Saturday, 23 August 2014

The new Middle East realpolitik

About this time last year some bright journalistic spark decided to construct a chart to illustrate the complex – and far from logical ­– network of friendships and enmities that make up the political pattern of the Middle East.  The result resembled a web spun by a demented spider. 

A year is an eternity in politics, and even if that chart had been decipherable, subsequent events have rendered much of it obsolete.  One new player on the scene is the self-styled Islamic State (IS), formally established in June 2014 and based on the organization known as ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).  Led by a man of boundless ambition and undoubted military talent – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who now dubs himself the caliph and head of Muslims the world over – the IS swept across Syria and northern Iraq, carrying all before it. In the areas it conquered, inspired by an utterly ruthless religious zeal, the army of the IS set about a brutal and pitiless slaughter of all who would not subscribe to its own version of extreme Islamism.  Tens of thousands fled before it and are now refugees from their own country.

The Islamic State is no-one’s friend but its own.  Rooted in Sunni Islam, its caliph now disdainfully rejects established Sunni authority, declaring to the Muslim world at large: “The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas, Support your state, which grows every day.''

This time last year Syria’s President Assad thought it appropriate to provide under-cover support for the then-ISIS, which was at odds with the rest of the Sunni jihadists, including al-Qaida, battling it out in Syria.  That “Machiavellian strategy”, in the words of journalist Itzhak Benhorin, has clearly backfired, and Assad has turned on the IS.  Now the IS is in opposition not only to the Shia alliance of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah – and, by extension, Russia - but also with most of the Sunni Middle East.

The alarming speed of its inroad into Iraq from the north, and the humanitarian crisis it unleashed among the Christian and other communities it overran, finally led to a stiffening of resolve, within both the Iraqi government and the western world.  Humanitarian and military assistance began to be provided by a number of western governments, including the US and the UK, to the Iraqi and Kurdish forces opposing the IS, and its apparently unstoppable advance was checked.

Nevertheless, the Islamic State’s military successes alone would not have generated the reaction they have, were it not for the fact that hundreds of volunteers from all over the world are being attracted into its ranks, and western governments fear the result of a return to their countries of battle-hardened and Islamist-indocrinated extremists.  Whatever the reasons, the civilized world seems finally to be waking to the reality of the enemy it faces –extreme Islamists who have the eventual domination of the whole world in their sights.

For example, UK prime minister David Cameron wrote recently that the creation of an extreme caliphate in the heart of Iraq and extending into Syria was the UK’s concern, here and now.  “Because if we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain.”

Then he postulated an emerging realpolitik approach that is beginning to gain adherents among opinion formers in the West.

“We must work with countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the UAE, Egypt and Turkey against these extremist forces, and perhaps even with Iran, which could choose this moment to engage with the international community against this shared threat.”

Sunni Qatar? - bidding fair to becoming second only to Iran as the world’s largest sponsor of global terrorism, and one of Hamas’s main financial backers.  Shia Iran? - with its clear ambition to acquire military nuclear capability as a vital step towards dominating the whole Middle East.  Yes, indeed. Both, as sworn opponents of the Islamic State, are being considered as bedfellows by the West.

Noting the trend, former UK Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind asks:. “Has there suddenly emerged an American-Iranian axis? Are the ayatollahs in Tehran working hand in glove with the Great Satan?”  His answer:  “You might be forgiven for thinking so. The United States and Iran joined forces in calling for Nouri el-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, to step down… There have been no protests from the Iranians as American jets carry out bombing attacks across their border. They seem quite relaxed as the US arms the Kurdish peshmerga.”

         Sir Malcom draws attention to the fact that the Iranians have worked informally with the Americans several times in the recent past, though neither side found it convenient to draw attention to it.  It wasn’t hypocrisy or double standards, he asserts, but because their national interests coincided on specific issues.  The most striking example he gives was the Iranian response after 9/11. Al-Qaida was a Sunni terrorist organization and the Shi’ite Iranians were very content to see them crushed by the United States. In short, if the West has to work with Iran to defeat the Islamic State, declares Sir Malcolm, so be it. History clearly shows that distasteful temporary alliances can be the best option.

