Trump and the Holy Land, 2016-2020

See further details at:

troubador.co.uk/bookshop/history-politics-society/trump-and-the-holy-land-20162020/

Published on 28 August 2020, ‘Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020’ is the only full account of President Donald Trump’s bold effort to deliver a plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace. I track the process from its beginning to its unveiling, but leave the eventual fate of the “deal of the century” to history. 

"I would love to be the one who made peace with Israel and the Palestinians," said Donald Trump as he became US President in 2017. "That would be such a great achievement." 

"Trump and the Holy Land 2016-2020" is the history of that effort. It traces the development of what he called the "deal of the century" from its inception to its final unveiling on 28 January 2020.


          On 28th January 2020, President Donald Trump stood next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and unveiled his plan, officially titled “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People”. 

          

          Known to most as the “Deal of the Century”, it was a bold plan to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace, something first announced by Trump during his presidential campaign. Since its inception, I have been tracking its every move. 

          

          For the first time, the entire deal and its journey have been chronicled in book form. ‘Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020’ has been four years in the making; the product of much research, writing and analysis. 

         Starting with pledges Trump made during his presidential election campaign, I trace the development of what he termed “the deal of the century” from its inception to its final unveiling on 28 January 2020. The account of its evolution is set against the backdrop of a turbulent Middle East including such seminal events as Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and his relocating the US embassy there. These, and much more, provide the setting for the slow emergence of the peace plan - events such as the defeat of the Islamic State caliphate, Trump’s withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal, the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, and the discovery of vast gas and oil reserves in Israeli waters.

          The story of the origins, the development, and the unveiling of the “deal of the century” can be seen and judged effectively only within the context of the ever-shifting political kaleidoscope. ‘Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020’ does just that.

PAPERBACK RELEASE DATE: 28 August 2020

ISBN: 9781838595050 Price: £12.99

E-book price:  £5.99

See further details on the publisher's website:

https://www.troubador.co.uk/bookshop/history-politics-society/trump-and-the-holy-land-20162020/

A China-Iran axis?

          

          Has US President Donald Trump succeeded in uniting his worst enemies, China and Iran, in an alliance directed against America and the West? Instead of isolating Iran, as his foreign policy was designed to do, has he driven it into the arms of the Chinese? 

          During an Iranian parliamentary session on 5 July 2020, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, confirmed ongoing negotiations about a strategic partnership with China. On July 11, 2020 the New York Times reported that it had obtained a copy of an 18-page proposed agreement, dated June 2020, providing for military and economic cooperation between China and Iran. Under the proposed deal – which is linked to China’s broader Belt and Road project − China would invest some $400 billion in Iran’s banking, telecommunications and transport industries in exchange for access to Iranian oil discounted by as much as 32 percent.

          With both China and Iran at the sharp end of severe US sanctions, this initiative could be seen as a coordinated attempt to relieve the pressure and counter the worst of the effects. China imports 10 million barrels of oil per day to meet its industrial needs, and Iran could potentially meet most its demand. A steady supply of oil at a fixed price to China contradicts US policy, which aims to achieve Iran’s financial collapse by way of a stifling economic embargo.

          The document also refers to the deepening of military cooperation between the two countries. In addition to holding joint military exercises, the idea of China constructing some sort of military base within Iranian territory – the transfer of some Persian Gulf islands to Beijing’s control is suggested – a proposal that, if attempted, could well result in some form of intervention by the US.

          Apparently Russia also has a finger in this particular pie. The journal Arab News reports that a meeting between Iranian government, military and intelligence officials and their Chinese and Russian counterparts is scheduled for the second week of August, to discuss the remaining details of the agreement. If that goes smoothly, Chinese and Russian bombers, fighters and transport lines will have unrestricted access to Iranian airbases as from November 9.

          It emerges that this China-Iran partnership was first proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping during his visit to Iran in 2016. It took four long years, but it was finally approved by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his cabinet this June, having certainly been given the nod by Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Even so, Rouhani’s hard-line political opponents within Iran, including his predecessor in office Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are reported to have attacked it openly.

          The strategic implications of this development are huge. If it goes ahead as planned, a new on-the-ground reality will have been created in the Middle East, and both America and the West in general will be facing an Iran greatly strengthened in its twin ambitions to dominate the Muslim world and defeat the democratic West. It will be vital for Israel, as a particular target of Iranian hostility, to be party to any planning directed at countering the adverse effects of the China-Iran deal. Of particular significance to Israel is that both China and Russia were signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, since rejected by Trump but not by the other five UN members – a deal which, by 2030, frees Iran to start the process of becoming a nuclear power. The proposed China-Iran deal is intended to last 25 years from its signature, which could see it extending to 2045.

          It is, however, important to place this effort within the context of China’s global ambitions generally. Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), adopted by the Chinese government in 2013, is the centerpiece of President Xi Jinping’s foreign policy. It involves China investing billions in 68 countries across Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Some describe Belt and Road as one of the largest infrastructure and investment projects in history, covering 65 percent of the world’s population; others consider it a plan for Chinese world domination through the creation of a China-centered global trading network.

          It may be both, but the newly announced arrangement with Iran fits neatly within the overall structure of BRI. It is unlikely that China would allow any aspect of the deal to disrupt the Initiative as a whole, or unsettle its relations with other Middle East recipients of Chinese largesse. They are scattered across the region, many regarding the current Iranian regime − with reason in most cases − as their greatest threat. China would not wish to upset these working arrangements – essential components of its flagship foreign policy initiative – by associating itself too closely with the essentially terrorist inclinations of the Iranian regime.

