International Law, Not Terrorism, Must Be the New Paradigm
What must occur to alter the course of this perpetual cycle of violence, terror and violation of law and rights is a fundamental shift in the paradigm applied. Israel and the international community must transcend and move away from terms rooted in terror, and hold the violators accountable to the language and terms of international law and human rights.Michael Doran and Peter Rough: China’s Emerging Middle Eastern Kingdom
In practice, what this means is that negotiations anywhere must not take place on the terms determined by genocidal terrorist regimes and their supporters, and that the price paid must conform to agreed-upon international standards. It means a system of "monetary for humanitarian," where only when the humanitarian needs of Israel are met does the cash flow.
For example, instead of allowing Hamas to set the negotiation terms, the international community must acknowledge that holding four Israeli citizens captive is a standing violation of international law, and humanitarian aid is therefore at risk of being embargoed if the Israelis are not returned and if the law is not upheld. The fact that one of the Israelis being held captive for six years nearly to this day—Hadar Goldin—was killed during an internationally brokered humanitarian ceasefire only further strengthens the international legal and moral argument. The concept of a "prisoner swap" prescribed by terrorist thought and rhetoric as the tool to use in such a scenario must be denounced; instead, international law must be upheld.
Similarly, the financial support—known as "pay-for-slay"—that the Palestinian Authority provides to terrorists, must cease, or their humanitarian aid and the provision of international aid by United Nations agencies must be limited. Announcements that Israel is now seizing these terrorists' salaries form a necessary first step. The international community also must make difficult choices of when to restrict aid in order to uphold international laws and human rights norms. If it fails to do this, these laws and norms risk losing their very meaning.
This new paradigm of international law, human rights and norms means that Israel too must move away from the old paradigms or prisoner swaps and cease allowing the "pay-for-slay" payments to take place. The global community and Israel together have the potential of leading by example, utilizing the language of rights and expecting consistency and reciprocity from the international community in return. Only then can the cycle of violence begin to unravel, and a renewed "world order" be built on a profound commitment to uphold, promote and protect human rights.
If the Russian-Iranian alliance should die, or become weak and ineffectual, China will not step in directly to build it back up—because Beijing fears a direct confrontation with the United States. The first priority of American policy, therefore, is to remove the sword from China’s hand by crushing the Russian-Iranian alliance. The domestic American political climate will not permit the use of large numbers of American troops in this project, but four other tools do exist:Israelis have more in common than not with one another - opinion
1) Economic sanctions. The Trump administration has been imposing these effectively. The Iranian economy is in perilous condition, and the economic situation of Iran’s allies, the Assad regime and Lebanese Hezbollah, are equally dire.
2) Clandestine operations. In recent months, Iran has experienced a wave of mysterious fires and explosions at industrial complexes and military installations. One of these events, at the nuclear fuel enrichment site at Natanz, reportedly set back the country’s nuclear program significantly. A foreign hand is suspected in at least some of these episodes, and the finger of suspicion points most often at Israel. But the sabotage could just as easily be the result of a joint American-Israeli operation.
3) Direct military action by allies. The Turks and the Israelis have both carried out very effective operations in Syria that have significantly degraded not just Iranian but also, in the case of the Turks, Russian capabilities.
4) Selective and judicious use of American military capabilities. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in December did more to shake the Iranian regime than any step the United States has taken in the last 30 years, with the possible exception of the invasion of Iraq. It not only removed from the game an indispensable player, but it boosted the morale of America’s allies and demoralized its enemies.
These tools, taken together, can effectively remove the Russo-Iranian sword from the hand of China. They are already being used. Are they the result of a conscious Trump administration strategy, or have they simply materialized as a set of ad hoc responses to the president's insistence that his national security team contain Iran aggressively, yet with an economy of force? Whatever the answer, they point the way forward. The goal of American policy should be to use them separately and in coordination so as to increase their lethality.
The greatest advantage that the United States has in its competition with China and, indeed, with any of its adversaries, is hard power. In the realm of trade and investment, Washington simply cannot compete with China and hope to win. If it is to contain China successfully, then it will win with its sledgehammers: military power and economic sanctions. In the Middle East, what America’s allies crave most is the security that comes from the might of the American military. Nothing does more to encourage allies to hedge their bets and cozy up to Beijing than the fear that the United States has decided to abandon military competition as a tool of statecraft.
As China works to make the Middle East a factor in the Western Pacific balance of power, the United States should respond by bringing the Pacific to the Middle East. China’s energy supply lines and its aspiration to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf should become a regular and significant part of America’s discussions with its Pacific partners and India. The goal of this dialogue should be to arrive not just at a shared picture of the threat but also at strategies for assuring that China’s supply lines remain highly vulnerable. China’s partners and potential partners in its plan to become a Middle Eastern military power—Iran, Djibouti, Pakistan, Iraq, and others—should be put on notice that the days of harmonic convergence are over. Support for Chinese hard-power aspirations must come at a steep price. The U.S. must bury harmonic convergence as an organizing principle, or risk ceding control of the international system to a hostile, anti-democratic power.
If there is a large protest, the media will – as it must – interview the protesters and then the politicians. The protesters are protesting because they are angry, and that anger comes out in their words. The politicians are looking for someone to blame, and that anger comes out in their words.
Both Transportation Minister Miri Regev (Likud) and MK Moshe Ya’alon (Yesh Atid-Telem) – on opposite sides of this country’s pro- and anti-Netanyahu divide – sound as if they are about to blow a gasket every time they talk about the other side. Interviewee after interviewee sound angry, mad and full of hate.
But there is another Israel out there. It’s the one that quietly goes on with its life in these uncertain times, perhaps not agreeing – and perhaps even strongly disagreeing – with the political outlook of their neighbors or co-workers, but not hating them, not wanting to wage an all-out war against them. In fact, there are many who feel a great deal of sympathy for their countrymen’s suffering as a result of the pandemic.
The problem is that right now, that does not attract attention and does not get air time. What attracts attention is extreme rhetoric. What attracts attention is comparisons to dark periods of history. What attracts attention is saying that the other side are a bunch of fanatics hell-bent on destroying the country: anarchists to the left of me, fascists to the right.
And since that is what attracts attention, that is what is shouted out from the megaphones, picked up by the press and amplified on social media. So one wakes up and believes that is the reality.
Except it’s not. It might be a slice of this country’s reality, but only a slice.
There is another reality out there,reflected in that meeting of those reservists, of an Israel where not everyone hates the other side, and where – though it might sound corny – what binds really is greater than what divides.
Which is not to say that the atmosphere is not charged, and that in a charged atmosphere someone may commit an act of political violence. But civil wars – the type some are warning of now – are not made of individuals on the fringes taking extreme action, but rather, brother taking up arms against brother because the hatred in their hearts overflows.
Walk the streets of the country beyond Balfour Street during one of the nightly protests – or step away from Twitter for a day – and chances are that you won’t encounter that overwhelming hatred, but rather, a reality that, while contentious, is softer and far less toxic and hate-filled than what you come across every time you turn on a computer, radio or television set.
Most people are not inhabiting the hate-permeated reality being portrayed in the media and online. There is another Israel out there.