On States and Nations

A reader recently commented that states and nations are two interchangeable entities and that if I were to look in a dictionary I would be enlightened to that fact.  Following his advice, I looked in the Oxford English Dictionary and was presented with the following two definitions:

nation:  a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

state: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one, or the civil government of a country.  

Indeed, there is a great deal of overlap.  States often comprise of whole nations and are therefore termed nation-states.  Examples of nation-states abound in our international system, overwhelmingly in Europe, as a result of the 19th century's nationalist movements (e.g.- England, France, Germany, Italy, etc).  By and large, territory and nation overlap in these cases.  In that regard my dear reader was quite correct, the term nation and state can be interchangeable, but even in Europe there are plenty of states who proclaim themselves as one-nation states and are not (Spain, Bulgaria, and Russia).
But if we zoom out of Europe and analyze the entirely of our international system, we find the overlap of nation and state to be quite rarer.  Most states are not composed of a single population united by commonalities, and indeed are more often than not deeply divided societies.  Territorial boundaries were arbitrarily drawn to enclose a population under a single political body with no regard to linguistic, cultural, historical, or ethnic distinctions.  A prime example of this is Iraq, where no Iraqi nationality existed prior to its creation by the British, and to this day no Iraqi nation resides in the Iraqi state.
Which brings us to Israel.  Zionism is a nineteenth century Jewish nationalist movement based on a two-thousand year religious, historical, and cultural bond.  Its successful creation of a Jewish homeland established Israel as a one-nation state despite the existence of a substantial non-Jewish minority within its borders.  Whereas all inhabitants have Israeli citizenship regardless of ethnie, nationality is determined by ethnic classification.  Under Israeli law, there is no Israeli nationality, no Israeli nation, and consequently no holders of Israeli nationality.  There is undoubtedly a distinct non-Jewish minority that resides among a Jewish nation.  To say Israel is a nation-state -- or even a nation -- is false, for over twenty percent of its citizens do not share the linguistic, cultural, historical, or ethnic heritage of that Jewish majority.
Globalization and the mingling of peoples has rendered nationalism -- political and emotional association with a particular patria -- obsolescent.  Populations within many states are increasingly composed of many backgrounds who do not associate with the national identity.  Many modern states have replaced bygone nationalism with constitutional patriotism -- collective association with the values enshrined in a constitutional document --  and have become states of their citizens rather than nation-states.
For Israel to remain a functioning state in years to come, it must adjust to the present circumstances and identify as a state of its constituents, rather than a state of one nation at the exclusion of others.

A Settlement Freeze

As Netanyahu begs for forgiveness and belittles the intelligence of his superiors (telling Obama it was a matter of bureaucracy), the potential for a real settlement freeze lies not with the Israelis but with the Palestinians. Has no one noticed the sincere lack of Israeli construction workers? Anyone who has visited a construction site in either Israel proper or in the territories (especially in Jerusalem) has noticed that all of the labourers are Arab, with the rarity of a few Chinese faces present as well. The fact is that it remains in the power of the Palestinian people to put a complete halt to construction if only the members of their society would refuse to work at controversial sites. Certainly there is no lack of construction in Israel proper, so the Palestinians could simply decided to not work at any sites in East Jerusalem or in the West Bank.

Obviously, they show up to the very work that undermines the existence of their state, because they need the money. But it is all political posturing to declare that the power to end settlements exists only in the Knesset. Even the separation fence between the West Bank and Israel proper was built by a majority of Palestinian labourers. What is the political allegiance of these labourers? Are they linked to Fatah or Hamas? Unaffiliated? One is led to believe that most Palestinians take their political cues from their higher ups in whichever organisation to which they belong. Can there be no unanimity amongst such organisations to ensure that their members refuse to work in building sites that are considered illegal by international law, and undesirable by their constituents?

Obviously things would be made simpler if Netanyahu's government would truly enforce a freeze to allow the resumption of peace talks. Nevertheless, the Palestinians have a card that they refuse to play. Rather than intifadas and days of random violence - simply go on strike! The pace of settlement building will come to a halt if the all the territories are left with only 5 migrant Chinese workers once the Palestinians refuse to build. These buildings are not spoken into existence by committees at the Housing Ministry.

