"For three transgressions of Damascus,..."

"Israel has been forced to rethink its regional strategies." claimed   New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren this week interpreting the latest developments in Syria. She was referring mainly to the growing concern that Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons might fall into the hands of terrorist groups.  Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak clearly intimated that if the chemical weapons are moved to another entity it would be a “game changer.” “Israel will not sit idle,” said Danny Yatom, a former Mossad director. “If we obtain information that chemical agents or biological agents are about to fall into the hands of the Hezbollah, we will not spare any effort to stop this happening.”  Jordan’s King Abdullah also commented on this worst case scenario. Obviously Jordan can’t threaten Syria. The best Abdullah could do was to call for international action. He said, ” If such weapons were to fall into the hands of rebel forces – some of which are unknown entities – then even reluctant UN members like Russia might support some kind of international action.”

The badly battered Assad government seized the opportunity to prove to all its would be eulogists that it was still in control. A Syrian government spokesman issued a statement, which in effect was the Syrian regime’s first admission that it possesses weapons of mass destruction. Reading from a prepared text the spokesman reassured "All of these types of weapons are in storage and under security and the direct supervision of the Syrian armed forces and will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression."

Bearing in mind that Assad has often called the uprising a terrorist revolt and a "foreign conspiracy," it's not inconceivable  that  he would  use  his chemical weapons. So far the EU nations and the US have been content to condemn Syria and impose incomplete sanctions on the Assad regime..

Till now Israel has been a spectator, albeit a concerned observer carefully monitoring the uprising in Syria.  In her report to the New York Times Jodi Rudoren quoted Eyal Zisser, chairman of the Middle East and African history department at Tel Aviv University. “Most Israelis do not care about the grievances and the aspirations of their neighbours, democracy, justice, prosperity. They care about their own security. That’s the way of the average Israeli, and as a result, his government.”  I think Professor Zisser based his claim  more on  gut-feeling than academic study, but he is probably right.                                                                                                                                                    It's common knowledge that Syria has been stockpiling chemical weapons for the past forty years. Furthermore, a number of observers claim that stocks of Iraqi chemical weapons were transferred to Syria at the time of the  2003 US invasion of Iraq.  So why are we so concerned now?  So far Damascus has regarded these chemical weapons as its "Doomsday Option." However,  Israel's qualitative technological edge and its own other  "Doomsday Option" have deterred Syria from  using its chemical weapons option.

Everyone from President Obama to Israel's leaders regard a Syrian chemical weapons "change of ownership" sufficient reason to intervene.                                                  Shlomo Brom, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said that while the prospect of chemical weapons in the hands of terrorist groups is frightening, the threat may not be as dire as it seems. In order for the weapons to be used, two substances must be combined in a certain way, and they need to be delivered to the target by an aircraft. or a missile.

A terrorist group acquiring chemical weapons will probably find them more of a bane than a boon. However, if in the wake of the expected collapse of the Assad regime no responsible government, even an interim governing body comprised of the opposition rebel groups, takes control of the country, the problem of Syria’s chemical weapons will require a reassessment. In that case Israel and/or the US  would probably take preemptive steps to secure Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.                                                                             “It’s not only an Israeli issue: if Qaeda or radical members take control of nonconventional weapons, they might appear anywhere in the world,” said Ilan Mizrahi, a former head of Israel’s National Security Council, and deputy chief of  the  Mossad.                                                                                                                           Speaking to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee on Tuesday IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz appeared confident but cautious. He warned that if Syria's chemical weapons were to get into the wrong hands, such as those of Hezbollah, IDF military action could turn into an unintentionally broad campaign.

Syria’s acquisition and manufacture of chemical weapons preceded its decision to develop missile capabilities. Thirty years ago a clash between Israeli and Syrian forces developed into a “watershed event” causing Hafez al-Assad to radically change his military strategy.