          He goes further. The US and its allies must also be prepared to work with the Syrian régime of Bashar al-AssadThe Islamic State “needs to be eliminated,” he declares, “and we should not be squeamish about how we do it. Sometimes you have to develop relationships with people who are extremely nasty in order to get rid of people who are even nastier.”

         France’s president François Hollande goes one stage further by calling for an international conference to coordinate the effort.“We want not only all the regional countries, including Arab states and Iran, but the five members of the Security Council also, to join this action,” said French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius.

The utterly inhumane and brutal beheading of US journalist James Foley was a message apparently intended only for President Obama a warning to desist from US air-strikes against IS forces.  Nevertheless the cold-blooded barbarity of the act shocked the world, and it may help to solidify opposition to the IS and raise awareness of the universal threat it poses.  But could that execution have the effect of bringing together, even on a temporary basis, states who are otherwise sworn enemies?  That is far from certain - though realpolitik has worked bigger miracles in the past.

Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line, 25 August 2014:

Published in the Eurasia Review, 24 August 2014:

Saturday, 16 August 2014

Hamas and the Islamic State

            Fiction has given way to fact.  Charges against Israel of crimes against humanity, nay of deliberate genocide of the Palestinian people, cunningly manipulated and loudly trumpeted by Hamas, were taken up with enthusiasm by the world’s media.  Now they have been displaced by genuine and horrific reality in the northern mountains of Iraq.  And apart from what might be termed “the usual suspects”, most world leaders appear to have recognized the real thing when they see it.

Over the past few weeks, as the army of the Islamic State (IS) has been bulldozing its way into vast tracts of Iraq, tens of thousands of Christians with nothing more than the clothes on their backs, have been fleeing for their lives from towns like Qaraqosh and Bartilla.

"What's happening now to the Christians, to the Yazidis, to the minorities," Dr Sarah Ahmed, of the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, told CBS News“is a genocide.”  She said that they were shooting people, including children, laying them on the ground and driving tractors over them in front of their families. 

   "We have striking evidence,” reported Iraq’s Human Rights Minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, “obtained from Yazidis fleeing Sinjar and some who escaped death, and also crime scene images, that show indisputably that the gangs of the Islamic State have executed at least 500 Yazidis after seizing Sinjar.  Some of the victims, including women and children, were buried alive in scattered mass graves in and around Sinjar."

Beheadings, crucifixions, amputation of hands, indiscriminate slaughter of women and children, burying victims alive ­ these are indeed ferocious and savage crimes against humanity committed by barbaric terrorist extremists lacking the faintest spark of compassion for the fellow human beings they regard as the enemies of Islam.

No longer in the spotlight, and with the world’s headlines concerned with efforts by the western powers to bring humanitarian relief to the refugees and military assistance to those battling the armies of the IS, Hamas is desperate to snatch some shreds of victory from the jaws of defeat, as they managed to do in their previous encounters with Israel.  Negotiation is the only way to come out of this self-generated conflict with something to show for all the wasted effort and unnecessary death, so Hamas takes advantage of the dip in media attention to extend the ceasefire and negotiate.

In a final ceasefire Hamas may indeed come away with some achievements it can wave in the public’s face. It is unlikely to get all it wants. It may gain the payment of salaries to its employees and an increase in the distance that Gazan fishermen are permitted to fish. It wants a free flow of people into and out of Israel through the Erez crossing, and Israel may agree to more flexibility on this. Hamas is demanding a port and airfield. Israel is mulling over the possibility of reopening Gaza port.  To Hamas’s demand for the free flow of cement into Gaza, Israel, determined that it be restricted to rebuilding infrastructure and not for reconstructing military installations or tunnels, might agree, but only under the condition of strict international control and supervision.  Similar rigorous restrictions would be imposed on any easing of the rules governing the flow of Israeli goods into Gaza, and for the same reasons.