A Cause to Unite

A sad fact I have noted in my years on campus at Tel Aviv University is the limited scope of interest the student body has in activism of any sort, but particularly concerning anything outside domestic issues of this tiny city-state.  I've seen Israeli activists protesting and supporting the Israeli government and its policies.  I've seen Arab students chipping in their two cents against the Gaza War.  I've seen political parties as varied as Labor, Likud, Chadash, and Yisrael Chazaka.  Without a doubt, though, campus has far more party promoters, cell phone companies, and newspaper subscription salesmen than student activists.  One can barely walk five feet from the main gate before being bombarded by flyers, but to find someone on a soapbox selling social change you have to look hard in dark corners.
Besides party politics, the Tel Aviv campus seems especially deprived of student activism compared to its American and Canadian counterparts.  In Toronto one could scarcely go from one building to another without encountering posters or protesters campaigning a cause: Save the Seals, Israel Apartheid Week, LGBTQ, Pro-Choice, Save Darfur, Israel Appreciation Week, Jesus Saves, Down with Bush; I'm sure I don't do justice to the horde.
When I saw "The Cove" a couple weeks ago, the itch to act scratched up my back.  The raw unavoidable emotion, the humane anguish, the derring-do and drive of the film's heroes -- all of these pushed me to do something here in Tel Aviv.  The Academy Award-winning documentary was never released in Israel, and my peers with whom I have spoken appear unaware of its existence or the splash it has made in חו''ל (ִִִhool: literally "outside of The Land": a provincially-minded Hebrew abbreviation denoting the other 99.9% of the globe).  By organizing a free screening of the film at TAU, I hope to raise awareness to a universal, domestic politics-irrelevant cause that Right- and Left-wing, Jewish and Arab students and faculty alike can unite around.

The Wise Words of Muammar al-Gaddafi

The 1991-92 school year was one of the most recognizable turning points in my stunted pseudo-intellectual development. Little did I know that a single-paged, handwritten (in script, if I may) assigned report about Libya would subconsciously kick-start my passion for studying about and eventually trying to comprehend the inanity of politics within the Middle East and the Arab world. To add a little icing to the cake, I can definitely say that I was probably in a handful of kids under the age of eight that knew who the leader of Libya was and even how to pronounce his name. If you can honestly tell me that you knew Muammar al-Gaddafi was the leader of Libya when you were 7-years old or even that Libya rested strategically in the North of Africa between Algeria and Egypt – I will welcome you into my elite club of “overly informed” second-graders. I would go even further to say that many adult Americans today still cannot pinpoint Libya on the map.

Muammar al-Gaddafi – often referred to as the “Mad Dog” – looks like a cross between a wealthy Bedouin herdsman and a theatrical representation of King Henry VIII. Theatrics such as tearing the UN charter to shreds in front of the General Assembly, calling for jihad against Switzerland and pitching his Bedouin tent on the lawn of the Palais de l' Elysées (the French presidential palace) are just a few of his highlight moments (we won’t delve into the fact of whether or not he is still a factor in the state sponsor of terrorism). Despite Gaddafi’s circus of lunacy, however, the “Colonel” has proven that he can occasionally throw a few wise words our way. In one of his diatribes about the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaddafi articulately summed up the current state of affairs with the following words:

“I cannot recognize either the Palestinian state or the Israeli state. The Palestinians are idiots and the Israelis are idiots.”

And although I cannot come to agree with nearly any of the garbage emanating from Gaddafi’s mouth (i.e.: creating a single state called “Israstine” – although that may one day be the reality if the status-quo remains in its current state of anarchy), his words resonate quite well within the context of where we have been, where we are now and the direction in which we are headed, as it appears to be – especially after the most recent “stabs” issued by each side.

Whether or not the recent building plan set forth by the Israeli Interior Ministry will or will not be started for at least a number of years is not the question at hand. Whether or not naming a street in Ramallah after a female suicide bomber responsible for the deaths of many Israelis legitimizes the use of terror and incites the possibility for future incidents is not the issue at hand. What is festering itself however, is why these measures are being implemented at a time when the United States has given its biggest push to facilitate the resumption of peace talks. Although these recent events may be relatively minor within the grand scale of an overall agreement, an arrogance has been portrayed by both sides by flashing a giant middle finger in the face of the US while making our leaders look like incompetent children. Right now, there is absolutely no need to be poking holes in the already fragile levies. Instead, there needs to be a resurrection and recognition regarding each others’ aspirations and realize that creating two states for two people’s is going to ultimately save the nationalistic self-determination exhibited by each side. The facts are real and the reality is scary: both the Zionist dream and its Palestinian counterpart will fail miserably if both sides don’t accept the vision of its adversary.