In June 1982, Israeli ground forces pushed into Lebanon in an effort to put an end to cross-border terror attacks. The incursion coined   “Operation Peace for Galilee”, led to a prolonged conflict with Lebanon and produced mixed overall results. However, the initial phase of that operation included a spectacular moment when the Israeli Air Force destroyed 19 surface-to-air missile batteries, with no losses, and downed a huge number of enemy aircraft. With real-time intelligence and careful exploitation of adversary weaknesses, the IAF dealt modern air defences their first major defeat. The operation was the first time in history that a Western air force successfully destroyed a Soviet-built surface-to-air missile (SAM) network. It also became one of the biggest air battles since World War II, and the biggest since the Korean War. The result was a decisive Israeli victory, leading to the colloquial name of the clash, “The Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot.”.

Five years ago, David Eshel wrote in Defence Update “Syrian chemical weapons development has been largely spurred by its disastrous conventional military defeats by Israel in 1967, 1973, and 1982. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad was Minister of Defence during the 1967 Six-Day War, during which the Golan Heights were captured by Israeli forces. After seizing power and assuming the presidency in 1971, Assad sought to bolster Syria’s strategic capabilities by pursuing the development of chemical weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems.”

The prophet Amos who insisted he wasn’t a prophet or the son of prophet, spent most of his time bringing  bad news to the ancient nations of our region. “For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof.”  Amos 1:3.  I doubt if he meant Assad’s Damascus, just the same the prediction fits.

Our community of Middle East analysts  worries  about what will happen “the day after Assad.”                                                                                                                     David Eshel wrote in Defence Update “Indeed the contours of the Syrian conflict already bear the hallmarks of sectarian cantonization, coupled with literally irrefutable precursors of sectarian cleansing in places such as Houla, Qubeir and other mixed areas in Syria, clearly signaling that the battle in Syria now is over consolidating sectarian cantonisation.                                                                                                                       There is nothing new in such a trend: During the post-WWI French Mandate over the Levant, the region was subdivided into six, virtually independent and mostly ethnic populated states under general French mandatory rule. They were Damascus and Aleppo, inhabited by the Sunni majority, the coastal Alawite state, Jebel Druze (Souaida), the autonomous Sanjak of Alexandretta (1939 became Turkish Hatay) and greater Lebanon.                                                                                                                          The French cantons remained virtually independent, although far from quiet, until 1936 when the French decided to unite all Syria, but keep Lebanon separate. All Syrian regimes never accepted this state of affairs and regarded Lebanon as their clear sphere of national interest.                                                                                                                                         A danger of a future return to separate ethnic cantonisation marks a tremendous challenge to all Syria’s neighboring states, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and foremost, Israel. There are already widespread fears that a Gaddafi-style collapse of Syria into uncontrolled chaos, could mean that dangerous weapons of mass destruction would fall into terrorist hands and spread around the world.”.

While some Middle East affairs analysts are loath to predict how long it will be before  Bashar al Assad leaves or is ousted and others surmise  that he might just weather out this prolonged uprising, Financial  Times  International Affairs editor David Gardner states adamantly, “Syria’s regime is finished – do not mourn its passing.”

“When a dictatorship cannot regain control over a country in revolt for 18 months despite repeated offensives, when it cannot police the countryside away from the main roads, cannot secure the capital or its main trading hub, cannot even protect its innermost citadels and has to pull troops from its borders to protect its palaces, it is finished. This is the case with the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, who is still trying to kill his way out of the crisis, even as poorly armed rebels swarm through Syria’s cities and his supporters melt away. He is finished.”

He defines the endgame as follows,”This is now a straight fight between the Alawites and the Sunnis – and their foreign backers.

Iran and Russia have stood with the regime, but they cannot fight its battles. In the Sunni camp, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have stepped up aid, with the US in the background. Rebel forces have gained momentum since late spring and have crystallised into provincial commands. How much fighting there is to come depends on the cohesion of a shrinking regime. Loyalist forces have over-run two districts of the capital after 10 days of fighting but meanwhile Aleppo, the commercial capital, has erupted. The Assads cannot be everywhere at once.”