          Israel, for example, has benefitted greatly from BRI. China has made a substantial investment in infrastructure projects in Israel, including the expansion of the ports of Haifa and Ashdod, and the construction of the Carmel Tunnel in Haifa and the light rail system in Tel Aviv.

          This China-Iran deal is troubling for the West in general, and the Middle East in particular. Although it does not represent an instant global threat, the effects of the new cooperation will need to be assessed carefully. Counter-measures may be called for.

Published in Eurasia Review, 31 July 2020:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/31072020-a-china-iran-axis-analysis/

Published in The Times of Israel, 31 July 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-china-iran-axis/

Published in the MPC Journal, 31 July 2020:
https://mpc-journal.org/blog/2020/07/31/a-china-iran-axis/

Published in FBI Reform, 31 July 2020:

https://fbireform.com/2020/07/31/31072020-a-china-iran-axis-analysis/

What remains of Turkey's democracy?

          Once a shining example to the world of a national liberation movement brought to vibrant, democratic reality, Turkey has been reduced in the last two decades to a near-dictatorship, with well over 100,000 political and media opponents to the government languishing in prison, hundreds of thousands of websites and social media platforms banned, and strict censorship imposed on those media outlets still permitted to operate.

          On October 29, 1923, Mustafa Kemal Pasha − later accorded the surname Ataturk (“Father of the Turks”) − proclaimed the creation of the Republic of Turkey. It was to be a new nation-state dedicated to the sovereignty of the national will – a "state of the people". The old corrupt autocratic sultan-led Ottoman empire was dead. In its place Ataturk, as Turkey’s first president, set about creating a modern nation. In the 15 years until his death he introduced sweeping and unparalleled reforms in the political, social, legal, economic, and cultural spheres. “I stand for the nation's dreams,” he once said, “and my life's work is to make them come true."

          They did, until the early years of the 21st century, when Recep Tayyip Erdogan rose to power as leader of the AKP (Justice and Development Party). Erdogan emerged into Turkish politics from the extremist wing of Islam – the Muslim Brotherhood – and was instinctively opposed to the secularist traditions that Ataturk had fostered in the nation.

          The great principles that had governed Ataturk’s political life – democracy, secularism. freedom of religion, peace at home and across the world – were severely jeopardized on April 16, 2017, when Erdogan succeeded in holding a national referendum on 18 proposed amendments to the Turkish constitution. Ahead of the poll, a problematic and controversial coup attempt in July 2016, quashed by government forces. had justified the declaration of a state of emergency, mass arrests and strict censorship. All this severely weakened the opposition. Even so Erdogan and his governing AKP party only just managed to obtain the outcome they sought in the referendum.

          Under the new constitution the role of prime minister was scrapped and the president became the head of the executive, as well as the head of state. He was given sweeping new powers to appoint ministers, prepare the budget, choose the majority of senior judges and enact certain laws by decree. The president alone was able to announce a state of emergency and dismiss parliament, which lost its right to scrutinize ministers or propose an inquiry.

          But democracy is a hardy plant. Ataturk’s vision has embedded itself deep within the Turkish psyche. Even with virtually dictatorial powers, the most draconian measures Erdogan has so far devised remain insufficient to quell the views of many opposed to his concept of what the nation should be, and how it should be governed.

          Back in 2015 the main opposition party, the HDP (the People’s Democratic party), gave Erdogan an unexpected electoral shock by breaking through the 10% threshold that had been keeping Kurdish politicians of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), and other small parties, out of parliament In response, the government began arresting HDP politicians and supporters over alleged links to the PKK, which the government has dubbed a terrorist organization.

          Erdogan suffered an even sharper defeat in the municipal elections held in March 2019, described as “a political and electoral earthquake”. For the first time in 25 years, the ruling right-wing AKP lost the municipal elections decisively, while the centre-left CHP (Republican People’s Party) made a clean sweep in the major provinces and won both Ankara and Istanbul.

         Erdogan, who had started his political climb as mayor of Istanbul, once declared that whoever controls Istanbul controls Turkey. It was a bitter blow when the AKP candidate was defeated by Ekrem Imamoglu of the CHP. The AKP immediately lodged a series of objections, and after weeks of appeals, Turkey’s electoral board upheld one complaint regarding ballot counting and annulled İmamoglu’s victory. Amid a storm of outrage, a re-run of the Istanbul election was ordered for June. The re-run was universally perceived as an unprecedented test for Turkey’s now fragile democracy, and for Erdogan’s political future.

          The result this time was even more astonishing. The people of Istanbul seized their opportunity to assert their support for democracy. Imamoglu increased his initial lead of 13,000 votes to an astonishing 777,000, or 54% of the votes cast.

“          You have shown the world, “said İmamoglu in a televised speech, “that Turkey still protects its democracy.”

          These electoral triumphs were the result of Turkey’s various political opposition parties working together for the first time. Despite its success, that united front has not stood the test of time. One cause of contention between them is Erdogan’s actions against the Kurds in northern Syria. The Kurdish-supporting HDP condemn them, but the CHP is in favor.

          On June 20, 2020 a five-day “march for justice and democracy” across the country, organized by the HDP, culminated in a rally next to the parliament building in Ankara. Many demonstrators had faced police, teargas and arrests along the way.