Biden Forgot Piss and Vinegar on Trip to Land of Milk and Honey

Thursday at Tel Aviv University, Vice President Joseph Biden addressed an auditorium jam-packed with adoring fans willing to wait three hours for his arrival.  The atmosphere seemed more like a concert than a political talk.  After taking what Jon Stewart bluntly called a "kick to the nuts"-- i.e.- the Israeli government's announcement of settlement construction at Ramat Shlomo on arrival in Israel-- many expected Biden to come out swinging in defense of American dignity and the peace process.  This was his only public appearance during his weeklong visit to Israel, and the Vice President's only chance to denounce the Netanyahu administration's eellike, puerile, "I do what I want" policies.
Despite having 1,600 housing units thrown in his face on alighting in Lod earlier this week, however, Biden got up and brown-nosed Israel like only a life-long politician could.  His outpouring of adoration for the Jewish State sounded more like a pro-Israeli campus ad campaign than a discussion of peace process prospects.  His praise for Americans who make aliyah outdoes Nefesh B'Nefesh.  The Vice President layered on his love in fifteen minutes of praise and personal accounts explaining his undying appreciation for Israel.  Twiddling his tongue ever-closer to the Israeli ear as he whispered sweet nothings, he lavished Israel with affirmations that the United States has "no better friend among the community of nations than Israel".
To quote Ebenezer Scrooge: "Bah! Humbug!"
Simply put, Biden pandered to the Israeli crowd and only condemned the Israeli government's brash policies in passing -- a single sentence and that was all.  He stood up and politicianed his way through the speech -- committing nothing but fluffy words and party catch phrases.  I ask, where is the vim, vinegar, and verve Biden displayed on the Senate floor railing against the Iraq War?  He spoke about commitment to the peace process;  he would have convinced me of American commitment to impartial conflict resolution had he denounced the Israeli government's presumptuous flagrancy.  Instead, I saw a politician (not a statesman) posturing for a peace process but not to peace progress, and just heaping more rhetoric onto the pile.

A Letter and a Question to Mr. Biden

Dear Mr. Joseph Biden, Vice President of the United States,

I wish to thank you for your very meaningful speech yesterday and I believe I speak for most Israelis when I say we are very appreciative of that gesture. I believe your mere presence in Israel on such critical time is a statement on its own, a living proof of the commitment and support you have so colorfully depicted at the auditorium. Simply being there, in the company of the highest possible ambassador of the strongest country in the world has touched and moved many hearts, mine included. You were very right in understanding Golda's utterance "we have no other place to go" – in a very strong sense, this is still the ruling mentality of the people of Israel. The way in which you have dealt with the questions posed to you by the audience (one of which was made by a very close friend of mine who sat next to me during your speech) was admirable and respectful, and I can only feel invigorated by the fact that my country has such strong support from your country as well as you personally.

However, I do, Mr. Biden, have a question of my own to ask you.

On his tour to other parts of the world, President Obama visited all of America's allies. In Asia, he started with Japan, the closest American ally in the region, not forgetting China and Korea right after, in each giving and receiving speeches of good will and encouragement for a better future. In Europe, he started with the U.K, and went on to give a speech in Germany and then met with Sarkozy in France, and last but not least, Turkey.

How can be it explained, that on his middle-eastern tour, the President started with Saudi Arabia and concluded with the most famous speech in Cairo and simply "skipped" the Holy Land?

The absence from Israel has silently roared.

In light of all the support and pronounced commitment to Israel, how can the fact that President Obama, after more than year in office still has not visited Israel, be explained?

Is this a statement as well?

“I Am Not Representing Israel”

“It’s a must, you have to see it!” my friend was screaming on the phone. She said it’s a movie that includes all the nuances about life in Ajami, a Jaffa neighborhood famous even in Hollywood these days.

Co-director Scandar Copti announced earlier this week that although “the movie represents Israel. I am a citizen of Israel but do not represent it. I cannot represent a country that does not represent me.” He later added, “I am not the Israeli national team”.

Now, dear Israelis, does that sound extreme to you? Because if it does, deal with it. I personally don’t agree with Scandar, but who are we to judge? Don’t you think it is time to deal with such statement in an in-depth discussion? When was the last time we heard about Jaffa in the news? Don’t you think that Minister Limor Livnat should deal with fair and equal budgeting rather than a populist declaration about a movie? Now with all due respect to Ajami (the neighborhood, not the movie) it’s just a symptom of the illness, one that is harming our society the more we ignore it, namely, dealing with the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli minority.