Financial Times Middle East editor Roula Khalaf reported from  Beirut,

“Iran would be the big loser if Mr Assad lost power – an upheaval that would shift the balance of power in the region in favour of its adversaries in the Sunni states of the Gulf (the main supporters of the Syrian opposition). Tehran’s Lebanese ally Hizbollah, now the most powerful military and political force in Lebanon, would also be weakened.

The country most vulnerable to contagion from the crisis in Syria is Lebanon, a fragile state that has long been under the influence of Damascus. Lebanon’s political class is divided along pro and anti-Syrian regime lines and it is already suffering from the bloodshed next door.”                                                                                                                           Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) Director Maj. Gen. (ret) Amos Yadlin interviewed by Foreign Policy this week, said, "Watch for these five indicators signaling Assad is about to fall: Defections of Syrian generals along with their divisions, the Free Syrian Army winning over neighborhoods in Damascus and Aleppo, Druze and Christian minorities moving into opposition to Assad, Russia abandoning its protection of Assad in the U.N. Security Council, and a collapse of the economy."

Have a good weekend

Beni                            26^th of July, 2012.

I’ll hazard a guess and wager that most Israelis this week have been preoccupied with the weather. We are experiencing an almost unprecedented heat wave, which our meteorologists promise will end on Friday. They also forecast that temperatures will soar again on Tuesday or Wednesday next week. The Israel Electric Corporation is struggling to apportion its meagre reserves without resorting to power cuts.

The broadened coalition government ended this week when Kadima chose to leave the government and return to the opposition benches.  The party’s ten week coalition partnership yielded no gains and further undermined its hold on the centre ground of the Israeli political arena..

Kadima’s  coalition venture began and ended  with a futile effort to replace the defunct  Tal Law with alternative legislation designed to bring about  a more equal sharing of the defence burden.  Once again the prime minister vacillated, alternatively supporting and opposing  the proposed legislation empowering the government to draft Haredi men for military service as well as  to an alternative  national service scheme. However, when the two Haredi parties in the coalition government  threatened to resign he withdrew his support for the draft proposal .

After the terrorist attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria our anti-terrorist  intelligence agency spokesmen  have been busy explaining why they didn’t advise Israelis not to visit Bulgaria. The Black Sea resort where the Israeli tourists were murdered differed little from other travel destinations in the Mediterranean, Europe and further afield. Perhaps the lax airport security at Burgas should have alerted Mossad analysts, but it didn’t.

Furthermore, there are limits to an active Israeli security presence in foreign countries. I’m sure corrective measure are being made and now that the identity of the suicide bomber is known it is already clear who sent him.

He wasn’t a lone operative, at least ten people provided all he needed to reach his target and carry out his terror attack.

Both Iran and Hezbollah were quick to deny any involvement in the attack. Iran went so far as to condemn the attack. However, these denials are part and parcel of the cover up methods they employed after other terrorist attacks.

Israel has accused both Hezbollah and its patron Iran for carrying out the attack

Three years ago Defence Viewpoints a UK Defence Forum published an assessment on the first anniversary of the assassination of Imad Mughniyah, one of Hezbollah's top military commanders. The authors wrote, “Because of Hezbollah's history of conducting retaliatory attacks after the assassination of its leaders, and the frequent and very vocal calls for retribution for the Mughniyah assassination, many observers (including Stratfor) have been waiting for Hezbollah to exact its revenge. “ Explaining why Hezbollah had not avenged Mughniyah’s death Fred Burton and Scott Stewart said, “In keeping with Hezbollah's history, if an attack is launched, we anticipate that it will have to be fairly spectacular, given the fact that Mughniyah was very important to Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors - although the attack must not be so spectacular as to cause a full-on Israeli attack in Lebanon. Hezbollah can weather a few airstrikes, but it does not want to provoke an extended conflict. “…”Given Hezbollah's proclivity toward using a hidden hand, we suspect the attack will be conducted by a stealthy and ambiguous cell or cells that will likely have no direct connection to the organisation. For example, in July 1994, the group used Palestinian operatives to conduct attacks against the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish nongovernmental organization office in London. Also, as we have seen in prior attacks, if a hardened target such as an Israeli embassy or VIP is not vulnerable, a secondary soft target might be selected. The July 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association in Buenos Aires is a prime example of this type of attack. It should serve as a warning to Jewish community centers and other non-Israeli government targets everywhere that even non-Israeli Jewish targets are considered fair game. “