          “I took part in the march,” said Garo Paylan, an HDP member of parliament. “The level of force on show was worse than ever: soldiers, police, helicopters, guns everywhere. We try to walk in peace but the state doesn’t allow that.”

          Erdogan is clearly attempting to establish a leading position for himself on the world stage. But all his posturing – his military interventions in Syria and Libya, his attempts to disrupt the EastMed gas pipeline deal, his rivalry with Russia, his anti-EU diatribes – mean nothing if he loses power at home. His approval ratings have been adversely affected by the long-standing economic downturn and the effect of the coronavirus crisis, but his real Achilles heel is Turkey’s long and deep experience of real democracy. The repository for that is the Turkish opposition parties, and the support they can muster from the Turkish people.

          Erdogan would be unwise to assume that ever more stringent repression will enable him to retain his grip on power indefinitely.

Published in The Times of Israel, 24 July 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-remains-of-turkeys-democracy/

Published in the Eurasia Review, 25 July 2020:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/25072020-what-remains-of-turkeys-democracy-analysis/

Suppose Israel puts annexation on the back burner

        

  
        With July the 1st come and gone, and with no viable annexation plan in sight, let us presume for a moment that Israel does nothing about extending its sovereignty over some part of the West Bank but puts the whole issue on the back burner.

        Israel’s more militant opponents on the issue, among whom one must number both Hamas and Fatah, would doubtless hail it as a great victory, proof that their threats of the dire consequences that would follow on annexation had proved effective. Others, including many of Israel’s friends and allies, would see it as the triumph of good sense over the temptation to rush headlong into ill-considered action. There is no doubt that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, would have to face down a fair degree of political opposition at home.

        Yet the new situation would not simply be a return to the status quo. The diplomatic kaleidoscope would have been shaken. A new pattern would have emerged, and new opportunities would be presenting themselves. The possibility that Israel might at any time reverse its decision and turn the threat of annexation into fact would be ever-present. As a result, a renewed urgency would have been injected into the moribund peace process.

       Indeed, already in this hiatus the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership is renewing its effort, initiated by President Mahmoud Abbas at the UN in February 2020, to promote an alternative peace process based on the Middle East Quartet, a body that has largely fallen into irrelevance. Back in the late 2000s it was led by Britain's ex-prime minister, Tony Blair, and brought together the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia with genuine hopes of cutting a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians.

        Recently PA prime minister Mohammad Shtayyeh submitted to the Quartet a counter-proposal to the Trump plan. It envisaged, in his words, the creation of a "sovereign Palestinian state, independent and demilitarized" with "minor modifications of borders where necessary".

        Having gone so far, perhaps the PA might be prepared to sit down at the negotiating table under the auspices of the Quartet, without pre-conditions or pre-conceptions, but shielded by support from fellow Arab nations – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, even Jordan are possibilities. At present the PA position seems to be that it rejects Trump’s “Deal of the Century” because it is carved in stone and is non-negotiable, that it is a case of take it or leave it.

        If that is so, it is a misconception. In the words of the document itself: "We hope that the parties will seize the opportunity, embrace this vision, and begin negotiations."

        A Palestinian leadership genuinely committed to reaching an accommodation with Israel would doubtless want to have the traditional “1967 boundaries” on the table – the formula that has failed on numerous occasions – but it could also start with the proposals in the economic leg of the Trump plan, especially as there is so much on offer to the benefit of the Palestinian people. The 40-page Peace to Prosperity: A New Vision for the Palestinian People sets out in considerable detail a scenario under which, with a huge input of funding and economic aid, prospects for the Palestinian people would be immeasurably transformed for the better.

        “With the potential to facilitate more than $50 billion in new investment over 10 years,” runs the document, “Peace to Prosperity represents the most ambitious and comprehensive effort for the Palestinian people to date. It has the ability to fundamentally transform the West Bank and Gaza, and to open a new chapter in Palestinian history – one defined not by adversity and loss, but by freedom and dignity.”

        The economic plan, covering all aspects of Palestinian life from education and health care to taxes, roads and railways, is based on three pillars – the economy, the people and the government.

        A main goal of the economy pillar – to connect Palestinian-occupied areas to regional and global markets – included integrating Gaza and the West Bank “through an efficient, modern transportation network, including a transportation corridor directly connecting” the two areas. “Billions of dollars of new investment will flow into various sectors of the Palestinian economy,” said the document, which also detailed how “hospitals, schools, homes and businesses will secure access to affordable electricity, clean water and digital services.”

        The second pillar aims to “improve the well-being of the Palestinian people” through educational programmes, vocational and technical training, expanding the female labour force, reducing Infant mortality and increasing average life expectancy.

        The third pillar proposes a range of reforms in the Palestinian government including reforming the tax structure and increasing exports and direct foreign investment.

        With that glittering prize dangling within reach, with Israeli annexation off the table, and with everything else in the plan open to negotiation, second thoughts on the part of the PA would seem to offer much and risk little.

        For Israel, such a scenario would present the chance to achieve by negotiation some of the benefits on offer in Trump’s Deal of the Century without antagonizing the rest of the world, to say nothing of large sections of the Jewish diaspora. That would seem a worthy and desirable aspiration.