These will be modest achievements. Hamas has no-one in its leadership with the charisma or undoubted military talent of the enigmatic Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who now dubs himself the Caliph of the Islamic State and the head of Muslims the world over. When the new Islamic State was set up, in June 2014, the group's spokesman, Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, declared “the legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas.  Support your state, which grows every day.''

   An official document, released in English and several other languages, urged Muslims to "gather around your caliph, so that you may return as you once were for ages, kings of the earth and knights of war."  The announcement  was couched in terms of ending a century-long calamity ­– namely the break-up of the Islamic Middle East into artificial sovereign states following the first World War – and as marking the return of dignity and honour to the Islamic umma or nation.

Planning to take an iron grip on the whole of Syria and Iraq, Baghdadi doubtless has ambitions to extend his caliphate ever wider, swallowing Jordan, Lebanon and no doubt the Palestinian lands including Gaza.  He may balk somewhat at the thought of confronting Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Israel, but if he succeeds in winning a convincing victory against President Bashir Assad in Syria, and then in pouring over the border into Lebanon, he will have considerably weakened Iran’s allies and Iran itself.

A so-far unanswered question hangs over the IS. As journalist David Blair recently pointed out, volunteers are flocking to fight under Baghdadi’s black banner, including many from Europe, America and even Australia. In capturing territory, securing vast financial resources, achieving propaganda coups and sowing terror by persecuting Christians, Shias and Yazidis, Baghdadi has come further and faster than he could ever have dreamt except, as Blair puts it, “there is one missing piece in his jihadist jigsaw”.  He has not yet landed a blow on the West, the antithesis of everything he stands for. But with volunteers flowing in from all over the world, with his military successes and almost limitless resources, Baghdadi has a real opportunity to strike the West. Will he do so? Will he, in short, having broken with mainstream al-Qaida, attempt to beat them at their own game by carrying the Islamist struggle into the western world, the main enemy of Islamist values?

Compared to the boundless ambition of the new caliph, Hamas’s aspirations are comparatively modest, but they put the organisation ultimately at odds with the Islamic State.  Like the IS, what Hamas really seeks is power – power to rule over the Gaza Strip, power to take over the Palestinian Authority and extend its domination to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and finally the power to attack, overcome and defeat Israel and, by slaughtering, expelling or subjugating all Jews in the area, establish control over the whole of the old mandated Palestine “from the river to the sea”.  How frustrating it would be, while striving to achieve these objectives, to be out-manoeuvred by a triumphant caliph at the head of a rampant Islamic State army, dedicated to imposing his own brand of extremist Islam not only across the Middle East, but on the whole world.

Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line, 17 August 2014:

Published in the Eurasia Review, 17 August 2014:

Saturday, 9 August 2014

Hamas and the IRA

For many in the UK, the nearest analogy to the Israel-Hamas conflict that comes to mind is Britains’s 80-year struggle against the Irish Republican Army (the IRA) and its offshoots.  On and off, the UK endured nearly a century of terrorist activity by people utterly ruthless in pursuit of their political aims but, against all the odds, the conflict was finally brought to an end through the attrition of the IRA’s military capability and a prolonged period of negotiation. 

The question that people of some consequence in the UK are now asking repeatedly is, why cannot the same approach be applied to the Israeli-Hamas struggle?  Why will Israel not enter into discussion with the political leaders of Hamas, just as the British government instituted direct negotiations with the political leaders behind the IRA, and finally achieved a settlement?