“Arabic shouldn’t be an official language”, declared Limor Livnat back in 2008 when attempting to draft a bill to demote Arabic from being an official language in Israel (not that it actually is). Is she in a position to criticize Scandar for not feeling as an integrative part of Israel? She couldn’t care less about Scandar’s statements.

Now, dear Scandar, don’t you think you should have dealt with this otherwise? Let me tell you this: Israelis (in general) are very sensitive about this; you know it better than I do. What’s this? Criticism. Criticizing is a legit act, remember, Ajami? That was pure legit criticism. You managed to almost sum up each and every aspect of criticism inside out - criticism towards the government, towards Israelis, and even towards our own society. Criticism is one thing, denouncing is something else. Through Ajami people are more aware of the difficulty of being Arab in Israeli society. Walking out on the problem doesn’t resolve anything. Stick with us in this, it might eventually work.

I’ve never met Scandar, but I daresay he is the ultimate example of the typical Palestinian/Arab Israeli. People, get a grip and deal with this. Try to look at the bigger picture. It is not a matter of funding, remember Elia Suleiman? He ended up living… not in Israel. We don’t want that to happen to Scandar, right?

“Armenian Genocide” – Putting Pressure on Turkey

This week a U.S House of Representatives committee voted on redefining the Armenian massacre, something Turkey has been trying to avoid for years.  In an unprecedented move, the House decided to change its stance on the matter and term it genocide. 

At first glance the decision seems insensitive to the national sentiment of America’s ally.  Just a few months ago, Turkey and Armenia signed a “historical agreement and established diplomatic relations for the first time in a century”.  The House's decision lacks appropriate timing.
  

So why vote in favor of a resolution with such an explosive potential?

An article in New York Times states that President Obama’s personal view of the issue, since serving in the Senate, has been recognition of the massacre as genocide.  This corresponds with his former profession as a civil rights attorney, but not with his realist stance in international relations -- perhaps best manifested by his willingness to negotiate with a the Tehran regime.

If Obama is a realist, then there must be a good reason for him to support this resolution.

Although the author of this article is a fan of Putnam’s two-level game theory, I believe the recent voting is not for domestic popularity reasons.   I doubt the Armenian lobby in Washington, tacitly mentioned in the New York Times article cited before, is strong enough to have any influence on this matter.  Had he really wanted, Obama could have blocked the resolution with relative ease as Bush did in 2007.

It is possible that the present support of the resolution is a pressure mechanism meant to coerce Turkey to fall back in line with its Western allies.   The vote comes at a time when cooperation between moderate Middle Eastern powers over the Iranian issue is imperative.  Voting for a resolution that acknowledges the Armenian massacre as a genocide sends the following message to Turkey: rejoin the west or jump the fence and join Iran.   If this is the case, then this is a very good example of Obama’s realism.  If Turkey folds (takes a step away from Iran) then the efforts will bear fruit.  If not, it will be very interesting to see what Turkey’s next move will be.

Film Politics - Really?

For the third straight year, Israel lost in its bid to win the award for Best Foreign Film at the prestigious and often repulsively glorified Academy Awards in Los Angeles. Ajami, a joint production by an Israeli Christian-Arab and Israeli Jew, followed in the “award-less” footsteps of its predecessors Waltz with Bashir and Beaufort.

Not winning an Oscar can hardly discredit Ajami as a brilliant theatrical composition. The directors were willing to take a chance by not using trained actors – instead opting to fill the roles with people that actually lived each particular part on a daily basis – as well as giving the international community a work that strays away from the recurring topics in most Israel films: war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of course, the always popular existential question having to do with the state of Israel itself.

Although the focus of this film was not centered on the political issues for which Israel is accustomed to being known, it is nearly impossible to assume that an Israeli produced film would not touch on some of the underlying and ever-present societal conflicts that have helped mold the identity of Israel’s complex structural nature. Without delving too deep into the message of the film, one simple thing that we can easily take away is this: Ajami is a film portraying some of the internal conflicts that often show themselves within the web of Israeli demographics. Again, we are forced to look at ourselves – Israel with its many warts – and humbly recognize our shortcomings.

Unfortunately, one of the films producers, Scandar Copti, could not accept the fact that he would be claiming the award on behalf of Israel - an Israeli film, which happened to be funded by Israeli government grants for Arts and Entertainment. It is known that Copti is a vocal critic of Israel’s policies towards its Arab population – and rightfully he should be. Clearly, there is a plethora of imbalances that separates the non-Jewish Arab sector from its Jewish neighbors. As Copti informed reporters, ''I can't represent a country that doesn't represent me” and that while the film is “technically” Israeli because it received government funding, he does not see himself as an emissary for Israel.