The Burgas suicide bomber certainly didn’t arouse suspicion and it seems he probably would have passed standard profile screenings. It still remains to be determined why the Iranians/Hezbollah terrorists would bother targeting Israeli tourists.

They certainly aren’t the retribution they seek for Mughniyah’s assassination.

In fact they clearly indicated after the attack that the Burgas bombing certainly wasn’t the vengeance they sought.

Nasrallah has Syria on his mind. If Assad falls the weapons supply line to Hezbollah might be severed. Iran too is concerned. After Assad there is no guarantee that its proxies, Syria and Hezbollah will be able or willing to project Iranian Shiite influence in the region.

In the meantime observers, analysts and our intelligence communities are convinced that Assad’s days are numbered.

Israel has increased its military presence along the northern border.

On Thursday Defence Minister Ehud Barak toured the Golan Heights. While he spoke with reporters close to the border a battle between Syrian government forces and rebel fighters was raging  a mere 300 metres away.

Many people  are concerned about what will happen after Assad. However the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) has pointed out some of the dangers we face now. “Recent reports of dozens of Kuwaiti jihadists traveling to fight in the Syrian conflict further highlight the stronger foothold radical Islamic groups are gaining in Syria. Since January 2012, Syria has been transformed into a major battleground of the jihad world, with a number of foreign and Syrian jihadist groups surfacing to participate in the conflict. This development not only poses a serious threat to the present Syrian government or any government that may follow, but also threatens the armed opposition in Syria, headed by the Free Syrian Army (FSA).”

The authors of the INSS article noted that at least ten different foreign and Syrian groups with varying ideologies are waging a militant jihad in Syria. In spite of these differences, a useful distinction becomes apparent when comparing each group’s mode of operation, which can be categorized as one of three types: In the first category there are “support” groups that predominantly assist the flow of arms and fighters into Syria. The second category is made up of “guerilla” groups that carry out small scale but regular attacks on security forces, and in the third type  there are “terror” groups that carry out high profile bombings outside the usual fighting areas.

Michael Eisenstadt director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute .related to Syria’s stocks of chemical and biological weapons  in a recent issue of  Policy Watch. “Growing violence in Syria has raised concerns that the Assad regime might use its massive stockpile of chemical weapons (CW) against the opposition, or that anti-regime insurgents, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, or other states might divert some of these arms for their own use.”

After surveying the very complex situation in Syria Eisenstadt concludes,

“Given these complexities, the preferred method of dealing with the problem of Syrian CW is to use  deterrence, assistance, containment, and elimination.

Deterrence. Washington must convince the Assad regime that the use of CW is a game-changer that could prompt international military action. It should also spread the word among regime security forces that those complicit in the use of CW will be sought out and punished, while those who refuse orders to use CW will be assisted if they choose to escape the country, or shielded from retribution should the regime fall.”

The Economist argued that Assad may be able to hang on for months. Alternatively, the paper said, “The assassination of two of Assad’s top aids   may tip the regime into a swift decline. Either way, now is the time to start preparing for the day when Syria is at last rid of him.

Syria after Assad will be a danger to its own people and its neighbours. Sectarian bloodletting is one risk, loose chemical weapons another, tides of refugees a third. Syria could become the focus of rivalry between Iran, Turkey and the Arab world. Violence could suck in Israel or spill over into Lebanon.