The question is easy to ask – especially from the comparative tranquillity of the UK – and the list of those asking it in the past few weeks is impressive.  This, for example, is Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister:
“It is time for the Israeli government to talk to the Hamas political leadership in Gaza. Israel’s refusal to engage with President Mahmoud Abbas’s new unity government, because it includes Hamas, must be reversed.”  Then comes the inevitable IRA comparison:  “Modern history teaches that you can’t shoot, occupy or besiege your way to lasting security. Peace only ever flows from sustained and stubborn engagement. The Queen shaking hands with Martin McGuinness two years ago reminded us that even the most intractable conflicts can be resolved.”  McGuinness was at one time second-in-command of the IRA, and is now deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Then there’s Lord Ashdown, once leader of the Liberal Democratic party and subsequently international High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2002 till 2006.  "Neither side can blast their way to victory,” he pronounced, “so there is only one way to get peace now, and that is for the sides to sit down and start talking to each other. Hamas has to be at the table. Who's firing the rockets? It's Hamas, and so you have to talk to them... “   And the inevitable clincher: “We had to talk to the IRA, for goodness' sake."

Or take blunt John Prescott, once deputy prime minister in Tony Blair’s Labour government.  “It was the same with the IRA. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness may have been the leading lights of a paramilitary group, but without their co-operation in a final settlement, we wouldn’t have peace today in Northern Ireland.  The only way we’ll get a lasting peace in the Middle East is when Hamas and Israel sit down and agree on a two-state solution.  Hamas must stop firing rockets and accept Israel’s right to exist. Israel must end the blockade that keeps the Gazans as prisoners. Both must agree to a lasting ceasefire at the earliest opportunity. If not, the West must intervene.”

Prescott’s piece is replete with “musts”, but devoid of any indication of how they might come about.  When he says “Hamas must stop firing rockets and accept Israel’s right to exist”, he is clearly unaware that the very raison d’être of the organization, its only purpose, is to destroy Israel and kill Jews, whoever and wherever they may be.  Demanding that Hamas “accept Israel’s right to exist,” is tantamount to asking Hamas to disband.

On this, the Hamas Charter is clear and unequivocal.  “Israel will…continue to exist until Islam obliterates it.”  To do so, Hamas “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”  Article 13 declares: “There is no solution for the Palestinian problem  except by jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”

As for Hamas’s genocidal purpose, Article 7 states: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.”

In short, Hamas is essentially nihilistic. 

The IRA arose from a nationalism held so deeply that it seemed to its extreme adherents to justify any action, however ruthless. In pursuit of its objective of an independent Ireland, it was prepared to instigate and countenance acts of bloodthirsty terrorism.  Its belief in its cause was so deeply-held that it perverted the morality that lay at the heart of its Catholicism.  But, in the final analysis, Irish nationalism was rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.  This is why, eventually, the IRA was prepared to lay down its weapons.  Indeed it had been defeated, but the principles of compromise and even reconciliation that are inherent in Christianity played a part in achieving the final détente.

Writing in 2010, distinguished journalist Michael Weiss surveyed the long succession of steps leading from the first formal talks back in 1993 between the British government and Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA, to the decommissioning of the IRA’s weapons in 2005, leading to the formal ending of the armed campaign in 2007.

“So what,” he asks, “would the Hamas equivalent of this scenario look like? At the very least, another devastating war with Israel would need to occur, leaving the Islamists completely depleted and certainly not in sole administrative control of Gaza. Israeli intelligence operatives would thoroughly penetrate Hamas' command structure, so as to be able to predict and pre-empt almost every rocket fired into Ashkelon or Sderot, or every attack on settlers in the West Bank. Hamas would then have to concede that its strategic long-war doctrine of violent "resistance" and its dream of establishing Greater Palestine was a fantasy."  Only then, he surmises, if the analogy with the IRA still held, would realistic dialogue with Hamas be started, leading to a demilitarization of Gaza and a formal end to their “armed struggle” against Israel.  But as Michael Weiss himself is the first to assert: “Hamas isn’t the IRA”.

