Cease Fire-Israel Hamas

We appear to have a cease fire. As I noted in posts below, at first appearance this agreement makes little sense from an Israeli perspective. Until you consider the following factors.

1) As I thought, the key reason for Netanyahu's acceptance of a cease fire was the pressure that the US placed on him to acquiesce to the Egyptian peace plan. Netanyahu knows he has to deal with a second term Obama and that he will need US co-operation on Iran going forwards. He evidently decided that he could not afford to alienate the President.

2) The Egyptian Government of President Morsi committed to the US and to Israel that he would prevent Hamas smuggling into Gaza from Egyptian soil. At least at the present level. Israel wants a positive relationship with Egypt and is evidently willing to bend in order to achieve this. Israel wants to see if Morsi can live up to his word. And as Netanyahu put it when announcing the cease fire, Israel has the power to use greater force against Hamas if it becomes necessary.

3) President Obama has committed to Netanyahu that he will increase US support for counter-Iran action vis-a-vis Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. This is crucial for the Israelis. Linking to point 1, Netanyahu has obviously decided that the Gaza question is peripheral to the Iran question.

In conclusion, while by agreeing to the Egyptian accords Israel has granted Hamas an unprecedented propaganda victory, Israel also appears to have gained significant concessions from the US with regards to other Israeli national security concerns. In essence, the Gaza cease fire has its roots in concerns far broader than Israeli threat perceptions re-Hamas. As I noted a couple of weeks ago (see my latest daily caller piece), policy decisions in the Middle East are currently being made with reference to regional rather than local dynamics.

Earlier pieces - 
Israel Cease Fire
Israel-Hamas - what the bus bombing means
What Israel expects from a cease fire
Israel-Hamas conflict continues 
Israel-Hamas conflict begins
 

Israel Cease Fire

Israeli sources are reporting that Netanyahu has agreed to implement a unilateral cease fire, beginning later this evening. In addition, Israel will reportedly meet Hamas demands to relax border restrictions. If these reports are true (and I expect they are far too simple), Israel will have given Hamas victory from the jaws of defeat. The only explanation I can think of is that Secretary Clinton has told Netanyahu that he must terminate the Israeli operation. Let's see what happens.

Israel-Hamas - What the bus bombing means

Today's bomb attack on an Israeli civilian bus, apparently conducted by the Al-Asqa martyrs brigade, will weaken the short term prospects for a peace deal. That Al Asqa would conduct such an attack suggests the group is concerned with Hamas taking ownership of 'the resistance'. Al Asqa's links to the Fatah movement of President Abbas further accentuate my impression that there is a Palestinian political motivation behind this attack, as much as there is an anti-Israel component. As I have argued over the past few days (please see previous posts), Israel does not want a cease fire that has little durable meaning and power. Hamas does not want to be seen as weak, but also neither can continue to suffer such significant military losses. Fatah does not want to be seen as an impotent bystander. There is little question that Israel retains the upper hand with negotiations. The IDF is degrading Hamas power infrastructure and is thus affording a great deal of flexibility for Netanyahu's policy options. Israel can demand major concessions from Hamas as a condition for peace-expect a final cease fire to address Israeli concerns over Hamas smuggling operations from Egypt into Gaza.

In conclusion, I expect that today's bus bombing will cause an escalation in near term violence but that Hamas will ultimately make greater concessions over the next few days- leading to a cease fire. Hamas cannot continue to absorb the damage that they are suffering.

Cease Fire Elusive

Another failed day of negotiations. Why? See post below.