Published in the Eurasia Review, 18 July 2020:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/18072020-suppose-israel-puts-annexation-on-the-back-burner-oped/


Published in The Times of Israel, 19 July 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/suppose-israel-puts-annexation-on-the-back-burner/

Tea and Cake

This article of mine appears in the Jerusalem Post Magazine dated 17 July 2020

          I write the following words with complete confidence: ask any Brit − immigrant or visitor − their biggest frustration in Israel, and 99 per cent will reply “You can’t find a proper cup of tea”.

          I may have become disillusioned over time, but I do not believe that there is one hotel, café, restaurant or coffee shop throughout the land that knows how to make tea. I can’t pretend to have tried them all, but in my experience a glass of tepid water flanked by a teabag is what one is invariably faced with. And that is a hundred miles from the real thing.

          To be fair, Israel is not the only offender. Much the same experience awaits the Brit in most of Europe. In America they seem to think that you add cream to the cup, as if it were some version of coffee.

          Now I am not claiming that there is unanimity across the British Isles about how exactly to produce the genuine article, but certain basic principles there undoubtedly are. I will shortly outline them, but first we can dispose of what was once an essential requirement − loose tea leaves. Even experts in the field now agree that they are no longer a sine qua non, as they were right up to the late 1950s, when they made up some 97 percent of the British market. Today they have been very nearly replaced by the teabag.

          One casualty of the change is the tea strainer, once an essential item on the tea table. The brewed tea would be poured into the cup through the strainer – a small device pierced with tiny holes.

          As for the fundamentals for making a proper cup of tea, there is no dispute about what you need, namely a teapot, a cup and saucer, a teaspoon, a milk jug and a sugar bowl for the decreasing minority who take sugar with their tea. If you visit a tearoom in any British tourist attraction, that is what arrives at the table, all piled on a tea tray.

          But two essential steps will already have been taken in the kitchen. First, the teapot will have been warmed and the teabags placed inside. Then, a kettle of water will have been boiled and, with the water still bubbling, it will have been poured over the tea. In short, you cannot make a proper cup of tea without using boiling water.

          The four or five minutes that will pass before the tray with the necessary items is placed before you are an essential part of the process. It will give time for the tea to “infuse” – that is, to release the delicate flavours locked into the dried leaves.

          Then comes the truly disputed moment in the process of making a British cup of tea. Half the nation will pour a certain amount of milk into the cup, and then add the tea to it; the other half will pour the tea into the cup before adding milk. Google the question, and you will find pages of argument. My preference is firmly for the latter process. I like a strong cup of tea, and the only way to guarantee it is the right colour and strength is to control how much milk is added. I may add that the Queen’s butler confirms that this is how Her Majesty takes her tea.

          The opposing faction are said to be maintaining an ancient tradition. The story goes that in the eighteenth century the china then being manufactured could not withstand boiling or even very hot water and was likely to crack. Accordingly it became the habit of hostesses to put milk into the cup first.

          This is where the mug issue comes to the fore. First, dunking a teabag into a mug is something of an abomination in any case, but it is jumping from the frying pan into the fire to put milk into the mug first. Even if you then use boiling water, the temperature of the ensuing brew is too low to allow a proper infusion to take place. You are almost back to your Israeli glass of warm water.

          It is too much to hope for the entire Israeli catering industry to change the habits of 72 years, but the very least that any patron should be able to ask for is the teabag in the glass and truly boiling water poured on it – oh, and a little jug of milk.

          Where does cake come into all this?

          There is a product on sale in virtually every supermarket in Israel that calls itself Ooguh Anglit, or English cake. It is a type of Madeira into which are baked tiny segments of crystallised fruits. The term seems generic, for the product is manufactured by a number of firms.

          My experience may be challenged by readers – indeed I expect most of what I have said to be challenged by readers – but I have travelled up and down the British Isles in my time, and I have never encountered Israeli “English cake” anywhere. On the other hand, widely available in the UK, and very popular, is “fruit cake”, which is a kind of Madeira into which are baked a selection of sultanas, raisin and currants. Scour the shelves in Israeli stores for a genuine English fruit cake, and you will be disappointed.

           What minor matters these are – tea and cake – set against the intractable problems facing the world. But our lives are built up of minor matters. One of them is the feeling of relief once you have got something off your chest.

Published in the Jerusalem Post, 17 July 2020:
https://www.jpost.com/food-recipes/in-search-of-a-proper-british-cup-of-tea-635155

Iran under attack

          International media reported a devastating building-shaking explosion in northern Tehran on the night of Saturday, 11 July. Reports indicate that it had been caused by the detonation of about 30 stored gas cylinders. It was the latest in a string of mysterious explosions to rock the country. In the small hours of the previous day, Friday, western Tehran had suffered an unexplained blast that initial reports claimed was at a missile depot belonging to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). At least three other explosions are known to have occurred in or around Iranian nuclear facilities. Occurring over a period of about two weeks, they cannot be easily explained away. The regime is undoubtedly under attack. The question so far unanswered is, by whom? 

          Is this a covert onslaught masterminded by Israel, the US, or the two acting in concert? Did Israeli F-35 fighters actually bomb one of the sites? Are a group of anti-regime activists, working within Iran’s nuclear industry, taking covert action to prevent the regime acquiring nuclear weapons? Were the incidents the result of sophisticated cyber attacks, or were they sabotage, caused by old-fashioned explosives? There is a great deal of speculation, but so far nothing definitive has emerged.