This is the reality behind all those ill-informed calls for Israel to sit down with Hamas and talk peace. 

Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line, 10 August 2014:

Published in the Eurasia Review, 9 August 2014: 

Thursday, 31 July 2014

The BBC - a touch on the tiller

Credit where credit is due.  BBC newscasts over recent weeks have differed distinctly in tone, content and balance from how the Gaza conflicts of 2008-9 and 2012 were covered.  Not that dedicated subscribers to the monitoring website are likely to have noticed the change, for that website remains as assiduous as ever in reporting every deviation from its interpretation of what is “accurate and impartial” – the standard by which it measures BBC news reports.  It is, of course, no bad thing that the BBC’s output is subject to intense scrutiny, though BBCwatch does, perhaps, tend towards overkill.

The BBC is one of the largest and most influential broadcasting organizations in the world.  As well as serving the whole of the United Kingdom, it enjoys a massive global reach, transmitting news and current events via TV and radio in over 30 languages to audiences measured in hundreds of millions.

Established in 1922 as the British Broadcasting Company, the nascent organization was stamped from the start by the high moral tone set by its first Director General, John Reith. From its earliest days Reith successfully established and maintained the independence of the BBC from political interference, and by 1939, when the UK went to war with Germany, the BBC’s reputation for accuracy, objectivity and impartiality was firmly established.

Throughout World War II the BBC broadcast to Nazi-occupied Europe, and people all over the continent literally risked their lives to listen. The wartime reputation that the BBC acquired of honesty, objectivity, and lack of bias is the foundation on which today’s BBC stands, however much the structure may have wobbled on its footings in the recent past.  In defining the principles which underlie its editorial guidelines, the BBC says:
“Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.  We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality …”

There’s an old English saying: “Fine words butter no parsnips”. In other words, it’s not what you say that counts, but what you do.  And there is no doubt that, at some point during the 1960s-1970s, something began to go very wrong within the BBC.  Perhaps reflecting a general shift to the left among the opinion-forming élite in the UK, and perhaps not at all a deliberate policy, the BBC’s editorial standards came to be dominated by what became known as “political correctness” an unspoken consensus of ultra left-leaning viewsMark Thompson, then-Director General of the BBC, admitted in 2010 "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality."

As regards the BBC’s coverage of the Middle East in general, and Israel in particular, the Six-Day War in 1967 marked a turning point.  Until then, Israel had been seen as the brave little nation fighting off enemies that were intent on its destruction.  With Israel conclusively victorious, UK public opinion shifted in favour of the Palestinians – the party now perceived as the “underdogs”.  Reflecting this, the BBC’s editorial stance also shifted significantly, to the point where Trevor Asserson, a British lawyer, asserting: “The BBC’s coverage of the Middle East is infected by an apparent widespread antipathy toward Israel,” undertook six well-documented studies between 2001 and 2006 detailing the BBC’s systematic bias against Israel.

Criticism of the BBC's Middle East coverage from supporters of both Israel and Palestine led the BBC to commission an investigation and report from a senior broadcast journalist Malcolm Balen. Completed in 2004, the Balen Report has never been published, despite repeated requests to the BBC under the UK Freedom of Information Act.  The House of Lords, the UK’s supreme court, and the Information Commissioner have both held that the report falls outside the Freedom of Information Act. The suspicion by many right-wing critics is that the conclusions of editorial bias against Israel are too damaging to be made public.

Throughout the three weeks of Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, the broadcast media, with the BBC in the vanguard, was out in force, capturing the horrors of war for the world’s television sets. Soon charges were being levelled against the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) by political and media figures of “disproportionate” military activity.  It was not long before they turned into accusations of war crimes. Israel’s case, as far as BBC news reports and comments were concerned, largely went by default.