Copti does not have to be an ambassador or as he says, an “emissary” for Israel, nor does he have to speak on behalf of his pride in being Israeli – or lack there of. In fact, he does not even have to speak about Israel at all. What he does have to recognize however, is that it was those technicalities in funding that allowed his film to be produced. So “technically”, yes, it is an Israeli film and “technically”, he is representing Israel as the individual that received those grants. He does not have to represent Israel politically, and he is more than welcome to discuss the struggle that goes along with claiming an award based on Israeli funding. Yet, he must know that as an Israeli citizen, he was eligible and did receive government money to realize his goals. Therefore, anyway he looks at the situation; he is representing Israel – or at least, its artistic achievements

Again, he does not have to be a political spokesman and gloat about Israel, but he MUST be able to accept that without Israeli-government backing, he may not have had the funds to produce the very such film that asks us to look in the mirror and examine some of the many mistakes we have made as a society. If Copti really wanted to project his voice, he would accept being a representative of Israel while using that to his advantage in affecting the changes for which he is so vocal.

If nothing more, Copti, as an artist, should be able to recognize and appreciate the artistic milestones (of which he has helped to contribute) that have come out of Israel, both Israeli Jew and Arab alike. As much as Israel may appear to unequivocally discriminate against its Arab citizens, its seems like the government is well prepared to reward substantial funding to anyone who displays the ability to artistically influence its society as Scandar Copti knows better than most. It would be a shame not to be proud of this.

The Iranian Nuclear Strategy – an Unconventional Approach

The uncertainty about the Iranian nuclear strategy has caused great tension in the Middle East and has re-centred the foreign policy agendas of world's biggest powers. An article written in January 2010 by Ephraim Kam and Ephraim Asculai from the Institute of National Security Studies predicts the timeline for the Iranian nuclear capability and reveals unprecedented, updated information about the Iranian nuclear program. After analyzing this article and current geo-political realities, I argue that Iran has stopped the progress of its nuclear military program on the verge of nuclear capability and can resume it at any time when a political decision about it will be taken. Iran will resume the final stages of the program, if and only, when it increases its regional dominance and will be able to endure the consequences of becoming a nuclear state. Moreover, being on the verge of having nuclear capability allows it to maintain an ambiguous image of its nuclear program. This image is aimed, firstly, at pretending not to be involved in a nuclear weapons program -- and therefore avoid international condemnations -- and, secondly, at at provoking an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. I substantiate my argument on the following technological indicators and current political developments.

First, according to the IAEA, Iran is only enriching uranium up to 20%, which is the highest level of so-called "lower enriched uranium". Maintaining this uranium enrichment level allows Iran to claim that the uranium is meant for medical purposes. Since this level is legally acceptable for civilian purposes by IAEA, Iran avoids international suspicion and crimination. At the same time, producing and storing large amounts of 20% enriched Uranium significantly shortens the time required to reach 90% uranium, necessary for military purposes (the first stages of enrichment are much longer than the last stages of enrichment).
Second, not all of the gas centrifuges in the Natanz facility for enriching uranium are currently operating. It is possible that these centrifuges are aimed at enriching the 20% lower enriched uranium to high enriched uranium in the event this decision is made.
Third, the purpose for building the recently-discovered Qom enrichment facility could be this very same purpose: high volume production of high enriched uranium in a short amount of time. Once Iran decides to continue with the military nuclear process it will be able to reach nuclear capability within several months.

Political analysis supports the argument that Iran chose to halt its nuclear race until it accomplishes its main foreign policy goal and becomes a stronger regional power. Upon gaining more control in the Middle East, Iran would be less susceptible to international sanctions and isolation, which it would almost certainly incur when it declares to have nuclear capability. To achieve greater supremacy in the Middle East, time favors the Iranian nuclear strategy and works against Iran's two main adversaries: the US and Israel.

The US plans on withdrawing its troops from Iraq by the end of 2010 and begin pulling out troops from Afghanistan in 2011. Both are Iran's neighbors. After the American withdrawal, Iran can increase its influence in the weak regimes of these countries, especially within the Shi'ite population of Iraq. Furthermore, it will have more time to strengthen its ties with Syria and Lebanon (via Hezbollah) and continue weakening Saudi Arabia by supporting Shi'ite Yemeni rebels. It will continue developing its bilateral relations with Qatar, home of the most influential Arab language television network – Al-Jazeera – and of one of the largest American military bases in the Middle East.

