| Diplomacy and Foreign Affairs From The Amateur's Armchair |
Briefly |
|
| July 2008 | Click here to see Martin Indyk's thoughts on the impact of a Syrian-Israeli peace process. Such a process would not only drive a wedge between Syria and Israel, it would also blunt such terrorist organizations as Hamas and Hezbollah. It would also create the right conditions for a peace with Lebanon, and moving the Palestinian process forward. |
| June 2008 | Click here to see the video of Al Qaida child terrorists-in-training |
| May 2008 | Click here to see international relations schools of thought. |
| January 2008 | Click here to read Bill H.R. 25, the Fair-Tax bill calling for a national sales tax to replace the income tax. |
| Who were
the people sitting in the First Lady's Box at the State of
the Union address? |
When Negotiation Is A Misguided Policy
July 13, 2008
On Wednesday, July 16th, Israel will receive the presumed dead bodies of two soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah. These are the bodies of the two soldiers whose capture in a cross-border raid in 2006 led to a month-long war. Israel is also said to be receiving the body parts of other captured soldiers.
In exchange, Israel will free prisoner Samir Kantar, among other terrorists. However, Kantar is not an ordinary militant, not an ordinary guerilla fighter, not an ordinary prisoner of war. He is not you’re your run-of-the-mill terrorist. Kantar is serving several life sentences for what can mildly be described as a notorious homicide.
Kantar is a member of the Palestine Liberation Front. He and his squad raided a town in northern Israel. During the raid, they killed two police officers He then burst into a family home in a beach town near the scene. There he encountered a family of 4. He lead the 28 year-old father and his 4-year old daughter out to the beach. In front of the 4-year old, Kantar shot the father.
You would think that making the child experience this horror would satisfy his thirst for blood. Not quite. Kantar proceed to knocked the child down with the butt of his rifle. He dragged her down the beach, and placed the child’s head on a rock on the beach. After struggling with her to clear her arms from her face, he, and smashed her small head in with his rifle butt. Still not happy, he stomped on her body until she was dead.
The terrified mother of the 4 year old hid with her 2 year-old daughter in a closet. While trying to muffle the child’s cries so as not to be found by Kantar and his associates, the mother accidentally smothered the child.
[As a side note: NPR left out the crimes that Kantar committed in their reporting of the story in the Bryant Park Project. NPR joins company with Islam Online who similarly omits the crime details.]
There are two questions that need answers, but clear answers are elusive. The first is why Israel would even consider trading dead bodies in exchange for the freedom of a hideous murderer? The second is why would welcome this particular person back into their community, given all the Palestinians serving sentences in Israel’s jails.
Israel has a history of making poor deals during prisoner exchanges. In 1967, Israel traded 11,000 Egyptians for 10 Israeli soldiers. In the 80’s, Israel went from negotiating unbalanced exchanges with states to unbalanced exchanges with terrorist organizations. In 1984, Israel traded 4,000 Ahmed Jibril detainees for 5 Israeli soldiers. And in 1991, Israel traded 51 living prisoners in exchange for mere proof that one of its soldiers held in Lebanon was, indeed, dead.
The logic behind such swaps is an extension on the “no man left behind” principle. Israel sees such exchanges, with all their extreme disparities, as consistent with its commitment to the members of its armed forces. Soldiers have the expectation that when in battle, they will be recovered from the battlefield dead or alive. Israel’s youth ns and daughters are compelled to serve, and this is what they ask in return.
On its face, it doesn’t seem to be too much to ask when considered on an individual basis. When the cost of return becomes usurious, and a exploitative party sits at the other end of the table, the situation becomes nothing less than offensive.
Now, the second question - why would the Palestinians want a man who so brutally tormented and killed a child back in their society - is a far easier one to answer. He is considered a hero. He has no regrets. He will be celebrated upon his return.
If there is any doubt that a people would worship this kind of savagery, note that the initial 2006 Hezbollah raid that led to the capture of the two now dead soldiers, was executed in order to use them as bargaining leverage for the release of Kantar. Therefore, Hezbollah risked (sacrificed) hundreds of their own, the very people they purport to be liberating, for the release of a single child-killer.
Further, upon his return, Hezbollah and the Palestinian people will get a battle-tested, committed fighter. Not only does he have no regrets, he has every intention to return to a life of terrorism. In a letter to the Hezbollah Secretary General, Kantar writes:
“I give you my promise and oath that my only place will be in the fighting front soaked with the sweat of your giving and with the blood of the shahids [martyrs], the dearest people, and that I will continue your way until we reach a full victory. I send my best wishes and promise of renewed loyalty to you, sir, and to all the Jihad fighters."
This is one of many decisions that the current Israeli cabinet has made in recent years that defy logic. In a reasonable world, the dead would be exchanged for the dead. Prisoners of war would be exchanged for living prisoners of war. In today’s convoluted world, we have the most notorious of monsters being exchanged for the dead.
The impact of such a misguided decision will play out over the next several years. There is little disincentive for a terrorist organization to make as many attempts as they please at abduction and slaughter. They know that in the end if Israel retaliates, Israel becomes the target of international scorn. And if they manage to strong-arm Israel to the table, she will seek only her dead in return.
Israel spent a great deal of time negotiating this exchange. In the meantime, backchannel talks with the Syrians faltered, and the Palestian peace process has hit another impasse. All the while, the government squandered the trust and patience of the Israeli people. Israel should be negotiating with states and the Palestinian Authority. Not with stateless terrorist organizations and proxies.
The Silence That Concerns Me
February 16, 2008
When I was in high school, I remember an arms deal that caused considerable controversy at home and abroad. The administration of then President Ronald Reagan had brokered a deal that would be the largest foreign arms sale in US History: the sale of AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. I recall strong opposition (as much as I understood it) from Congress, the American public, and Israel. It was a pretty big deal.
Fast forward 27 years later, and the United States has brokered another deal to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, this one part of an overall $20B arms package to allied Arab nations. But history is not repeating itself. Israel did not oppose the deal. The House Foreign Affairs Committee will not to consider a resolution of disapproval. And with the exception of a couple of Reps in the House, crickets.
I decided to see what the difference was this time around. I started by looking into the context to the 1981 deal, and the context of the current deal.
Reagan Era
In 1981, the Reagan administration, with Alexander Haig as Secretary of State, brokered a deal to sell a fleet of five AWACS surveillance planes as part of a strategic deal with Saudi Arabia. Many at the time felt that the U.S. sold their soul in the name of oil.
Prominent Senators considered the deal as the U.S. succumbing to oil-based blackmail by Saudi Arabia. Others wondered out loud why we would support a nation who was opposed to Middle East peace. And further, this was a time that you would expect the US not to be in a particularly giving mood. Iran had just recently turned from ally to enemy, and they were no in possession and control of American military equipment originally purchased under the Shah’s regime.
Now, Israel was obviously very concerned. For one thing, giving the Saudi Royal Air Force that kind of surveillance equipment meant that the Saudis could track any and every move by the Israeli Air Force. But beyond the military ramifications, it smacked diplomatically. Israel questioned how the country that came to their defense during the Six Day War could now arm country with whom they were still technically at war.
The Reagan administration spun the sale as a way to promote stability in the region. By that logic, the sale would actually good for Israel. And besides, sniffed both Haig and Reagan, a foreign nation should not meddle in American foreign policy. In the end, the sale went through. They bristled at the notion that oil was at the root of the sale.
Bush Era
Now examine the current deal.
During
President Bush’s tour of the Middle East, he brought with him an offer
for the Saudis to purchase
Joint
Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM).
We commonly see these weapons referred to as "smart bombs" in the
press. The idea is to send
900 precision-guided bomb kits that give the Saudi military extremely
accurate targeting capabilities.
The deal comes on top of a myriad of other recent
deals with allied Arab states in the region.
Other deals include selling Patriot missiles and early warning
systems to the militaries of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
And yet, this time, Israel was silent. In fact, the deal went largely unnoticed by most Americans. Even most Democrats who (along with some Republicans and many of our European allies) challenge any foreign policy move by the president as a course of habit had little to say.
The one thing that everyone agrees upon is that Saudi Arabia's cooperation is critical to if we are going to pursue a policy of deterring aggression from Iran. There are a few reasons why you would choose to bolster Saudi Arabia in order to keep Iran in check. For one thing, Saudi Arabia is a Sunni-majority state, and Iran is a Shiite state. Both are seen as leading nations of their sects, and are something of natural enemies. For another, relations have been extremely strained since the Saudi’s backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80’s.
Not that the Saudis are the only Sunni state that is concerned about Iran’s growing influence. Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, etc. all have weaker militaries and all fear where this may be headed going. A Shiite-led Iraq complicates things considerably more because at the moment, the only thing keeping Iran in check is the US military presence in Iraq. And when we leave, we leave behind a void in terms of a way to contain Iran. Without the Saudis as a buffer, Iran could very well destabilize the region.
It is pretty easy to say that the Israeli’s recognize that a destabilized region is a terrible scenario for them. Their silence is likely a tacit acknowledgement that they have a common interest with their Saudi enemies.
So that leads me to this question: Could it be that the Reagan administration was seeking the same goal as the Bush administration of isolating Iran? Could they have sensed that one day, this rogue group of extremist students-turned-leaders could one day tip the delicate balance in the region, and thereby threaten our access to oil? Perhaps.
Not that I am saying that Reagan himself knew the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. But the administration certainly would know that the Saudis were concerned. And the administration would surely would have heard loud and clear just how concerned the Saudis would be, and would understand how that might threaten our oil supply.
Whatever the case may have been then, and whatever the case may be now, it is interesting that what is not said (in this case, what is not said by Israel) speaks volumes.