          It was on June 26, 2020 that the first of this series of incidents occurred. Despite initial assertions by the Iranian Defense Ministry that there had been a minor detonation in the Parchin military complex, satellite images showed that it was at the nearby missile production complex at Khojir that a bomb had damaged a cache of gas tanks. The blast was later described as “a massive explosion” that had “burned a hillside”.

          On June 30 a detonation inside a medical centre in Tehran resulted in a fire and the death of more than a dozen people.

          The third, and perhaps the most serious, of this series of incidents occurred on July 2. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) announced that there had been an explosion in one of the industrial sheds under construction at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant. US analysts identified it as a new centrifuge assembly workshop. Centrifuges are needed to produce enriched uranium, which can be used to make reactor fuel and nuclear weapons.

          Hours before the AEOI statement, however, according to reports on the BBC’s website, journalists working for BBC Persian had received an email from a hitherto unknown group calling itself "Cheetahs of the Homeland", claiming that it had attacked the building. The group said its members were part of "underground opposition with Iran's security apparatus", and that they had deliberately arranged for the attack to take place above ground so that it “couldn't be denied”.

          That the BBC did indeed receive an email with advance information about the Natanz explosion, and that the mysterious “Cheetahs of the Homeland” claimed responsibility, must be accepted. What remains unclear is the source of that message. Is there really a covert group within Iran, seeking to disrupt the regime’s nuclear program? Or was that email a piece of disinformation designed to camouflage the true source of the explosions?

          Then on July 4 another massive fire damaged a power station in Khuzestan province. According to the on-line Intelli Times, the plant’s method of operation − regulating electricity through automation and industrial controllers – makes it open to a cyber attack.

          As for the Natanz attack, the New York Times reported that two well-placed, but anonymous, sources had confirmed that that explosion was not the result of a cyber attack, but had been caused by a “powerful bomb”, and that Israel had masterminded the operation.

          This version was countered by the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida which maintained that Israeli F-35 fighters had bombed the Parchin site (not the nearby Khojir nuclear facility), but the Natanz incident was an Israeli electronic attack targeting computers controlling storage pressure devices.

          Whichever agency carried out the Natanz attack, Iran has not attempted to deny that it has had a significant effect on the country’s nuclear program.

          "The incident could slow down the development and production of advanced centrifuges in the medium term,” said the AEOI spokesman, quoted by the State news agency. “…Iran will replace the damaged building with a bigger one that has more advanced equipment."

          However, the damage to Iran’s nuclear project may be considerably more serious than this. Al-Jarida pinpoints the target as UF6 gas (uranium hexafluoride), used specifically for uranium enrichment. Iran has recently begun to produce UF6 for injection into the advanced IR-6 centrifuges it has been constructing at Natanz. The paper asserts that Iran has now lost 80% of its stock of this gas. Moreover, the Natanz explosion led to a “crack in the reactor building. Specialized groups went to the reactor to discover whether there was leakage of radioactive materials.” The building, which took six years to construct, became operational in 2018.

          At a recent press conference Israel’s defence minister and alternate prime minister, Benny Gantz, said: “A nuclear Iran is a threat to the world and the region, as well as a threat to Israel and we will do everything to prevent that from happening.”

          Israel’s foreign minister, Gabi Ashkenazi, was somewhat more succinct. "We take actions that are better left unsaid."

Published in the Eurasia Review, 11 July 2020:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/10072020-iran-under-attack-analysis/

Published in The Times of Israel, 12 July 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/iran-under-attack/

Published in the MPC Journal, 12 July 2020:
https://mpc-journal.org/blog/2020/07/12/iran-under-attack/

The controversial Tzipi Hotovely – Israel’s new voice in Britain

This article of mine appears in the issue of the Jerusalem Report dated 20 July 2020, 

          At 42, Tzipi Hotovely is still comparatively “young” in the political realm. Indeed her youth, allied to her outstanding abilities as student, lawyer and politician, has marked her career. In 2009 she was the youngest member in the 18th Knesset. From 2013 onwards she served as a youthful government minister in three departments of state. Later this year she will become Her Excellency the Ambassador of the State of Israel to the Court of St James’s − the official designation of ambassadors to Britain. No stranger to controversy, Hotovely has already stirred up a veritable storm within Britain’s Jewish community merely by accepting the post.

          The announcement of Hotovely’s forthcoming appointment was the signal for immediate objections from left-wing Jewish opinion in Britain. Na’amod, a fringe British-Jewish organization that campaigns against the occupation and in favour of Palestinian rights, helped organize a petition, calling on the British government to reject Hotovely as the next Israeli ambassador. Na’amod, founded in mid-2018, defines itself as: “a movement of British Jews seeking to end our community's support for the occupation, and to mobilize it in the struggle for freedom, equality and justice for all Palestinians and Israelis”. By the end of June, the petition had attracted more than 1,000 names.

            Meanwhile, some leading Jewish voices were raised in an attempt to pre-empt Hotovely’s appointment with conditions they insist she observe if she is to get their endorsement. For example the Senior Rabbi of the Reform Movement, Laura Janner-Klausner, called on her to “set aside” her political views when she arrives in London. “Ambassador-designate Hotovely has views as a politician which are in very strong contrast to the views of Reform Judaism,” she said. “I assume she will be putting those views firmly to one side as an ambassador.”