The Iranian strategy towards Israel also gains more leverage as time goes by. From the Israeli perspective, time is of the essence in stopping Iran before it reaches nuclear capability and poses a threat to Israeli's existence. Iranian leaders intentionally exacerbate the possible threat by using Holocaust-related rhetoric, putting pressure on the Israeli public and decision-makers to act before it's be too late. Iran's real interest lies not in launching a nuclear attack on Israel but in weakening Israel by creating an illusory nuclear threat and provoking an undue Israeli strike.

An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities may stall the Iranian nuclear program, but it would cost Israel dearly. A unilateral attack would breach Israel-US trust (the Americans are opposed to such a measure), as well as result in further international isolation of Israel for violating Iranian sovereignty without any solid evidence. Moreover, Israel would suffer international repercussions for the radioactive fallout and whatever resultant civilian and environmental damage. The Iranian regime could also use the Israeli attack to assuage recent anti-government sentiments by uniting Iranians around the flag and singling Israel out as the universal Iranian foe.
Iran would then have the international legitimacy to retaliate with an attack by Hezbollah or Syria, and could perhaps do so while a significant part of the Israeli Air Force is away from home. In the attack's aftermath, Iran could chose to slowly rebuild its nuclear program in the name of self defense with international blessing.

It is therefore reasonable to believe that this nuclear strategy serves Iran's interest in becoming a regional power. It is also plausible that Iran simply wishes to maintain a policy of nuclear ambiguity, similar to unofficial Israeli nuclear policy. According to Kam and Asculai’s article, the Israeli and American intelligence services share the idea that Iran currently stopped its race to construct a nuclear bomb. The question remains whether Israeli decision makers would rely on professional political analysis when deliberating on attacking Iran. Past experience, and the unexplained decision to distribute gas masks to Israeli civilians this March, could tell otherwise.

Thoughts on Dubai: The View From Alabama

On January 19, 2010 HAMAS military commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was killed in his hotel room in Dubai.  Since his body was first discovered, most people assumed that this was the work of the highly secretive Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.  The investigation into these originally 11, then 16, then 23, now nearly 30 suspects (I’ve stopped trying to keep track of how many are supposedly involved now) has been both entertaining and nerve wracking.  We’ve gotten to watch Dubai police chief Gen. Dahi Khalfan al-Tamim call out the head of Mossad like a professional wrestler challenging him to “Be a man…” and admit that Mossad killed al-Mabhouh.  It has been nerve-wracking in that every time a new piece of evidence is turned up I bite my fingernails hoping that this isn’t “the smoking gun” that could incriminate Israel.  If solid evidence were to actually turn up it would be a diplomatic disaster for the Jewish State.  However, this evidence has not surfaced yet and it does not appear that it will.  While this whole incident will likely blow over like a summer afternoon thunderstorm in Alabama, there are some intriguing questions to ponder.

Beyond the political theatrics and challenges to Mossad’s masculinity, this story has some serious questions to consider.  The first question that comes to mind is, “Did Israel actually do it?”  While there is no absolute proof that Israel did, in fact, assassinate al-Mabhouh there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Jerusalem.  The first bit of “evidence” (and I emphasize the quotation marks) is that not many other people care enough about al-Mabhouh to actually go to these lengths to kill him.  Sure, most Western governments wouldn’t have minded if he would have turned up sans-pulse in a Middle Eastern back alley, but to actually send dozens of agents on a covert mission shows motivation.  You can’t blame the Israelis for wanting this guy out of the picture.  His proudest achievement in life was kidnapping and murdering a couple of Jews during the First Intifada.  The Israelis had motivation to kill al-Mabhouh, motivation that – until recently – everybody believed only Israel had (HAMAS has recently pointed the finger at Egyptian and Jordanian security services – this is something to monitor).  The second major piece of “evidence” (again, I emphasize the quotation marks) implicating Israel is the sophisticated nature of the operation.  Somehow several dozen spies managed to slip into the country, track their target, silently kill him in his own bed, and then simply vanish into thin air.  Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because the operatives were caught on camera wearing tennis outfits that they were amateurs.  According to former CIA field officer Robert Baer, “The truth is that Mr. Mabhouh's assassination was conducted according to the book—a military operation in which the environment is completely controlled by the assassins”.  The authorities in Dubai will, in all likelihood, never discover the identities of the people who killed al-Mabhouh.  All they can do is curse the Zionists from their comfort of their extraordinarily opulent palaces.  Perhaps the most single most incriminating piece of evidence against Israel is that several of the fake passports used contained the identities of actual Israeli residents.  Why these peoples’ names were used is beyond my understanding.  I can’t speculate why this part of the operation occurred as it did.  Altogether the circumstantial evidence is enough to convince me that Israel did it; but you know, I know, the Dubai authorities, the Mossad, and countless ticked off European Foreign Ministers know that the evidence just isn’t strong enough to definitively point the finger at Israel.  As Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman put it when speaking to the European press in Belgium: “I think you all have been watching too many James Bond movies”.