During the following years a series of incidents appeared to highlight how far the BBC had fallen below its own editorial standards. During one BBC programme in October 2004, a BBC journalist , Barbara Plett, described herself crying when she saw a frail Yasser Arafat being evacuated to France for medical treatment.  A complaint of bias against Plett was rejected by the BBC, but a year later the programme complaints committee of the BBC governors ruled that Plett’s comments “breached the requirements of due impartiality”, and the then BBC director of news apologised for what she described as "an editorial misjudgment".

In April 2009 the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust published a report about complaints brought against Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East Editor, including 24 allegations of inaccuracy or impartiality. Three were fully or partially upheld, though the report did not accuse Bowen of bias.

During Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012 the BBC seemed to make an effort to present a more balanced view of the conflict.  Their reports provided something of Israel’s perspective, although the general impression left on the TV and radio audience was of a triumphant Hamas bestriding the world’s stage as the upholder of the “armed struggle” against Israel and, as a principal partner in negotiating Egypt’s peace plan, winning valuable concessions in the cease-fire.

BBC newscasts during Operation Protective Edge have undoubtedly shown a change of direction small, perhaps, but significant. For the first time in some thirty years the BBC is clearly trying to ensure that an Israeli point of view is included in reports of the conflict.  Its newscasters have adopted a sharper edge in their questioning of Palestinian spokesmen, often intervening during interviews to bring the speaker back to the point (“If you stop interrupting me,” said Marwan Barghouti during a BBC interview on July 30, “I may be able to answer you”).  They have ensured that an experienced journalist – in this case Bethany Bell is located within Israel to balance the narrative provided by Palestinian spokesmen.  On a recent domestic radio programme the former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, Colonel Richard Kemp, drew a clear distinction between the legitimacy of IDF actions and the illegitimacy of Hamas.  Other examples abound.

Perhaps, after all this time, the BBC is returning to the core values that once made it the most trusted broadcasting organization in the world.

Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line, 3 August 2014:

Published in the Eurasia Review, 2 August 2014:

Friday, 25 July 2014

Egypt and Israel - allies at last?

Ever since the treaty signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, way back in March 1979, Egyptian-Israeli relations have been somewhat equivocal.  The widely-used term “cold peace” seemed most apt to describe them.  Over the years neither the Egyptian public, nor its various leaders, have exhibited a great deal of enthusiasm for a genuine friendship with Israel.  Yet, through thick and thin, the peace treaty has held.

Its main features, drawn up following Sadat’s historic visit to Israel in 1977, were cessation of the state of war that had existed since 1948, Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula  captured during the 1967 Six-Day War, mutual recognition, and normalization of relations.

So ambassadors were exchanged, Egypt repealed its boycott laws, trade began to develop, regular airline flights were inaugurated. Egypt also began supplying Israel with crude oil, and as part of the agreement, the US began a program of economic and military aid which over the years has subsidized Egypt’s armed forces by literally billions of dollars.

But there is no gain without pain, and Egypt certainly paid a price for the benefits it won through the treaty.  The Arab world condemned it root and branch, and Egypt was suspended from the Arab League for ten years.  And, of course, Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by members of the Egyptian Islamic jihad.

The revolution in Egypt in 2011, which resulted in the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak and the election of a Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president in Mohamed Morsi, led some influential voices within Egypt to call for the treaty with Israel to be abrogated.  Although the call was not heeded, and the new government soon announced that it would continue to abide by all its international and regional treaties, the Egyptian-Israeli relationship had been decidedly shaken.  

As far as Hamas, the de facto government in Gaza, was concerned, the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during 2012-2013 was a golden age.  Missiles and massive quantities of ammunition moved through the tunnels dug between Egypt and Gaza, along with the materials needed to manufacture armaments.