The world cannot eliminate these dangers, but it can mitigate them. Money and planning are essential to help found a new government. Regional diplomacy, with Turkey and the Arab League to the fore, will be needed to steady nerves. Peace-keepers and monitors may have a part. This calls above all for presidential diplomacy from America. In election season Barack Obama’s thoughts may be elsewhere; but this dangerous place needs some attention.”

So far we are spectators and I hope we remain looking on without getting involved.

Have a good weekend.

Beni                            19^th of July, 2012.

A fair deal for the freiers

Speaking at an improvised press conference former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was obviously pleased. The Jerusalem District Court had just acquitted him of bribery charges in two separate corruption cases. Not withstanding the fact that the judges found him guilty in a third case on a lesser count of breach of public trust while serving as minister of trade and industry, didn’t mar his triumphant mood.  In another corruption case  being heard by a Tel Aviv court, Ehud Olmert was charged with accepting a bribe to promote the construction of various housing projects, including the vast Holyland complex in Jerusalem. To a large extent the prosecution in the latter case relies on an unreliable witness.

The Wall Street Journal considered Olmert’s exoneration sufficiently newsworthy to deserve a detailed report.

The paper mentioned that, “Mr. Olmert's resignation in late 2008 led to the cutoff of the last round of active peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and forced a general election that brought Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition government to power.” Let’s not  rush to conclude that had he not resigned we would be enjoying the benefits of a peace settlement with the Palestinians. Admittedly both Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas claim their talks had reached an advanced stage, but Middle East analysts conjecture that Abbas like his predecessor, the late Yasser Arafat, wouldn’t have gone the extra furlong.

At the   extemporised gathering by the Jerusalem district court  Olmert summed up the four year long trial quoting a onetime political mentor, the late Menachem Begin, “ There are judges in Jerusalem! “ words Begin used in a different context.

This week Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu probably wondered if he would regret his decision to   appoint an investigating panel to examine land use issues in the West Bank, .

The Prime Minister and his Likud  party sought legal authorisation for the settlement project in Judah and Samaria, namely a counter to the Sasson Report..

Although the extant Sasson Report  on unauthorised settlement outposts has been gathering dust for the past seven years, it still haunts the corridors of government.

The report commissioned by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a staunch settlement champion, was compiled by former state prosecutor Talia Sasson and presented in March 2005. It concluded that Israeli state bodies had been discreetly diverting millions of shekels to build West Bank settlements and outposts  that were illegal under Israeli law..

The report mentioned 150 communities in the West Bank with incomplete or nonexistent permits.  At the time the Sasson Report created shock waves in Israel, for it represented legal confirmation of Sharon’s controversial political decision to dismantle the outposts erected during his tenure as prime minister. In the end, however, virtually no outposts were dismantled—despite a written commitment by the Israeli government to the Bush administration to do so

Daniel Kurtzer a former United States ambassador to Egypt and Israel, currently Professor in Middle Eastern Policy Studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, saw fit to comment on the findings of  Netanyahu's "outpost committee (panel)" in an article published in The National Interest.

He noted that the  three member panel  comprising former Israeli Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy, a former district court judge and a former foreign-ministry legal adviser   had conceded that a substantial amount of building in the West Bank (Judah and Samaria), including the establishment of about one hundred outposts between 1991 and 2005, was unauthorised. However, the committee continued somewhat disingenuously, that since these illegal activities were carried out “with the knowledge, encouragement and tacit agreement of the most senior political level . . . such conduct is to be seen as implied agreement.” "It seems," says Kurtzer, "The committee has no problem with illegal actions by citizens as long as a senior government official winks, nods and joins in the activity. So much for the rule of law."

"The committee has turned logic, law and Israeli Supreme Court precedent on its head, declaring that Israeli settlement activity in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 is not illegal and advising the Israeli government to legalize retroactively settlements and outposts previously deemed to have been constructed outside the framework of Israeli law. This is a stunning action with enormous consequences, a serious example of “uncommon nonsense. ” A reference to Lewis Carrol's "Alice in Wonderland"

“Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.”

