Archive for October, 2009

Israel + Jordan Turn 15

October 26th 2009

Today, Israel and Jordan celebrate 15 years of official peace between them. I think analyzing the history, and circumstances of this peace reveals a lot of insight into the general situation in the Middle East, and also shows how overall peace in the region could be obtained. Also, this morning, Israel told the UN it would continue gathering intelligence in Lebanon as long as the Lebanese government was not in full control of its country, after the UN questioned Israel about potential wire tapping machinery discovered in Southern Lebanon the other day. I think these two things can be related in an interesting way. Let’s see how much smarter we can get:

On October 26, 1994, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Jordanian Prime Minister Abdelsalam al-Majali signed a peace treaty that ended almost 50 years of warring between the two countries. The main points of the treaty were that the two governments agreed on (1) Official borders between their two countries, (2) Normalization of relations (opening of embassies, granting of tourist visas), and (3) Respect of sovereignty and territories. What caused this, and what took so long?

Since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, Jordan consistently subscribed to an anti-Israel policy, and participated in multiple attempts to destroy it. They did so especially in the Israeli War of Independence (1948), and Six Day War (1967), however the entire time the Jordanians controlled East Jerusalem (1948 - 1967), they made it exceeding difficult for Jews to live in Jerusalem. They would snipe at Jewish mothers shopping for their families, and would pour garbage onto those who came to worship at the Western Wall, among other things. So if Jordan was not down for having Jewish neighbors, then why the peace treaty?

I believe Jordan agreed to peace for a few reasons. The first is that their anti-Israel position was costing them bigtime. For starters, they kept losing wars. Particularly during the Six Day War, Israel sent a message to the Jordanian government on the morning the war broke out, and told them Israel would not attack them if they stayed out of the war. Instead, Jordan decided to try and capture West Jerusalem, and failed miserably. Israel not only stopped them, but was forced to take over East Jerusalem, causing many Jordanians to flee. This also gave Israel complete control over the Western Wall. Was that worth it?

Additionally, Israel consistently offered the possibilities of trade between the two countries, as well as other forms of economic development that the Jordanians simply refused to acknowledge. But things changed during the 70s and 80s. In 1970, Jordan waged the war of Black September against the PLO who were based in Jordan at the time. In response, Syrian troops entered Jordan to fight on behalf of the PLO. In an attempt to try and contain the situation, Israel flew fighter planes over Syrian airspace, to indicate they should stop - and they did. In the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Jordan did not participate in the joint surprise Egyptian-Syrian attack on Israel, perhaps indicating they had learned their lesson.

Eventually, Jordan caved. They realized they could not beat Israel militarily, and that they were losing out by not embracing a relationship with Israel where both countries could capitalize on economic opportunities, and could benefit from the sharing of certain intelligence. So what does this have to do with what Israel said about Lebanon?

Last week, the Lebanese military uncovered machinery buried underground in Southern Lebanon. Upon their discoveries, the machines were immediately blown up, seemingly remotely by Israel. The general theory is that during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Israel planted wire tapping devices in the ground, to keep a good eye on the Iranian backed terrorist organization, Hezbollah. When confronted about it by the UN, Israel did not confirm or deny it had planted anything in Lebanon, but told the UN it would continue gathering intelligence there while Hezbollah still controlled part of Lebanon.

The underlying theme, as it seems to me, is that Israel does what it needs to in order to ensure its own security and defense capabilities. As soon as it is no longer threatened by one of its enemies, Israel is more than happy to embrace a two-way relationship with them. Israel did not only not hold a grudge against Jordan for the previous 50 years, but also did not hesitate to sign a peace treaty with even Egypt, who tried MUCH harder than Jordan to destroy Israel. Meaning, if the Middle East would finally recognize a tiny Jewish state in their midst, and decided to work with them instead of against them, all countries would benefit. Perhaps the 21st century could finally be the one where the Jewish nation for the first time doesn’t have an attempt made for its complete destruction? Maybe? But then again, Iran’s nuclear program is probably for peaceful purposes.

P.S. If you think Israel is going to sit back and let Iran school the world while obtaining a nuclear weapon, you gotta be out your mind. Crack a history book.

Posted by admin under israel | No Comments »

The Sitch with Suicide Bombings

October 11th 2009

So this morning, I stumbled upon this article on Al Jazeera’s website:

Iraq hit by triple car bombing

The article can be summarized in these sentences: “The first bomb appeared to target people queuing outside a municipal office to claim various allowances, he said. The second detonated when police and firemen arrived on the scene, and the third blew up on the road to the hospital.” At least 23 dead, 81 wounded.

First, I’d like to mention that although this triple bomb idea seems creative, it’s actually old news. This exact strategy was used in an attack against Israel in the mid 90’s, during the reign of Prime Minister Rabin. The second bomb that had gone off did kill officers and personnel on the scene helping victims of the first bomb, however the third bomb prematurely detonated, and missed. Ever since then, Israel has been prepared for this type of an attack in their response protocols. (We rock?)

Second, I’d like to state my opinion which is that suicide bombings (and terrorism in general) cannot be stopped by anything other than force. I personally feel awful that there are so many people that care so little about their lives that they would happily use it up to destroy the lives of others, but I think a lot of the blame for this goes to the leaders of those people who encourage these acts, as opposed to trying to help and improve the lives of the individuals they are attempting to represent.

I’m additionally saddened by the fact that these double and triple bombings are no longer shocking to me, as I am reading about another suicide bomb / car bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan almost daily. So what is the correct response?

Let’s look at what Israel did, because it is run by the smartest human beings that currently exist: In 2002, Israel began constructing the Israeli West Bank Barrier which separates the West Bank from the rest of Israel. It is a highly controversial barrier. Those on the left side of politics say the wall is a guise for secretly annexing parts of the West Bank, since the wall juts inward to the West Bank in a number of places, and also that it makes life for the Palestinians in the West Bank significantly more difficult. Those on the right say it was and is desperately needed to improve security against terrorism. Who’s right? Well, suicide bombings inside of Israel are down 99.99% since the constructional of the wall - you can make up your own minds.

I am a supporter of disproportionate response to suicide bombings and acts of terror. One could argue that being a democracy means abiding to the international laws of war, the Hague Convention (etc), and that every democracy must deal with these problems proportionately and legally. However, I feel that is appropriate when dealing with other democracies, not terrorists who are prepared to cross every line imaginable, and then some.

Dealing a disproportionate response does two things: (1) Clearly sets the price for committing acts of terror very high, and (2) Diminishes the terrorists’ abilities to carry out these acts, because the responses are ideally devastating their infrastructure, bomb making facilities, and weapons caches.

The only last point is that for this to really work, the UN needs to be dismantled for its idiocy, and support for worldwide terror. That’s about all… Did I mention Iran’s building a nuclear bomb?

EDIT: Just thought I would add that this morning, I checked the news as I normally do, and what did I find? 41 dead as suicide blast hits northwest Pakistan. I rest my case.

Posted by admin under Opinions | No Comments »