Following another round of violence, terrorism and destruction in which the Islamist terrorist organization Hamas fired thousands of rockets at Israeli citizens, oversaw the destruction of its own infrastructure and brought unimaginable pain to citizens in the Gaza Strip, the Resistance Axis declared victory. Observers were rightly shocked by such infantile and irresponsible behavior. Yet, given the symbolic nature of Middle Eastern life, Hamas did not mean for its victory to be measured by human lives nor dollars, but with significant symbolic gains. Once again, Israelis are the center of Middle Eastern power struggles.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Can Hamas overcome Israel in any military action? I don't believe anyone would think so, including the leaders of the Iranian-led Resistance Axis. Even those terrorist leaders are mostly intelligent, the goals of their actions are otherwise.

Given the statements by Hamas leaders, Iran and Hezbollah, one should not dismiss their triumphalism as mere fiction. Those statements are meant to capitalize on significant symbolic gains that Hamas achieved in the last round of violence. In the 1950s and 1960s, various regional powers were engaged in intense conflicts over who owned the rights to the symbolic powers of "Arab-ness." The rise of Islamism since the late 1970s replaced the stumbling Arabist symbolic system with the more powerful and stable symbolic arsenal of Islam. In a previous article, I point to how the Muslim Brotherhood is a project lacking meaningful political substance and completely relies on symbols.

This reality of Middle Eastern politics is the reason many Western experts with professional training in power balancing, military capacity and force projection fail to understand the region. When Hamas leader Khaled Mashal recently stated, "Hamas now leads the Palestinian struggle," he was not alluding to military capabilities or diplomatic influence, but precisely to the symbolic goal that Hamas is trying to achieve. The Iranian support and the recent remarks by Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, were steps towards tapping into recent symbolic gains.

Israelis keep pointing to the fact that events in Jerusalem, Gaza and the Israeli interior were not connected. Although this is empirically true, symbolic activities are by definition transcendent and not bound by empirical reality. Iran and Hamas saw a golden opportunity for a power grab when the events of Sheikh Jarrah and Jerusalem made their way into the mainstream media, particularly given the recent decline of Islamism in the region since 2013, the cancellation of Palestinian elections and the ongoing negotiations in Vienna about the Iran nuclear deal.

Events that take place in Jerusalem are already an extremely powerful symbol, as the city holds value for the Islamic ultimate moral truth. Ramadan, when most of the violence occurred, is the most saturated time of the year for the world's Muslims as time itself becomes consecrated. Iran and Hamas saw a perfect moment when a sacred space intersected with a sacred time.

Hamas's domestic goal was to support mobilization against the Palestinian Authority, clearly achieved as West Bank Palestinians and eastern Jerusalem Palestinians rallied around the banners of Hamas and even expelled the P.A.'s imam from the Al-Aqsa mosque during Friday prayers; they had successfully achieved support from the local Muslim population. Likewise, following the 2013 removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, the popularity of the Brotherhood and all its Islamist associates witnessed a sharp decline. Arab regimes declared outright war on Islamism both symbolically and materially; the effects were felt by all of the so-called Resistance Axis.

To start a war with Israel "for Jerusalem," was, by this logic, not a foolish or ill-calculated step. It was an extremely clever move in which Hamas and the coalition of which it is a part were able to upstage their regional rivals – Egypt and the Arab Gulf – as the custodians of the most valuable symbols in the region and to bring back the "Palestinian cause" to the forefront of the agenda. Middle Eastern power struggles are all about legitimacy and illegitimacy.

Seen this way, this indeed was a victory. Egypt was compelled to walk back on its hard-headed anti-Hamas positions: Egyptian TV is interviewing Hamas resistance heroes, something that would have been unthinkable only a year ago; Hezbollah is able to strengthen its position in the midst of the Lebanese economic crisis; and Iran continued outbid the Arabs in the most symbolically consequential cause as the representatives of Islam. This is all in addition to Qatar becoming propaganda headquarters during the crisis. Seen this way, Hamas's declaration of victory poses serious challenges for the region. Given this culturally frustrating reality of the Middle East, the Palestinian scene is likely to only get more complex.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Internationally, the situation is not much different. Gradual and consequential cultural changes throughout the last decades created a clear shift in American-led global culture from a word-based culture to symbol- and image-based culture, in which politics through symbols is more expedient. In other words, American culture is starting to gradually resemble that of the Middle East.

As such a shift moves further, Palestinian symbolism will become more intelligible to wider segments of Western societies than arguments for Israel. Pro-Palestinian activists and even Palestinians themselves are already capitalizing through the strategic deployment of the name of George Floyd and references to Black Lives Matter, so-called "equality" and so on. If such a trend continues, making any empirical or fact-based arguments for the rights of a Jewish state will be extremely difficult. After all, to be Jewish is to be bookish.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Symbolic warfare in the Middle East appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In a recently leaked recording, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was heard hurling a slew of insults at the world: "[obscenity] China, [obscenity] Russia, [obscenity] America and [obscenity] all the Arabs." Surprisingly, Israel was absent from the inclusive lineup. Abbas was also reported in early April to have refused a call from US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, asking for it to come instead from the Oval Office. Such incidences, coupled with the rising tension in Jerusalem and the indefinite delay of the Palestinian elections, expose a simmering frustration among the Palestinians and are alarming signs for a brewing storm.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Throughout the last year, a series of regional developments, coupled with a lack of realistic expectations and traditional Palestinian intransigence, caused deep frustration among Palestinian politicians and the general population. The "Peace to Prosperity" Middle East plan, the Abraham Accords and a deep financial crisis have all created further embitterment and resentment. The ill-conceived announcement of the Palestinian elections last January was largely an attempt to bypass what seemed to be a domestic, regional and international Palestinian stalemate.

Yet since the very beginning, heavy shadows of doubt already haunted the promise of Palestinian elections. Rightfully cynical Palestinians and external observers doubted that the Palestinian elections would actually take place due to the unresolved conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Moreover, with the aggressive regional effort aiming for the complete political immobilization of the Muslim Brotherhood headed by the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, it was clear that major regional backers did not look favorably at elections that had a high likelihood of giving Hamas more power. This serious consideration was even voiced by the White House, which also expressed its understanding in advance if the PA decided not to hold elections. In other words, soon after Abbas announced the elections and his aim at uniting Palestinian ranks, many agreed that he was setting himself a trap.

Abbas's decision to effectively cancel elections while saving himself from a risky gamble only aggravates the situation, as once again the PA sets expectations it has no way of meeting. Hamas already condemned the decision and declared it a "coup." The only way that the PA can avoid popular discontent and lack of support is, yet again, through channeling the built-up anger against Israel and claiming that Israel's refusal to allow Arab residents in eastern Jerusalem to vote is the reason for the cancellation. "No elections without Jerusalem!" cried Abbas. The fact that this entire episode is taking place during the holy month of Ramadan, and its amplifying effect of religious and national sentiments, has only made the situation worse, resulting in Palestinian anger and violence in Jerusalem.

Abbas made a series of mistakes. He announced elections at an impossible timing, failed to create the necessary political atmosphere for such elections to actually happen, then canceled the elections and is mistaken in not preparing a new generation of the young Palestinian leadership to take control. In doing so, he is further risking whatever remained of the Palestinian cause that is no longer a wider Arab priority. His way to challenge his anger against "China, Russia, America and all the Arabs" shows an old and embittered leadership that holds no political agenda, no vision and no tools but the reliance on inflamed mass anger and protests. This risk is heightened by the devastating economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Since the outbreak last year, income from tourism, trade and transformers plummeted to its lowest levels since the Second Intifada. The United Nations reported that COVID-19 has cost the Palestinians 7-35% of their GDP, and unemployment has risen about 30%. The economic effects are mostly felt in the large informal economy.

The growing popularity of the Palestinian cause and increase of anti-Israel bias in international human-rights organizations, in addition to the foreign-policy establishment in Washington, does not make things any better. The growing Western voices singing odes to Palestinian victimhood may only empower the most negative and destructive tendencies among Palestinian society. Such irresponsible behavior from the supposed guardians of the international order is not expected to change any time soon; as a matter of fact, it is only likely to get worse.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Israel must not underestimate the rising volatility of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza. A continued rise in anger under COVID conditions and continued political failure of the PA pose a serious security risk. Hamas leadership and their Iranian patrons are no doubt aware of the potential for violent actions. On the other hand, the UAE already expressed a clear interest in keeping the flames low during the latest episode of unrest in Jerusalem, and Egypt is keen on keeping Muslim Brotherhood groups away from power. Israel cannot solve domestic political problems for the Palestinians – perhaps no one can – but it should note that the conditions are becoming increasingly fertile for a popular explosion of Palestinian anger.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post Mahmoud Abbas's old, embittered leadership appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Middle East has a knack for creating grandiose causes that often end up being a trap for those who once created them. Whether the cause for resistance, the cause for Palestine, the cause for democratic change, the cause for Islam and Sharia-based political order, they tend to turn into monsters eating up those who fed them. Currently, Iran is on its way to create a new cause for nuclear rights which is, if we are to depend on regional history, likely to come back with a vengeance.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