Egypt’s second revolution a year later, which replaced Morsi with President Fattah el-Sisi, has given the kaleidoscope a good shake.  Sisi, clearly a believer in smiting his enemies hip and thigh, has declared total war against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and by extension its offshoot Hamas in Gaza.  Within Egypt Sisi has been ruthless in rooting out Muslim Brotherhood leaders and supporters; as far as Gaza in concerned, he shut down the crossing at Rafah through which armaments once flowed from Egypt, and has destroyed more than a thousand tunnels running under the Egypt-Gaza border which were the hidden conduit for shipments of armaments and other supplies that Hamas could not obtain from Israel. He has, moreover, designated Hamas a terrorist organization.

As respected Arab journalist Khaled Abu Taomeh recently reported, Sisi's Egypt has not forgiven Hamas for its involvement in terrorist attacks against Egyptian civilians and soldiers over the past year, while many Egyptians today understand that Hamas and other radical Islamist groups pose a serious threat to their national security. As a result a growing number of Egyptian public and media figures have actually been voicing support for the Israeli military operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

"Thank you Netanyahu,” wrote Azza Sami of the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, “and may God give us more like you to destroy Hamas!"

Addressing the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Egyptian actor Amr Mustafa told them not to expect any help from the Egyptians. "You must get rid of Hamas,” he said, “and we will help you."

Egyptian ex-general Hamdi Bakhit was quoted as expressing the hope that Israel would re-occupy the Gaza Strip.

On a recent TV program Egyptian presenter Amany al-Khayat launched a scathing attack on Hamas.  "Hamas is prepared to make all the residents of the Gaza Strip pay a heavy price in order to rid itself of its crisis,” she said. “We must not forget that Hamas is the armed branch of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist movement."

In 2013, a significant chunk of the Egyptian media, in total support of government policy, called for the Muslim Brotherhood’s “liquidation”. These Egyptian journalists link Hamas to ongoing violence in the Sinai Peninsula where in the last 12 months, armed Islamist groups have attacked Egyptian security forces on an almost daily basis. They see the neutralisation of Hamas as crucial to winning Egypt’s undeclared war in the Sinai Peninsula.

Egypt's leading cable channel, CBC, described what was happening in Gaza as "Israeli air force targeting terrorist sites." Meanwhile, Hayat al-Dardiri, a controversial presenter of the Faraeen Cable Channel said on-air that the "Egyptian people will not accept anything less than a strike by Egypt's military to destroy Hamas" ­ a remark which comes remarkably close to declaring the need for a military alliance with Israel.

On July 15 Israel accepted a deal proposed by Egypt that would halt the conflict in the Gaza Strip, but Hamas rejected the plan as "unacceptable".  Its spokesman said the Islamist group had not received an official draft of the proposal, and added that in any case the conditions Hamas has set must be met before it lays down its weapons.

US Secretary of State John Kerry is intent on achieving a cease-fire by further negotiation, but has so far come up hard against President Sisi’s determination to give no further ground to Hamas. The only flexibility Egypt has been willing to display was its statement that any change in the proposal’s wording would require the agreement of “all sides.”

As commentator Zvi Bar’el has noted, this formulation reveals the close cooperation between Israel and Egypt. Not everything Israel wants will necessarily be acceptable to Egypt, but it seems that Sisi isn’t too upset over the prospect of Israel continuing its military operation in Gaza. Meanwhile Sisi is testing his strength against other would-be mediators, especially Turkey with whose prime minister (and would-be president) Recep Tayyip  Erdogan, a vicious critic of Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, he is at daggers drawn.

In fact three rival groups are in a tug-of-war over a ceasefire initiative.  First are the US and UN; second are Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and thirdly Qatar, Turkey and Hamas. On July 21, US Secretary of State John Kerry and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon arrived in Cairo to press their case. Sisi told them he would not amend his original ceasefire proposal to suit Hamas’ demands. Israel has reserved its response, needing time for the IDF to accomplish its counter-terror mission in the Gaza Strip.

Egypt and Israel have never seemed closer in purpose.

Published in the Jerusalem Post, 28 July 2014:

Published in the Eurasia Review, 25 July 2014: