – yes Israelis too - who have been involved in conflicts, have their balls (excuse my French) shaking a bit, before landing in such places as Britain, Spain, Belgium, out of fear that upon emerging from their aeroplanes they might be shown the connection flight to The Hague.

Contract article -

I'm just back from my third trip to India which I love, although it is hard to say why. And as I'm still under the spell of India's cruelties and follies and enchantments, I'm not yet in the right frame of mind to comment on what I'm here for: the Middle East.

The books on my desk at the moment and which I'm desperate to finish reading before embarking on my teaching duties at War Studies next week include: James Cameron's An Indian Summer, Gillian Tindall's City of Gold: The Biography of Bombay, Edna Fernandes's The Last Jews of Kerala, and the brilliant though depressing Suketu Mehta's Maximum City: Bombay Lost & Found.

But let me just share the following observation with you: during my two and a half weeks in India, I've kept an eye – as I would always do while traveling - on the local press: reading newspapers, listening when possible to radio programmes, and watching local television – mainly the news.

And I could see that, while here in the West we don't stop talking and discussing Middle Eastern affairs, there – in the Indian subcontinent - it is not a major item on the news. They discuss – of course – Kashmir, along with the weather (200 Indians perished due to torrential rains that hit Madhya Pradesh), the discovery of water on the moon by an Indian team, and many other local issues.

I must admit that I've found this general lack of interest in Middle Eastern affairs quite puzzling. But then perhaps I should not be too surprised as different regions of the world have their different problems, concerns and interests and these, quite clearly, tend to dominate their news headlines.

Contract article -

Some of you have asked me to clarify this business of "10 metres of land separating Israelis and Syrians from peace" to which I alluded in my previous post. So here we go:
    

In peace negotiations between Israel and Syria in Blair House, Washington (December 1999) and in Shepherdstown, West Virginia (January 2000), Israeli and Syrian negotiations were quite successful in resolving – I would say - more than 95 percent of their differences.

However, they have consistently failed to sort out one sticking point namely, the route of their future border. While the Israelis want it based on the 1923 internationally-recognised border, decided upon by the British (who ruled Palestine) and the French (who ruled Syria), the Syrians want it to be what they call the "4th June 1967 line".

As I said in my previous post, the distance between these two lines is neglible. So why is it such a stumbling block? Because the 1923 border that runs 10 metres off the northeast quadrant of the Sea of Galilee, when the water is up, does not allow the Syrians, if deployed along it, access to the water of the Sea of Galilee which they call "Lake Tiberias", or simply "The Lake".

Now there was a time when the Syrians did sit on the water edge: in the period from 1923 to 1967 they simply crossed the 10 metres separating them from the water and established 5 fishing villages on the water line.

Later, however, in the 1967 war, the Israelis pushed the Syrians off the water, chased the Syrian fishermen out of their villages, and proceeded east and up to occupy the Golan Heights. The Syrians want the Israelis to return the Golan (which, it is quite safe to say, the Israelis are willing to do) and allow them to return to the "4th June 1967 line", the line they held on the eve of the 1967 war on the water.

This, however, the Israelis reject as it would allow the Syrians access to the lake which provides Israel with 35-40 percent of their fresh water needs; the Israelis also suspect that the Syrians might even poison the water.

When the late Syrian President Hafez el Assad was offered the Golan Heights, but not the 4th June 1967 line (it was suggested that the future border would be "mutually agreed", or be "based" on the 1923 border, even "based" on the 1967 line), Assad refused by saying, "I have held barbecues at the Sea of Galilee, swum in its water, sat on its shores and eaten fish from it. I have no intention of giving it up."
    

 

So here we are – stuck because of a few, though critical, metres of land.

Contract article -

On 23 December 2008 I sent a letter to a very influential minister in Israel, someone whom I know well, and who has a direct access to the military. It was an "Eyes Only" – a very private letter. It is worth noting here that, at the time, I did not know that soon after the IDF would be ordered to move into Gaza to execute "Operation Cast Lead".

 

Here is what I said in my letter:

Dearest XXXX                            23 December 2008

 

I know you're busy so I'll be short:

 

1. I'm following events from London and I can see the pressures you're under …

 

2. But it is also clear to me that you might have to do things [in Gaza].

 

3. And this is why I write to you: I strongly suggest that you do not approve the firing of artillery into [Palestinian] civilian populated areas. Nobody here – in Europe – will accept it. Even if your legal advisors say that it is OK, this will still not be acceptable here. If there's an error and a shell lands on civilians, they will then say that you're a war criminal, and you'll not be able to move freely in Europe in the future. These are harsh words, but I say them because I care about you.

 

4. Make sure that in all military forums – from General Staff to talks with simple soldiers – you warn them not to hurt civilians, and do keep the transcripts of your warnings.

 

Be well,
Ahron

I would not go on to describe here what actually happened in Gaza four days after this letter was sent to the minister, just mention that during the course of the Israeli military operation 773 Palestinian civilians, including 252 children under the age of 16 were killed (it would be fair to say that statistics about Palestinian casualties vary and the Israelis dispute the above number).  

After the Gaza operation, a United Nations Fact Finding Mission was established. Its mandate: "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after."

The mission was led by former South African judge Richard Goldstone - a Zionist whose daughter lives in Israel.

Yesterday, Goldstone and his team published their 575-page report. They concluded that, "actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly in some respect crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israel Defense Forces".

They added that, "There were numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects … resulting in deaths and some serious injuries". Goldstone called on the Security Council to order Israel to investigate possible war crimes. His words prompted me to look for my letter to my friend the minister as I felt that in it I quite accurately identified how things might develop.

Contract article -

Sadly, I was unable to attend Dr Radwan Ziadeh's seminar at the ICSR.

But I've just read the interview he gave to Alex Matine. My conclusion: he's a nice guy.

Now, I know that this is a strange statement! But trust me - it is relevant and important. Because one – only one – of the reasons why there is little enthusiasm among Israelis to support governmental efforts to make peace with the Syrians is the prevailing view in Israel that the Syrians "are not nice".

When I was still serving in the Israeli army (by now this is ancient history), I – along with many of my colleagues – was quite reluctant to be posted to the Syrian front. Why? Because the Syrians "are not nice" and they are also - this is what we thought of them at the time - "cruel".

So it is quite refreshing to hear a Syrian who seems to be a nice guy. And with this under the belt, the only problem now is to overcome the remaining stumbling block: the 10 metres of land separating Israelis and Syrians from peace.

The Israelis – including the current prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu – were willing in past peace negotiations to withdraw from the Golan Heights to the so called 1923 international line, decided upon between the French and British in 1923. The Syrians, on the other hand, insist that the Israelis should withdraw to what they call "the 4th June 1967 line".

Let me just tell you that the distance between the two lines is – yes – a mere 10 metres.

Contract article -

Criss-crossing the UK with my 17-year-old son Daniel in search of a University for him (he wants to do Maths & Philosophy). 

So we went from London to Warwick University (which, in fact, is closer to Coventry than to Warwick, but is called "Warwick University", and for good reason). 

From there to York, Durham, Edinburgh and St Andrews Universities, and then back to London via Manchester and lovely Liverpool, stopping in Wigan, as I wanted to see the place George Orwell had written about in The Road to Wigan Pier.

So I'm safely back now and can report that while Wigan seems to have changed quite a lot since Orwell's days (he stayed there for two months back in 1937), the Middle East – at least during my week's absence – has not changed much.

Everything, at the moment, seems to be suspended as Arabs, Palestinians and Israelis are all waiting for Barack Obama's next move, where he is expected to spell out his peace plan for the Middle East. Well, quite frankly, what else can this wizard of words say that we do not already know?

As far as Israel and Syria are concerned, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights to Syria and the latter to agree to arrangements whereby it keeps away from the Sea of Galilee which, for Israel, is a crucial source of drinking water.

As far as Israelis and Palestinians are concerned, the Israelis should withdraw from 94-96 percent of West Bank land and the two thorny issues of Jerusalem and the Palestinian "Right of Return" to balance off each other, whereby Israel agrees to divide Jerusalem with the Palestinians and the latter forgo their "right of return" to Israel proper, exercising it instead to their future Palestinian state.

So all is known and there is no need for new "peace plans", "road maps", or "Obama's visions".