          Sir Mick Davis, one of Anglo-Jewry’s leading philanthropists, said: “I hope the incoming ambassador will recognize that the role requires equal respect and consideration for every part of our community, including the non-Orthodox and the secular, who contribute hugely to the rich tapestry of Jewish life and to keeping the flame of Zionism alive.”

          These statements and appeals betray a lack of knowledge of Hotovely’s record on these matters.

          Politically. Hotovely is certainly a Likudnik. Indeed she has been described as “the ideological voice” of the Likud party. But Israeli politics are full of nuances, and in Hotovely’s case the designation means that she is uncompromising on the issue of Judea and Samaria (she rejects the term “West Bank”), but very liberal on issues such as women’s rights. She regularly campaigns on the issue, and in the 18th Knesset chaired the Committee on the Status of Women and Gender Equality. In December 2011 a long-simmering dispute in Israel between ultra-Orthodox and secular opinion suddenly flared up. Hotovely hit the headlines when she insisted on sitting in the front seats of a public bus usually patronized by Haredi travellers, where women are expected to sit in the rear. Her stance was subsequently endorsed by Israel’s Supreme Court.

          Practising Orthodox Judaism herself, she is permissive to a degree on welcoming Jews of any branch of the faith to Israel and, for example, providing right of access to the Kotel (the Western Wall) to all. She is on record as approving “egalitarian prayer” there, where “women can go together with their families, and men can go together with their daughters.”  Her democratic instincts would almost certainly not sit well with all members of her party. 

          A large tranche of American Jewry is vehemently opposed to the right-wing policies of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Hotovely has publicly urged them to come to Israel and help shape its politics from within. In November 2017 she said: “This is the home of all Jews from all streams. Everyone is welcome to come here to influence Israeli politics. Please come. I’m willing not to have a right-wing leadership in order to have all Jews sharing this beautiful, amazing place that is called Israel.”

          Hotovely believes that Judea and Samaria always have been, and still are, part of the Jewish homeland, and that Israel cannot be said to be illegal occupiers. "We need to return to the basic truth of our rights to this country," she has said. "This land is ours.”

          This view, which certainly runs counter to the near-consensus of world opinion, is justified by Hotovely on biblical and historical grounds. As a lawyer, however, she will also be aware of the legal basis for it, set out recently in the Jerusalem Post by a specialist in international law.

          The essence of the case is that Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem were within the territory designated as the “national homeland of the Jewish people” under international law, by way of an international legal instrument unanimously approved by the 51 members of the League of Nations in 1922. The treaties in question, which have never been abrogated, amended or rescinded, are the San Remo Resolution of 1920, and the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine of 1922, preserved by Article 80 of the Charter of the United Nations of 1945, which grants Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

          Turning to “annexation”, the term as legally defined does not apply where the country considered to be doing the “annexing” already possesses sovereignty. “Annexation” is universally agreed to be “the incorporation of newly acquired territory into the national domain”.  Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem, the argument runs, cannot be construed as “newly acquired territory”- on the basis of this legal view, they have always been part of Israel proper.

          As for the term “occupied territory”, that too, this opinion holds, is inappropriate. The classic and received definition of “occupied territory” in international law is laid out in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations: “Territory is considered occupied when … a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory...” However, Israel did not invade Judea and Samaria in 1948. The invading “belligerent state” was Jordan, and the territory invaded belonged to the nascent State of Israel. The territory that Israel reclaimed in 1967 had never been “the territory of another state,” nor did Israel obtain it by a war of aggression but rather by undisputed self-defence.

          In short, the conclusion of this legal opinion is that what is being proposed by Israel is not “annexation” but rather the lawful exercise of full sovereignty over the State of Israel’s own legitimate territory. It need hardly be said that this interpretation of international law is strongly disputed and is not likely to convince either the British government or a wide tranche of Jewish opinion in the UK.

          When it became apparent, early in June, that Netanyahu might shortly seek to extend Israeli sovereignty to areas of the West Bank, some 40 leading members of Britain’s Jewish community wrote to Israeli ambassador Mark Regev expressing “concern and alarm”. “We are yet to see an argument,” they wrote, “that convinces us, committed Zionists and passionately outspoken friends of Israel, that the proposed annexation is a constructive step.” The policy “not only lacks merit, but would pose an existential threat to the traditions of Zionism in Britain, and to Israel as we know it”.

          The letter makes no mention of “Vision for Peace” − the plan devised by the Trump administration whose target is to achieve a contiguous, viable sovereign Palestine comprising 70 per cent of the West Bank together with a Gaza expanded by three substantial land swaps – in other words, a two-state solution. Both Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, Israel’s alternate prime minister, have accepted the plan, and it is within its terms that any extension of Israel’s sovereignty is being contemplated.

          Na’amod’s petition adopts the stance of “woke” opinion in the West that seeks to stifle all views not in line with its own. It demands that Hotovely’s nomination is rejected, not because of anything she has done, but on account of her “values and politics” which “have no place in the UK.”

          The petition, despite its 1000-plus signatories, is unlikely to have any practical effect. The UK has very rarely rejected a nominated ambassador, and the present government is especially friendly toward Israel.

          There is, unfortunately, a history of harsh words between Hotovely and the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl. The Board’s 2019 Jewish Manifesto included support for the two state solution. Hotovely took issue with this. “The idea of a Palestinian state is one that the State of Israel completely opposes,” she wrote, and it may have been true at the time. 