Israel - Hamas conflict - What Israel expects from a cease fire

The conflict between Israel and Hamas shows few indications of de-escalation. From my perspective, the Israelis are conducting an effective campaign against Hamas. The IDF is weakening Hamas military infrastructure, degrading Hamas command and control apparatus and exerting huge pressure on the group's fighters. As a result of these successes, the Israeli Government believes that it has the power to impose a tough price tag on Hamas demands for a cease fire. This was evident in yesterday's failed talks in Egypt. At the discussions, in addition to requiring that Hamas end their rocket fire as a prerequisite for a reciprocal halt to IDF operations, Israel also demanded a longer term Hamas pledge to disavow violence and accept that Israel would have the enduring right to launch pre-emptive attacks in case of 'imminent' threat intelligence. In essence, the Israeli leadership made demands that would fundamentally alter the status quo. Why? Israel does not want a cease fire which only allows Hamas time to regroup and reconstitute for future attacks. I'm sympathetic to this approach. A cease fire is supposed to be an agreed termination of combat, designed to provide political space for a broader negotiation framework. A cease fire is not supposed to exist as a tactical retreat which services the pursuit of Hamas broader strategic end; the destruction of Israel. This distinction is fundamentally important in driving Israel's perspective on when Operation Pillar of Defense can end. Put simply, Israel wants a cease fire that portends a more durable peaceful reliability.

As a side note, it is crucial to remember that Hamas and their allies are extremely astute to the regional and international political environment. They understand that media reporting of Palestinian casualties in Gaza produces diplomatic difficulties for Israel. They understand that engaging Egyptian and Turkish Government anger over Gaza, in turn increases pressure on the US/EU to then pressure Israel for a quick cease fire. This dynamic informs why Hamas and the PIJ use Gaza's civilian infrastructure for cover. For these groups, Gaza civilians are little more than a shield and a propaganda tool. Fortunately, even amidst Hamas efforts to immerse themselves among the people, Israel has been effective in their clinical application of force. For an example, see this morning's highly discriminate attack on an Islamic Jihad leader who was operating out of one floor of a media building.*

It is my opinion that until Israel believes a cease fire will be durable and will lead to a real rather than fake peace, the state will not accede to Hamas demands to end the violence.

*Contrary to what some might say, if an enemy agent is operating in a media capacity that focuses on the command and control and mobilization of his forces, then that agent is not a journalist protected under international law. He is an enemy combatant and a justified military target.

Israel-Hamas conflict continues

The conflict between Israel and Hamas shows no signs of abating. Neither Netanyahu nor Hamas believe that they can back down at this point. As I have written (see posts over past few days), both Israel and Hamas have broader reasons for their actions in this conflict. This overarching dynamic has not weakened, instead it is exacerbated with each new death. However, by effectively injecting themselves into the conflict, the Egyptian Government's actions will lead to two evolutions. First, Israeli-Egyptian relations will further deteriorate (both now and in the medium term): at some point this may lead to a skirmish along the Egyptian/Israeli border. Second, Egypt's engagement gives Hamas a huge, (although I would argue unwarranted) PR boost. Having said this, the Israeli Government will not significantly alter their operational planning because of the presence of Egyptian officials in Gaza. When the Egyptian PM visited Gaza earlier today, Israel implemented a cease fire. However, when Hamas continued to fire rockets during that cease fire, Israel responded with further air strikes. The Israelis will be anxious to send the message that they will not allow Egypt to provide a form of 'human shield' for Hamas. Earlier today a friend who lives in Jerusalem (and who is a top Israel-Palestinian conflict expert) told me that he cannot understand why Hamas is firing on Jerusalem. As he noted, many Palestinians live in that city and the rocket fire risks damaging the Dome of the rock. I think this shows the faux morality of Hamas 'liberation' narrative.

 I believe that this conflict will continue for at least a few more days; Israel's targeting of Hamas PM Haniyeh signals Netanyahu's strategic intent to strike a major blow against the group. But one thing is important. Regardless of individual attitudes surrounding the debate over 'right versus wrong' in this particular operation, it is important that observers do not become pawns for Hamas propaganda. 

           Hamas is not a liberation force struggling valiantly for freedom. They exist on a platform of overt hatred towards Jews, the destruction of Israel and the imposition of an ideological tyranny on the Palestinian people. Think about these truths. For Hamas, a bus is not a method of transport, but instead an opportunity for murder. A nightclub is not a place of celebration, but instead a place to blow up kids. An apartment block is not a place for living, but instead a place for a targeting post. A college is not a place for learning, but instead for a bomb factory. A Palestinian civilian is not a fellow citizen deserving of protection, but instead a human shield.