At the end of the day, it all boils down to the need for Churchillian Middle Eastern leaders, brave enough to take the bull by the horns and cut the Gordian knot.

 

 

Image: The Road to Wigan Pier (drawing), courtesy of Harvest/HBJ Publishing

Contract article -

I’m a bit concerned that the continuing war of words between Israel and Hezbollah might get out of hand and lead to an all-out war. Israel’s Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, whom I know quite well and who, I can testify, is careful with his words said, last week, that Israel “would not tolerate a situation whereby a neighbouring country (he referred to Lebanon) has in its government and parliament a militia (he meant Hezbollah) that has its own policy and 40,000 rockets aimed at Israel”. A senior official for Hezbollah, Hashem Safi al-Din, responded that it was ready for any eventuality and he went on to warn Israel that any “silly act” would lead to such a forceful response as to make the previous 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah “look like a joke”.

So what could trigger an all-out confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon? Well, when the temperature is rising, anything could easily ignite the keg of powder. But what, in particular, and perhaps more than anything else has the potential to cause an explosion is any attempt by Hezbollah to carry out its revenge attack for the death of Imad Mughniyeh (seen above), a top commander in the organisation who was killed when his car was blown up in Damascus in February 2008. Hezbollah believes Mossad was behind the assassination, a claim Israel denies.

I also expect that unlike in 2006, where the Israelis tried to work only from the air, this time – if war does break out - they will put boots on the ground, mainly in the area between the Israeli-Lebanese border and the Litani River to search and destroy Hezbollah’s mortars and other launchers to stop firing into Israeli town and cities. And as much of Hezbollah’s arsenal is now hidden inside towns and villages in southern Lebanon I expect that any Israeli operation there will trigger a massive movement of Lebanese population from the south towards Beirut.

So will the war of words turn into words of war? Frankly, I don’t know.

 

Photo credit: Hezbollah Media Office via Associated Press 

Contract article -

In early 2009 the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons decided to conduct an inquiry on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They were prompted to do this primarily by the conflict in Gaza in December 2008/January 2009 ("Operation Cast Lead"), and also by the advent of new governments in Israel and the United States.

Along with others I was invited to appear before the committee and give evidence. The committee, led by Mike Gapes MP, has just published its findings in a Report called "Global Security: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories". It's a fascinating document and I invite you to read it by clicking on the following link.

Contract article -

Former Head of Mossad, Meir Amit, has died. I interviewed him back in 1997 for the six-part BBC TV series The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs. He later invited me to his home and office in Ramat Gan, near Tel Aviv, to chat about the Arab-Israeli conflict and he even allowed me to go over some of his files to use in the companion book of the BBC series, which I wrote with the Egyptian Jihan el-Tahri.

Amit's hobby was to collect items; dolls from different countries, for instance. I also remember how after one of our conversations he took me aside and showed me a very large jar made of glass. Inside I could see hundreds of small and large matchboxes from all over the world. He explained how during his extensive travels as head of Mossad he would buy matchboxes to remind him where he had been. I found it quite amusing: the master spy of Israel collecting dolls and matchboxes!

I have written his obituary for the Daily Telegraph – since 1994 I have been the Telegraph’s obituaries writer covering Israel and the Jewish world - and those of you interested in reading it could click on the following link.

Contract article -

 The Saar 4.5 gun-ships are the newest generation of small, fast-attack missile boats designed and built by Israel with some of its equipment, notably spare parts of the ship's guns, being bought from British companies. Saar boats participated in Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip earlier this year and because of that Britain now imposes a partial arms embargo on Israel – it would not sell Israel replacement parts for her Saar ships.

The embargo follows a British review of 182 licenses for arms exports to Israel, including 35 for exports to her Navy and the cancellation of five such licenses, all related to the Saar ships. The British government insists that by using the ships in Operation Cast Lead, Israel violated the security agreements between the two countries, which specify what uses may be made of British equipment.

It's worth mentioning here that in the 1960s and 1970s Britain used to be a major supplier of arms to Israel, including the transfer of 300 Centurion tanks and other equipment. But following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 the British government decided to impose her first arms embargo on Israel; since then sells from British companies to Israel have never really recovered and by now only a fraction of Israel's defense related imports come from Britain.