          Since then, Trump has unveiled his “Deal of the Century” in the White House with Netanyahu present – later endorsed by Gantz − and it may be in light of this that van der Zyl  put aside the past disagreement and said: “We will be delighted to work with the next Israeli ambassador to sustain and advance the relationship between Israel and the UK Jewish community, and between Israel and the UK more broadly… we hope that Tzipi Hotovely will be successful in advancing these relationships, and we will give her whatever support and advice we can to achieve these ends.”

          The way ahead for Hotovely may not be as tough as first appeared.

Iraq's new leader shows his mettle

        On June 25, 2020, fourteen members of the Iran-backed militia Kataib Hezbollah (KH) were going about their usual nefarious business. On this occasion they were setting up rocket attacks on Baghdad airport and the US embassy. Much to their astonishment, troops from Iraq’s Counter Terrorism Service (CTS) arrested them. The security forces then proceeded to raid KH headquarters, seize rockets and detain three leaders of the group.

        KH, a law unto itself for years, tried to assert itself. Its operational commander, Abu Fadak, pulled together a force of around 150 fighters in nearly thirty armored pickup trucks, drove to the prime minister’s residence and demanded the suspects be released to his custody. Prime Minister Mustafa Kadhimi declined to do so. However, rather than handing them over to the US forces, as perhaps Abu Fadak had feared, he placed them under the custody of the Security Directorate of the PMF (the Popular Mobilization Forces). At first glance this might have appeared a somewhat equivocal move, since the directorate is led by a KH commander, Abu Zainab al-Lami. But Kadhimi had already taken steps to ensure a new level of of control over the PMF, and he retained the whip hand.

        The PMF (also known as the Hashed Al Shaabi), is a 100,000 strong force of mainly Iraqi Shiite paramilitaries backed and trained by Iran. It was set up originally to help Iraqi government forces fight ISIS. Later it was nominally integrated into the state security forces, although many groups remained more or less independent and were in no sense under government control.

        On June 3 the head of the PMF, Faleh al-Fayadh, announced that all Iraqi paramilitary groups were to shut down their offices. The many disparate and independent groups were to be merged into the main organization, which would be subject to new directives as to its future role and function. He also announced a "ban of all non-military actions that lie outside the Hashed's objectives, especially as the Hashed is considered to be an official entity of the state's security apparatus".

        Kadhimi’s strong-arm tactics against KH have been described as “the strongest state action against Iran-backed paramilitaries in years.” Kadhimi had already announced that he intended to crack down on militia groups which target US installations. Before becoming prime minister in May, Kadhimi had been Iraq’s intelligence chief for a good few years – and it was Iraqi intelligence that generated the evidence needed to secure a search and arrest warrant for the raid. This is the first time that, based on intelligence, the Iraqi government has succeeded in foiling a terrorist attack within the country. It seems to indicate that Kadhimi intends to follow through on his tough talk.

        The suspects have been charged under Iraq’s counter-terrorism statutes. If Kadhimi manages to hold his course, and the Iraqi government can succeed in prosecuting them, it would be a formal recognition that anti-US violence is a terrorist offense against the Iraqi state. So far, despite numerous rocket attacks that have wounded and killed Americans and Iraqis, not a single KH fighter has been indicted for anti-US terrorist acts.

        These recent events could be interpreted in more than one way. Kadhimi’s foremost objective might be to restore law and order to his chaotic country, and put an end to the unruly and uncontrolled gangs that have run riot ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

        Alternatively, we might be witnessing the first steps in a longer-term plan aimed at loosening the relentless grip that Iran has managed to exert over Iraq, and releasing his country from the danger of becoming an Iranian vassal state.

        Clearly the Iranian-backed groups within Iraq fear the latter. A security spokesman for one such militia issued a statement on June 26, describing Kadhimi as an “American agent.” Abu Ali al-Askari, the security chief of KH, issued a dire warning, dubbing Kadhimi a “mutant”. “We are waiting for you to suffer from God’s torture, or by our hands.”

        Al-Askari also accused Kadhimi of attempting to distance himself from the killing of the “two martyrs,” a reference to the January drone strike which killed Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commander Qassem Soleimani and deputy commander of the PMF, Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes.

        There is no doubt that whichever outcome he is planning, and even more so if he is seeking both, Iraq’s new prime minister has a fight on his hands.

 Published in the Eurasia Review, 3 July 2020:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/03072020-iraqs-new-leader-shows-his-mettle-analysis/

Published in the MPC Journal, 3 July 2020:
https://mpc-journal.org/blog/2020/07/03/iraqs-new-leader-shows-his-mettle/

Published in The Times of Israel, 5 July 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/iraqs-new-leader-shows-his-mettle/

The passing of Vera Lynn - a British icon

This article of mine appears in the Jerusalem Post weekend magazine of 3 July 2020 

          No event could have been more aptly timed than the passing of Dame Vera Lynn. If any one person, apart from Winston Churchill, could be said to symbolize the Second World War for Britain, it was Vera Lynn. Churchill with his speeches rallied the nation’s fighting spirit; Vera with her songs touched its heart. The effect of both on people’s morale was profound. It persists, refusing to be eradicated.

          It was on June 18, 1940 that, with France on its knees and suing Hitler for peace, General Charles de Gaulle broadcast to the French people from London. He delivered a message of defiance. “The flame of French resistance must not, and will not, be extinguished.”