At this juncture I want to enter a middle of the page footnote. In this country we have a tendency to label everyone making sure to stress his or her political affiliations. Edmund Levy is a dyed-in-the-wool Likudnik. Talia Sasson is a self-declared member of Meretz.  Neither expressed their political views while they were in public service. Sasson’s left-wing sympathies might have influenced her approach to the settlement issue when she prepared her report, but she was meticulously careful to provide legal justification for her recommendations. On the other hand, Judge Levy's recommendations appear to be made-to-order.

Kurtzer sums up the debate over the two reports, " There is a saying in the Middle East that an issue is not dead until it is dead and buried; Sharon’s government killed the Sasson report, and now Levy’s committee has recommended burying it."

So far Talia Sasson has not commented on the Levy committee's findings, however Kurtzer said, "Sasson has stressed, in private correspondence, that the Levy committee has contradicted more than four decades of Israeli law and policy, which has applied the principles of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations to the occupied territories, albeit stopping short of formally recognizing their applicability.

The Levy committee’s assertion of 'administrative assurance,' that is, the complicity of government officials in supporting settlement activity even when that activity contravened the law, is one of the most troubling aspects of the report. Under such circumstances, citizens in a democracy should expect that government officials who place themselves above the law would be held accountable, not that their activities would be explained away or condoned. Equally, the Levy committee’s recommendation that the outposts and settlement construction completed under these circumstances be legalized retroactively is chillingly Orwellian—as though to say it was wrong and illegal

to engage in the activity, but it will now be made right and legal. One normally expects better from an Israeli democracy that, in the past, has enshrined the rule of law."

Kurtzer obviously senses Netanyahu's dilemma.

"Soon the Israeli cabinet will have to consider the Levy committee recommendations, and it is coming under pressure from its right-wing base to adopt the report as policy. This would be most unwise, not only because of its impact on whatever small chance still exists to find a way forward to a political agreement with the Palestinians but equally importantly for what it will say about Israel’s commitment to the rule of law. Even before the cabinet’s consideration, the Israeli attorney general must decide whether to approve it, and this is not certain; when the committee was formed, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein reportedly warned the prime minister that he probably would not approve the committee’s report. Assuming Weinstein follows through, it would be a wise course of action to declare this committee’s report dead on arrival and buried.

But the greater the settlers’ victory, the less likely it is that anything will come of the report. All the ministers affiliated with the right have been demanding that the report be brought for approval to the Ministerial Committee on Settlement. But in the two weeks since the report landed on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s desk, his people have been trying to reduce expectations, with the excuse that “Netanyahu is still studying the report.”

The primary problem facing Netanyahu is to be found in the semantic debate over the concept of occupation. Netanyahu can’t, nor does he want to, put forward a government resolution that Israel is not an occupier of the territories. Such a resolution would have far-reaching diplomatic consequences, while even those on the right know it would not have any practical effect.

On the other hand, if he divides the report into sections and brings only certain ones to the cabinet for ratification, Netanyahu will be perceived by the right as accepting that Israel is an occupying force. The main message coming from the top is that the report will “inspire” certain changes, but will not be adopted in its entirety.

As usual there's no dearth of news in this country. Having to deal with Ehud Olmert's acquittal and the ramifications of the Levy committee recommendations in the same week  is time-demanding..

In addition we have plenty of unresolved open issues on the week's agenda.

One of them that probably will remain with us for some time to come is the military draft reform protest I mentioned last week. The demonstrators assembled in the Tel Aviv museum square carrying placards, banners  and signs of various shapes and sizes. Many of them bore a clear blatant statement "We are not freiers."  The Hebrew Language Academy  records the colloquial use of the word freier but rightly denies it formal recognition.

According to Dr. Linda-Renee Bloch of Bar-Ilan University the word was  brought to these shores by Yiddish speakers. She says the word has Germanic roots, exists in other languages, including Russian, German, Polish and Romanian. In some of them, its meaning is completely different. Even in other places where it describes someone whom others can easily fool, the concept of freier is not a cultural symbol like it is in Israel. Even the English word "sucker" doesn't quite serve as an accurate translation.