The second question that I have pondered is, “What will the fallout from all this be?”  Ever since it became known that forged European passports were used to enter Dubai the European press has been alight with articles condemning Israel for the alleged crime of falsifying EU passports.  Israeli ambassadors have been summoned, foreign ministries are demanding answers, and Israel is just not cooperating.  Israel has a policy of “strategic ambiguity” when it comes to matters such as this.  In this case, this is probably the best course of action to take.  If the Israeli Ambassador to France even attempts to answer the questions about how a French passport came to be used in the assassination then he has just admitted guilt.  It’s best just to stay quiet at times like these.  Ehud Barak did a fabulous job of this on CNN this past Sunday during his interview with Christiane Amanpour.  She repeatedly asked Barak questions related to the assassination and was greeted by several seconds of stony silence followed by, “I will not answer any question having to do with this subject”.  In truth, if Israel really wanted to show some chutzpah FM Lieberman could just as well summon the European ambassadors and demand an explanation for why the EU passports used in the operation had the names of Israeli citizens!  Honestly though, I don’t think even Lieberman has “beitzim” that large.  So, half of Europe is mad at Israel.  What’s new?  I personally do not believe that the Europeans are as mad as they are putting on.  You have to understand that there is a bit of theatrics to all of this.  They have to put on a certain amount of a show for a while and then let the story die down.  The Europeans are going to huff, they are going to puff, but in the end they don’t want to try and blow the Israeli house down.  Unless there is new piece of evidence that turns out to be the “smoking gun” this whole story will blow over in a few more weeks.  By the time of the World Cup this summer everybody will have forgotten the whole affair--everybody except Israel’s terrorist enemies.

The third question that I recently began to ponder is the true nature of the regime in Dubai and the media’s apparent bias against Israel.  I will give credit where it is due.  I was inspired by Jerusalem Post blogger Petra Marquardt-Bigman in her blog “The Warped Mirror: Spinning the Death of a Terrorist” (http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/warpedmirror/entry/spinning_the_death_of_a ).  In her article Ms. Marquardt astutely notes that both the media and the Dubai authorities seem to be much more concerned with finding out who killed the terrorist than in figuring out why this terrorist was in Dubai.  This is a very troubling fact.  It would seem that the media and Dubai authorities would be equally – if not more – concerned with the latter question than the former.  Apparently Dubai authorities are very astute as finding the alleged assassins on CCTV, but where are the videos of the al-Mabhouh conducting his illicit business?  It has been suggested that he was in Dubai in order to secure weapons for HAMAS to use against Israel.  Why aren’t we seeing video tapes of al-Mabhouh meeting with his terrorist contacts?  Why aren’t the Dubai authorities opening investigations into the illegal international weapons smuggling apparently being conducted on their soil? Why are the media berating Israeli officials, but not even bothering to ask the Dubai police if they are investigating the weapons smuggling being conducted on their soil?  The answer is simple: answering those questions doesn’t make Israel look bad.

The fourth question that came to my mind was, “Why this guy al-Mabhouh?" Was he really that valuable?  Certainly al-Mabhouh was a disgusting terrorist who was involved in international arms smuggling and murder.  He probably deserved what happened to him. But, that still does not answer the question of why Israel decided to assassinate him (if indeed Israel did do it)?  While al-Mabhouh was a high ranking HAMAS official he is certainly not the “Ace of Spades” of that organization.  Also, Israel would more than likely have been able to track the weapons he bought and interdict them before they got to the Gaza strip.  I believe the question of “Why al-Mabhouh” can be answered by understanding where he was killed.  According to the Global Post Dubai has, “replaced Beirut as the place where deals are done, secrets are sold and scores are settled”. Apparently al-Mabhouh was so comfortable traveling to Dubai that he did not even bother to travel there under an assumed identity.  This shows that terrorists have gotten too comfortable in Dubai.  Al-Mabhouh was killed in Dubai to prove a point.  The Mossad wanted to prove a point to HAMAS and Hezbollah that they are not safe anywhere.  This is akin to the Israeli bombardment of a shipment of Iranian weapons in Sudan which were headed for Gaza.  Sure, Israel probably could have taken out the weapons while they were being smuggled in from Egypt, but blowing them up in Sudan sends a stronger message.