The history of the modern Middle East is that of devotional causes that went rogue. Once a holy cause is established, it becomes independent of its origins and grows a life of its own, often consuming the very original conditions for its existence. Such causes are always easy to ratchet up, but almost impossible to ratchet down. The cause of post-colonial Arab national liberation championed by Arab nationalists in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and Algeria ended up with military officers rolling on top of tanks, and Arab capitals starting a continuous history of military coups and counter-coups, building some of the most brutal and monstrous political order in Arab history. For many Arab historians, injustice and crimes of European colonialism look like humanitarian interventions compared to Saddam's Iraq, Ghaddafi's Libya or Assad's Syria.

The Palestinian cause, the holy grail of all causes, ended up setting the regional infrastructure for a world of guerilla warfare, armed militias, terrorism, a cult of suicide bombings and an insatiable messianic zeal. The cause for Palestine unleashed long series of wars, defeats, losses of resources, destruction of any prospects for healthy Arab political life, justification for brutal repression; in short, it became completely out of control.

The cause ended up starting civil wars in Jordan and Lebanon, hijacking Arab passenger planes, entering coalitions with vicious and destructive forces and destabilized the foundations of the very states that once helped establish the cause itself. The same thing can be said for Islam and Sharia law. Once desiring to morally upstage their opponents, the Arab rulers who wanted to play the Islamic card ended up being their first victims. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who freed Islamists from prisons in order to take down his Socialist opponents and introduce Sharia law into the Egyptian constitution, was the first Arab ruler to be assassinated by Islamic terrorism, leaving Egyptians to this day stuck with a constitution no one dares change. Once the cause is up, it's very difficult for it to come down.

When Hezbollah made its debut as the hero of Lebanese resistance against Israeli occupation, even many Lebanese Christians helped to ratchet up the resistance cause. After the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, the Lebanese people discovered that resistance is an eternal condition that cannot be resolved, even with the negation of Israeli occupation. The Lebanese state was left with no political power, no functional institutions and no viable path towards normativity. Resistance is endless, and if Hezbollah saw the Israeli occupation as a cause worthy of resistance, it saw in the Israeli withdrawal a conspiracy worthy of even more resistance.

In the Middle East, regimes have the nasty habit of tabbing into holy causes for legitimacy, yet those holy causes become new religions that no one can control. Today, the Islamic Republic is setting itself a classical Mideast trap. The nuclear cause and hegemonic quest are turning into a holy doctrine regardless of Iran's economic capacity, developmental needs, international hostility or the potential for dystopian nuclear proliferation in one of the most volatile regions of the world. Iran is pushing forward with a new cause that will prove to be difficult to swiftly moderate even if its leaders wanted to do so.

The more the Islamic Republic depends on such causes for its survival, the more it entangles itself in a trap that cannot be avoided. The more entangled it gets, the less it is possible for the Iranian people to survive such a trap without deposing the Iranian regime.

We are not saying that Iran will abandon its nuclear goals or its hegemonic ambitions easily. It probably will do neither of those without the credible threat of military force. At this point, it does not look like the Biden administration has a realistic appraisal of the real nature Iranian threat against the United States or the moral courage and stamina for yet another military confrontation in the Middle East.

The problem of an Iranian nuclear bomb is not limited to Israel and the Gulf states. There is a strong connection between Caracas, Venezuela, and Tehran, Iran, and a high probability that the Iranians are transferring their weaponry to the Western hemisphere. The American public, as well as our policymakers, are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the Iranians are working with the rabidly anti-American regime of Nicolás Maduro to replicate what Israel faces in its northern border with Lebanon, home to approximately 150,000 missiles.

This is not just an Israeli issue or a Sunni Arab State issue or even a Republican issue. This is an American issue. We have often asked ourselves what there is in the phrase "Death to America" that many Americans refuse to understand.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Yes, the Iranians are building a trap for themselves, although it might look to them at the moment that they are winning. With their swagger and braggadocio, they are testing their limits and playing with fire. The only thing that will convince them that they are in the trap is the credible threat of military force. And that threat will, most likely, not come from the Biden administration.

It might, however, come from a new NATO-like alliance forming between Israel and the Gulf Arab states. They understand and appreciate the military might and sophisticated intelligence capabilities of the Israelis.

The Iranians might be laughing at the United States, Israel and the Gulf nations while they are negotiating in Vienna. But America might find itself in a position, one day, where it will be thanking its ally, Israel, and the newly formed friendships in the Gulf for protecting all of us from the megalomaniacal Islamic Republic of Iran.