The demonstrators assembled in the square ( as many as 50,000 according to The Times of Israel) and the  nationwide sympathy for their struggle to bring about a fairer sharing of the defence burden caused the prime minister to change his mind again regarding the Plesner report. Initially he supported the proposal “ with minor changes.” 

Leading Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) rabbis and politicians continued their frontal assault against legislation to conscript yeshiva students into the army, as the working group drawing up the new law prepared to finalise the draft bill.

The legislation, which Kadima leader Shaul Mofaz, Kadima , Knesset member Yohanan Plesner and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon (Likud) are drafting, may or may not be  be presented later this week. On the other hand  renewed pressure from the Haredi parties could cause Netanyahu to change his mind again. Accepting the Plesner draft proposal alienates the Haredi parties. However, a Supreme Court order requires that new legislation correcting the defence burden disparity has to be presented to the Knesset by the end of the month. In the meantime Netanyahu’s bureau chief is busy explaining his boss’ zigzagging

Have a good weekend.

Beni                                                    12^th of July, 2012.

.

The hat trick

The “fasten your seat belt” sign is my cue to switch to overseas holiday mode.

After touchdown in Frankfurt we picked up our rental car and with the aid of its built-in GPS and our own maps we reached our hotel in Strasbourg after a brief stop-over in Heidelberg. Israel was out of sight and out of mind. The Arab Spring, events in Syria and Egypt were ostensibly forgotten. We were about to tour the wine routes in Baden-Württemberg and Alsace, to enjoy the breathtaking views from the Route des Crêtes, the northern Vosges mountains,  to see the picturesque villages along the route  des Potiers in Alsace and more mountain scenery on  the Black Forest High Road (Schwarzwaldhochstraße). We did, however, flick a few TV news channels in the hotel knowing that Israel was no longer newsworthy.

During the day we dedicated to touring Strasbourg we ignored the all-knowing GPS, took a wrong turn and ended up in Place Kléber, the city’s  largest square named in honour of one of its most illustrious sons Jean-Baptiste Kléber. He accompanied Napoleon on the ill-fated Egyptian campaign in 1798. Historians claim he was one of Napoleon’s most proficient generals.

I have mentioned him before and this time our encounter in Place Kléber momentarily linked us to Israel and the Jezreel Valley.

Commanding a small force of 1500 men Kléber   was sent to reconnoitre  the approaches to the rear flank of the main French forces besieging Acco.

His scouts discovered a 25,000 strong Ottoman army en route to Acco. He devised a daring pre-dawn attack on the Ottoman force camped in the Jezreel Valley. He sent a courier to inform Napoleon of the threat and his preemptive attack plan. The plan involved a descent from Nazareth under cover of darkness, traversing Mt. Tabor and surprising the Ottoman army before sunrise. In a sense it was reminiscent of the biblical Gideon’s attack on the Midianite camp. Knowing that Kléber didn’t have adequate topographical maps Napoleon feared the plan would fail. Gathering all the men he could spare Napoleon rushed to extricate Kléber’s force from certain defeat.  In the meantime Kléber and his men encountered difficulties traversing Mt. Tabor. There was no surprise pre-dawn attack . The French were detected and had to hastily form a defensive battle phalanx by the ruins of a Crusader fortress near Moshav Merhavia, close to Afula. .Of course neither Merhavia nor Afula existed then. Hopelessly outnumbered Kléber’s  men   tried to hold their position.

They were running out of ammunition and were forced to divide the phalanx in two . The arrival of Napoleon’s relief force heralded by two cannon shots encouraged Kléber’s men and panicked the combined Muslim army. A French  force numbering 4,000 men equipped with better muskets and only  two canons had routed the 25,000 strong Ottoman army. Later Napoleon chose to call the victory the Battle of Mount Tabor. Although the engagement took place near present day Afula, Mount Tabor was a recognised landmark in the Christian world..