Israel, Hamas, Petraeus, Xi Jinping and BP

1) The conflict between Israel and Hamas is reaching new levels of escalation. As I predicted on Tuesday, the day before the conflict erupted, both Hamas and Israel have their own reasons for taking a tough stand. Regardless, in terms of my analysis now that the conflict is underway, I have a number of thoughts. First, in my view Hamas is to blame. Before Israel began to respond, Hamas had fired hundreds rockets at Israel settlements. No state can tolerate the continuation of such aggression. Israel had to respond. Now that Israeli forces are committed, Israel's objective should be to degrade Hamas ability to fire rockets at Israel and to challenge Hamas consideration of the consequences that such rocket attacks will incur. Second, in military terms, Israel should focus on air power rather than a ground force engagement. Facing an enemy such as Hamas, which revels in the use of human shields, any Israeli ground force action will inevitably cause significant civilian casualties (as well as put Israeli service personnel at far greater risk). In addition to the moral component of these casualties, Israel would suffer a strategic defeat in the public affairs narrative that would follow in media reporting. Populist sympathy among Palestinians would be driven towards Hamas and away from the more moderate leadership of President Abbas. Iran and Syria would attempt to use this narrative to drive a divide into the present anti-Assad alliance between Israel and Turkey. Iran and Syria would try to use such a narrative to distract attention away from their own activities in the region. In contrast to the risks inherent in a ground operation, the Israeli Air Force can continue to inflict severe damage on Hamas military infrastructure without ground force-comparative risks. The Israeli intelligence apparatus has extensive intelligence capabilities in Gaza and these assets enable effective targeting from the air.

2) The Petraeus 'scandal' rumbles along. It seems to me that this scandal represents the worst element of media sensationalism. The 'scandal' has seemingly not jeopardized any national security imperatives and yet the media are still baying for blood. General Allen, the ISAF commander, is now being dragged through the dirt for supposedly having committed the crime of the century - 'sending flirtatious emails'. Give me a break.

3) The coronation of the next Chinese leader is underway. Xi Jinping appears to be a pragmatist with some positive feelings towards the United States. We shall see. A strong relationship between China and the United States would be great for both countries. However, such a relationship must be built on a foundation of open dialogue and trust. Again, we shall see.

4) The BP settlement re- criminal justice sanctions, should draw a line under the Horizon explosion. Compensation has been paid, people have been fired. But we don't need a situation in which populist anger is allowed to drive the situation onwards into perpetuity.

New Daily Caller Piece

Check out my latest Daily Caller piece - In the Middle East, fears over the future are driving violence in the present

UPDATE 11/14 Sadly, today's news shows that my analysis appears to be correct. Below is the text of my Daily Caller piece.

Tensions are escalating in the Middle East. Faced with a regional dynamic in which systemic political change beckons, state and non-state actors alike are increasingly resorting to the use of force to defend and assert their foundations of power.

Because of the complexity of Middle Eastern politics, it’s best to examine each actor in turn.

Iran. In recent weeks, Iran has dramatically increased its assertiveness in the region. Just before the U.S. presidential election, Iran attempted to shoot down a U.S. surveillance drone that was flying over international waters. In legal terms, this was an act of war. So, what’s behind Iran’s actions? The answer is pretty simple: It’s the economy, stupid. Western sanctions are exerting extreme pressure on the Iranian economy and, as a result, Iran’s government is facing growing popular unrest. Iran’s leaders feel that they need to alter the status quo. So Iran is trying to force the international community back to the negotiating table. Threatening conflict also tends to drive up oil prices and improve Iranian government balance sheets. Because I don’t believe that Iran will be willing to give up its nuclear program, I expect the sanctions to continue and Iran to continue lashing out.