While the British decision is unlikely to have a major impact on the Israeli Navy's operational capabilities, Israel is still concerned that the British move might encourage other nations to halt their defense exports to Israel. 

 So who's the next to impose an arms embargo on Israel? I bet it would be Belgium.

Contract article -

For those of you interested in keeping an eye on the unfolding event in Iran, here is a very good blog.
Contract article -

Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said the other day that if the Iranian nuclear project has no technical glitches, and if Iran's program does not malfunction in any way then the Iranians will have a bomb to launch 'by 2014'. And I wonder: '2014'? You guys have promised us that the Iranian will be ready with their bomb by 'late 1990s', 'the beginning of this decade', '2009-2010' and now you are telling us 'by 2014'?

Well, if you are not going to change your mind again and you stick to this date, then clearly by 2014 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not be in office nor, I suspect, his boss, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose health is not great.

And given that recent opinion polls show that only one in five Israeli Jews believes a nuclear-armed Iran would try to destroy Israel (thus no pressure on the government to act) then the conclusion is simple: The probability that Israel would use military force to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities in the near future is lower than low.

Well, perhaps I should be more careful. The words 'lower than low' were used in Israel back in October 1973 in reference to the probability of an Egyptian attack on Israel. The rest, of course, is history.

Contract article -

'I call on you, our Palestinian neighbours, and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions'. So said Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a highly anticipated foreign policy address on Sunday. Yes, I do like these two words 'without preconditions'. So here we go:

Netanyahu declared his willingness to see the creation of a Palestinian state, but in return he insisted, among other things, that:

   1. 'Jerusalem must remain the unified capital of Israel'.
   2. 'The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders'.
   3. 'When Palestinians are ready to recognize Israel as Jewish state, we will be ready for a true final settlement'.

So what are these if not Israeli preconditions? Now, add to it Netanyahu's insistence on allowing 'natural growth' in Jewish settlements, which is an old trick Israeli governments use to increase the number of settlers on the disputed land, and what you’ve got here are new hurdles that render a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state impossible.

But then, perhaps, as former US President Bill Clinton put it, we should regard Netanyahu's tough terms the opening moves in a 'drama that will have a few more acts', being the Prime Minister's response to Obama's first moves.

Well, if that's indeed the case then it's over to you, Mr Obama! Contract article -

I'm told that as this is my first blog post then I may want to use it to introduce myself, my interests, and my professional 'obsessions'. Well, when people send me emails introducing themselves as such as such from here or there, the first thing I often do is Google them: all is public now, privacy has gone.

So go on, my reader – DIY. It would be appreciated, though, if you refrain from googling "Ahron Bregman Ashraf Marwan", which I suspect you might well do anyway. 

It is the 2nd anniversary of Ashraf Marwan's death. Who was Ashraf Marwan? Well, he was many things – an Egyptian minister, a roving ambassador, a successful businessman, but above all his name is now linked to the spying world. He was the most important spy Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad ever had in the Arab world, one who played a prominent role in the lead up to the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

This, of course, was a top secret for many years. But in my 1999 book Israel's Wars I hinted at Marwan's identity, arguing that he was a double agent who had, in fact, misled his Israeli masters and was, as I put it, the jewel in the crown of the Egyptian plan to deceive Israel before the 1973 war.

However, my concealed references to him in Israel’s Wars and other publications, eventually led to a serious spat between us, where he dubbed my version of events “a silly detective story” and I, in response, unmasked him; revealing that he was Ashraf Marwan, son in law of Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

We later mended fences, met and kept working relations for five years – I was an advisor on a book he was writing. But then came his mysterious death on 27 June 2007 – the very day we were due to meet for a chat.

He either jumped to his death from the balcony of his flat in Mayfair, London – or was pushed. I pray that, in either eventuality, my unmasking him had nothing to do with his brutal death. Two years after the event the Metropolitan Police are still searching for clues as to what actually happened on that fateful day. 

And why do I tell you this story? Simply because this is the sort of story people who introduce themselves tend not to mention. And it is only because I know that you – the enquiring reader out there - would do more than reading my own boring introduction of myself, that I am so open about this unfortunate event.

The bottom line? Drop the formal introductions and never unmask spies - at least as long as they’re still alive.

Ahron Bregman

Contract article -