The siege of Acco was futile. The walls of the town were impregnable and without their heavy cannons lost earlier at the Battle of the Nile the French artillery could only manage to lob a few light cannon shots over the walls.

The cannons were place on a rise outside Acco, marked on all maps as Napoleon’s hill. Descendants of the Arab residents of Acco at the time of the siege claim that Napoleon unable to set foot inside the town placed his hat on a cannon ball and fired it over the walls. Of course there is no substance to the story. Napoleon wore many bicornes replete with the traditional cockade.

Some are on display in a few museums around the world. There is no way he could have fired one of them into Acco, just the same, next time you visit Acco ask the locals about the bicorne. Nobody bothered to save it for posterity, but they still firmly believe the hat trick really happened.

Another hat trick made headlines this week. Al Jazeera published a report of laboratory tests conducted in Switzerland on items of clothing worn by former Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat. According to Al Jazeera the clothing including his fur hat provided by his widow ( presumably uncontaminated) was found to contain traces of Polonium 210. Conspiracy tales about the circumstances of Arafat’s death have cropped up over the  past eight years since his death. Now the widow has suddenly come forward with the crucial evidence and a clear accusation that Israel poisoned  her husband..

Mrs. Arafat has agreed to have Chairman Arafat’s body exhumed for analysis.

She is sure his bones still contain traces of Polonium.

Several years ago construction work on an industrial site near Acco was impeded by a small burial plot containing four graves. The plot was very old and the graves appeared to be Muslim graves. However, archeologists from the Israeli antiquities department sent to investigate the site suspected that graves weren’t authentic. On examination one grave contained a skeleton with a missing leg and arm. The discovery provided the answer to the mystery of the last resting place  of Louis-Marie-Joseph-Maximilian Caffarelli du Falga a French officer who served under Jean-Baptiste Kléber. Caffarelli lost his leg in an earlier battle but continued in the army and joined Kléber in the Egyptian campaign. At one of the assaults on Acco a musket ball shattered his right arm and the army surgeon had to amputate it. The wound was infected and gangrene set in. A few days later he died. Knowing that the Arabs were inclined to desecrate French military graves, Cafferelli and three other French soldiers were interred with Muslim style headstones.

The Israeli government traced descendents of the hapless Cafferelli and they were brought to a ceremony commemorating the death of their long dead ancestor.

Jean-Baptiste Kléber returned to Egypt with Napoleon and was appointed commander of the French forces in Egypt when Napoleon returned to France in 1800. Kléber went on to suppress an uprising in Egypt and to recapture Cairo. A few days after returning to Cairo a Syrian assassin stabbed him to death. His body was embalmed and returned to Strasbourg for burial.

The assassin suffered the full fury of the French military court. His hand, the hand that stabbed Kléber was incinerated and later he was impaled and left to die in agony.

We arrived home to discover that an old-new crisis was threatening Netanyahu’s broad coalition government. Many secular Israelis see the strength of Netanyahu’s coalition as a historic opportunity to change the long-standing agreement with the ultra-Orthodox ( Haredi)  sector and devise a way to share the national security burden with some kind of agreement where they can be enlisted in the Army or some other form of non-military national service. Netanyahu himself appointed a committee to try to resolve the thorny issue – only to dissolve it on Monday of this week – days before it was due to release its findings. The move sent political shockwaves through the Knesset. For the past month, Kadima party member Yohanan Plesner has taken on the role of trying to create a new groundbreaking structure that would fairly share the defence  burden. Plesner’s defunct committee sought a way  to enlist the ultra-religious, as well as Arab-Israelis.

Once again Prime Minister Netanyahu has chosen to appease the Haredi parties in the Knesset. Unless he finds a compromise he is liable to lose his new coalition partner –Kadima.

My guess is that he will prefer the men in the black hats.  

Have a good weekend.

Beni                                        6^th of July, 2012.