Syria. In the past few weeks, Bashar al-Assad has shown an increased willingness to test the patience of neighboring countries, especially Turkey and Israel. This is deliberate. With its foreign capital reserves running dry, the Syrian regime is running out of time to defeat the rebels. Assad needs a Hail Mary. By threatening neighboring states, Assad does two things. First, he discourages those states from supporting the rebels. Second, he sends a message to the West that he will not give up power without a fight — and that his fall would have major repercussions.

Hezbollah. Because Hezbollah is both an overt political party and a covert terrorist group, analyzing its activities is difficult. However, Hezbollah seems to be pursuing a more hardline strategy now than it has in the past. For instance, the group recently flew a drone over Israel, and it appears to have played a role in the recent assassination of a senior Lebanese intelligence officer in Beirut. I think there are two reasons for this. First, Hezbollah is trying to act as a counterweight to Western pressure on Assad — essentially, Hezbollah is seeking to support Assad by threatening violent regional instability unless the West backs down from its efforts against him. Second, along with Hamas (see below), Hezbollah is attempting to reinforce Iran’s threats.

Hamas. Over the last few days, Hamas has been indirectly attacking Israel with rocket strikes from the Gaza Strip (Hamas claims that Islamic Jihad is responsible for these attacks, but Hamas controls Gaza). Again, why? I believe that Hamas is attempting to push Israel into an over-reaction that would distract the region from Assad and Hezbollah, while also providing moral support to Iran’s increasingly aggressive strategy. Hamas may also be trying to consolidate its political support in Gaza.

Israel. Israel is faced with a multitude of increasingly hostile enemies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to deter those enemies by projecting strength. Netanyahu’s aggressive stance may also be motivated by domestic political considerations.

Because the stakes in contemporary Middle Eastern politics are so high, actors are desperate to shape the evolving political environment in their favor. This is driving them to pursue increasingly risky courses of action.

New Guardian Piece

Check out my latest Guardian piece - The Republican Party needs a coalition beyond its core

Successors at DoD, State and CIA

The Washington Post is suggesting that Susan Rice, the current US Ambassador to the UN, will be President Obama's next Secretary of State (Clinton wants to retire). The Post is also reporting that Senator John Kerry is being actively considered to replace Leon Panetta as Defense Secretary (Panetta wants to go home to California). Both Clinton and Panetta have been impressive Secretaries who require worthy successors. 

These reports concern me a little.

First the Secretary of State. Susan Rice is evidently very bright. But her record at the UN has been far from stellar. Assad remains entrenched in power, China and Russia continue to prevent truly effective sanctions against both Assad and Iran. In addition, Rice's comments on Benghazi were poorly conceived and misled the American people (though I do not believe these comments were made with malicious intent). While many foreign policy powers are beyond the reach of an Ambassador, I lack confidence in Rice's record. Secretary of State Clinton's replacement must be an individual who possesses a strong reputation. I am not convinced that Ambassador Rice sufficiently meets that criteria. If I were the President (and IF I held Obama's foreign policy views), the top candidates on my list for State would be John Kerry, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and Dick Lugar. All four of these individuals are extremely well informed on international relations and US foreign policy. All four would devote their focus to the major responsibilities of the office (they wouldn't get sucked up into the beltway bs flow).

With regards to the Secretary of Defense, I do not believe that John Kerry would make a good choice. Unlike with foreign policy, Kerry lacks a substantive background in defense issues and from my perspective would be far stronger interacting with diplomats than with generals. If I were the President (and IF I shared Obama's defense policy) I would have three names on my list. Colin Powell, Andrew Exum, John Nagl. Ignoring the fact that Exum would probably make the youngest SecDef in history, all three candidates would bring the drive, experience and intellectual understanding needed to effectively manage the US drawdown in Afghanistan and re-shape the US Military for the post Afghanistan-Iraq war environment.

On the CIA Director position, the President should short list John Brennan, Mike Morell (to go permanent), Dianne Feinstein and Cofer Black.