So that’s what this was all about in the end: deterrence.  Israel has lived by its deterrent capability for the past six decades and periodically has to reinforce it.  This top HAMAS official felt so comfortable that he traveled under his real name to Dubai.  The Sudanese felt so comfortable that they had a massive convoy of weapons travelling in broad day light.  When the situation reaches that point the Israelis will feel that they have to send a message to their terrorist enemies.  The terrorists need to be constantly looking over their shoulders wondering if a Mossad agent is in the hotel with them or if F-16s are just over the horizon heading their way.  The terrorists must be constantly afraid, confused, and paranoid so as to disrupt their operational capability.  Lebanese Hezbollah MP Nawaf Moussawi was quoted on March 2^nd as saying, “We must tighten foreign passport control at the airport and elsewhere in the country…Every Lebanese and Arab must deal with holders of foreign passports as potential spies”.  

Apparently he got the message.

How to Pick an Israeli Out of a Crowd

Dubai Police Chief Dahi Khalfan Tamim, the master sleuth investigating the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, has identified many of the suspected murderers as Israeli agents.  Israelis will no longer be allowed into the Emirate, even if traveling under another passport.  As Haaretz reported, Tamim aims to train the Dubai police to " 'develop skills' to recognize Israelis by 'physical features and the way they speak' ".
As a trained Israeli-sniffer, well-practiced at the art of picking an Israeli out of a crowd, allow me to offer my professional assistance to the Chief Inspector.  Here are five quick and easy ways to pick out an Israeli based on "physical features and the way they speak":


1)  Hair: Israeli men above the age of thirty rarely have any hair.  Any middle-aged male with a shaved head who does not look like Michael Jordan might very well be Israeli.  Their horns are all the more apparent on a bare scalp, so keep an eye out.  Women above the age of forty dye their hair a hideous reddish hue in order to ward away the evil eye and attract stray cats.  
2) Nose: As Jews, Israelis are easily distinguished by their oversized, unsightly, and aquiline noses.  They are reportedly designed to take advantage of free air.  Refer to Dubai policing manual or Protocols of Elders of Zion for further details.  
3) Clothing: Any indigenously retailed Zionist clothing will have certain noticable features.  T-shirts will have unintelligible and nonsensical statements in English scrawled all over.  Once popular "fisherman's pants", though still 'in' amongst hippies, are now passé; jeans with unnecessary pockets, loops, or rips are "cool".  Women tend to wear jeans tight around the legs but baggy about the hips-- so called "shit-my pants"-- and nearly exclusively boots.  
4) English: Though confident of their proficiency, there are a number of "Israeli-isms" typical to their English.  First, inability to pronounce a short "i", resulting in a lack of differentiation between "sheet" and "shit" or "beach" and "bitch".  Second, improper use of the present continuous, for example: "I am liking your shirt! It is having many cool words in English!" Third (but most certainly not last), inability to pronounce words longer than four syllables, because they don't exist indigenously in Hebrew (e.g.- Massachusetts, tetrahedron, idiosyncracy, or antidisestablishmentarianism).  
5) Manners: Even if an Israeli can manage to harness the English language and mask his accent, there is no way  to impress manners upon him.  Try as they might, most Israelis can never manage to integrate please, thank you, or you're welcome into their English, and this is a certain means of distinguishing them.  


Needless to say, while the above are obvious truisms concerning native Israelis, the fact remains that Commandant Tamim is completely unaware of the great diversity of Israelis.  There is no way to determine someone Israeli based on looks either, for Israel's population is a great melting pot of phenotypes.  As for language, there is no way to accurately distinguish an Israeli of American extraction from an American, nor an Israeli from Argentinean background from an Argentinean based on accent.  There are plenty of Israelis out there with impeccable English, French, Spanish, and Russian (and even some with impeccable style) that can not be easily picked out of a crowd based on how they speak; multilingualism prevents accurately determining nationality.  
Tamim's proposal is preposterous.