          June 18, 2020 – the 80th anniversary of that historic broadcast − was therefore chosen as a fitting day to mark enduring Anglo-French friendship. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, visited the UK to participate in a formal commemoration ceremony and to bestow the Légion d’honneur on the city of London. It was in the very midst of this formal remembrance of the Second World War that the news of Vera Lynn’s death at the age of 103 became public. Immensely saddened as the nation was at the announcement, it seemed in a fortuitous way to have occurred on the most appropriate of occasions.

          Born in London as Vera Margaret Welch to a plumber father and a determined dressmaker stage-mother, Lynn was singing in working men’s clubs from the age of seven. At 11 she took her grandmother’s maiden name as her stage name, and at 15, having already become her family’s biggest wage earner, she was signed by one of the UK’s big bands. She released her first solo recording when she was 19, and within three years had amassed combined sales of more than a million discs.

          Jewish musicians and artists were prominent in 1930s England. Bert Ambrose (born Benjamin Baruch Ambrose in Warsaw) was a well-known bandleader and violinist. It was while singing with the Ambrose orchestra that Vera met her Jewish husband, Harry Lewis, a clarinetist and saxophonist. She married him in 1941, and they stayed married for 57 years. Their daughter, Virginia, was born in 1946.

          As war loomed nearer, valiant efforts were made in the UK to try to rescue Jewish children from the Nazis. In the end more than ten thousand were brought across to England in the so-called Kindertransport operation. Kindertransport was a visa waiver scheme initiated by the UK government, but with financial support largely provided by charities and volunteers.

          In a 2017 interview, magician and mentalist David Berglas speaking of Vera Lynn said: “She was one of the few artists to do a show for Jewish refugee children, to bring them over before war broke out. She was singing with the Ambrose orchestra and took part in a charity show to raise funds to get them out of Germany. I thank her from the bottom of my heart – because I was one of those children.”

          When war was declared in September 1939, Lynn was already a star, well established on the variety circuit with a rising profile on radio. She volunteered for war work, but she was told the best thing she could do was to keep on being an entertainer. Before the end of the year, she had recorded the song that would always thereafter be associated with her: “We’ll Meet Again”.

“We’ll meet again, don’t know where, don’t know when, but I know we’ll meet again some sunny day…So please say hello to the folks that I know, tell them I won’t be long. They’ll be happy to know that as you saw me go, I was singing this song…”

          It was a song she was to sing and record innumerable times in the five years of war that followed, but also in the many anniversaries she attended over the succeeding years. At the time she first recorded it, show business in Britain had almost been shut down, the big bands had broken up and the musicians scattered. During the first months of the war, music on BBC radio was reduced to old records and the Wurlitzer, or theatre organ. So Vera is accompanied on the record not by an orchestra, but by a Novachord, an early version of the synthesizer.  The recording is still available on YouTube.

          Its underlying message of hope − that scattered families would eventually be reunited after the conflict - struck a chord with troops abroad and their relatives at home. In a poll run before the end of 1939 by a popular newspaper, Vera Lynn, voted by servicemen their favorite entertainer, gained her nickname of “Forces' Sweetheart”. She never lost it.

          Israel and Britain share an ordeal never experienced by the United States − a genuine threat to their very existence. In Israel’s case, of course, it has proved a recurring nightmare. For the United Kingdom the experience of June 1940 is seared deep into the national psyche. Starting with the declaration of war in September 1939. the Nazis had swept all before them. Their Blitzkrieg tactics saw Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland and France succumb with astonishing speed. By the end of June 1940 only two things stood between Hitler and the conquest of Britain – the English channel and the Royal Air Force.

          This dark period was when Lynn’s songs caught the public mood so well and boosted morale – songs like “The White Cliffs of Dover”:

“There’ll be bluebirds over the white cliffs of Dover tomorrow, just you wait and see… The shepherd will tend his sheep, the valley will bloom again, and Jimmy will go to sleep in his own little room again.” 

          One of her songs that perfectly caught the mood of the time was said to have been inspired by the diary kept by a little Dutch boy who escaped from Europe as it was being overrun by the Nazis – “My Sister and I”.

“My sister and I remember still a tulip garden by an old Dutch mill, and the home that was all our own until ... But we don't talk about that. We're learning to forget the fear that came from a troubled sky. We're almost happy over here. but sometimes we wake at night and cry. My sister and I recall the day we said goodbye, then we sailed away, and we think of our friends that had to stay. But we don't talk about that…”

          Her place in the public imagination was broadened by her hugely popular radio show in 1941-42, Sincerely Yours, which she described as “a letter to the men of the forces in words and music.” Thanks to the BBC's shortwave transmitters, they were heard across the world.

         Throughout the war she travelled to battle fronts as far afield as Egypt, India and Burma to perform for troops. It was a bond that remained long into peacetime, with Lynn a constant champion of veterans’ rights.

          In 1976 Lynn was made a Dame, and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in 1995 she performed in front of thousands of people outside Buckingham Palace. in 2000 she was named as the Briton who best exemplified the spirit of the 20th century.

          As the 75th anniversary of the war’s end approached, in May 2020, the UK was facing another crisis – the coronavirus pandemic. In a televised address in April, the Queen evoked Dame Vera's wartime message, assuring families and friends who were separated during the COVID-19 lockdown: "We will meet again."

Published by the Jerusalem Post, 3 July 2020:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/culture/dame-vera-lynn-the-passing-of-a-british-icon-633547