Sarah N. Stern is the founder and president of EMET, and Hussein Aboubakr Mansour is the director of EMET's Program for Emerging Democratic Voices Coming out of the Middle East.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post The Iranian trap appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Following the announcement of the peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Saudi royal family is divided on the potential embrace of Israel.

On one side, King Salman seems to maintain the Saudi traditional pro-Palestinian posture; on the other, ambitious Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is eager to reform Saudi foreign policy. Earlier this month, the crown prince received a boost from the shrewdest diplomat in the kingdom. In a three-part explosive interview aired on the Saudi network Al Arabiya, Saudi Arabia's pillar of diplomacy Prince Bandar bin Sultan opened up about the disappointments of the Palestinian cause and its leadership.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Prince Bandar openly called their leaders a "failure" only a few weeks following the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain, constituting a significant indication of the direction to which Saudi Arabia wants to push the domestic public opinion. But the affairs of the Saudi royal family are less straightforward than they may seem.

For nearly three decades, Prince Bandar (known in Washington, DC, as "Bandar Bush") served as the Saudi royal family's link to US government leaders – one of the most strategically important relationships in the Middle East. During his tenure as Saudi ambassador to the United States, and later as chief of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar shaped Saudi-US relations, as well as Saudi foreign policy, when it came to the major issues of Iraq, Iran and Syria.

An astute diplomat, he was the architect of the stable foundation on which the relations between the two countries are built and was able to navigate them through the turbulence of 9/11, advising both Saudi kings and American presidents. Today, Bandar's house still forms Saudi foreign relations through his daughter, Princess Reema bint Bandar, the current Saudi ambassador to the United States; and his son, Khalid bin Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom. This is why for Prince Bandar to be invited out of his retirement and chosen to deliver the royal polemic against the Palestinian leadership marks an important moment.

In the interview, Prince Bandar gave a survey for the history of Saudi support for the Palestinians, as well as the history of the failures of the Palestinian leadership. He spoke of how the Palestinian leadership grew to become experts in making wrong bets – from siding with Adolf Hitler to supporting Saddam Hussein and Iran. He reminded the audience how Palestinians sided with Hussein as he invaded Kuwait and bombed Riyad. He counted the times which the kingdom attempted to secure peace offers from different American presidents, only to be rejected by the Palestinians.

At the conclusion of the interview, Prince Bandar said his words were meant for the Saudi citizens so they may appreciate the extent to which their government went in order to support an incompetent Palestinian leadership and to know that "we are at a stage in which rather than being concerned with how to face the Israeli challenges in order to serve the Palestinian cause, we have to pay attention to our national security and interests."

In other words, he is calling the Saudi public to reorient their attention from the Palestinians to the emerging threats and interests of the kingdom.

The powerful polemic provoked strongly mixed reactions from different Arab media outlets in accordance with their political alignment. The Palestinian Authority instructed its personnel and ambassadors all over the world to abstain from commenting on the interview. But whether the PA responds or not, the message is clear: Saudi Arabia is showing its public it no longer can afford to stand idle.

The last segment of the interview was dedicated to the rising threats of Turkey and Iran, and their exploitation of the Palestinian cause. Prince Bandar mocked both countries' claims to want to liberate Jerusalem through dominating Arab countries. But for Prince Bandar, this is not a new position, nor is it representative of the position of the entire Saudi family. In a classified US telegram dated back to 2007 and published by Wikileaks, it was reported that the Saudi royal family is split on the issue of Israel as Prince Bandar, then Saudi National Security Secretary, headed the faction wanting to reconcile with the Jewish state in order to focus on the emerging Iranian threat. On the other side, there were the princes that see the Saudi commitment to the Palestinians as paramount. But during 2007, the Saudis were still hoping they could keep Sunni Hamas close to Saudi Arabia and prevent the Islamic Resistance from entering into their then-nascent alliance with nuclear-ambitious Iran.

Prince Bandar's own explanation of his appearance might as well be completely accurate, an attempt to show the Saudi public that the royal family brought the Palestinians to the river so many times, but the Palestinians could not be made to drink from it. His message is enforced through the inflammatory utterances of Palestinian leaders condemning the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia because of their new position on Israel. On social media, Palestinian activists hurled curses at Arab royal families, calling them traitors. Needless to say, such insults do not sit well with Arab audiences. The message of Prince Bandar is especially important as Saudi Arabia decided to officially allow Israeli flights to go through its airspace on their way to Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Manama.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

One salient message from Prince Bandar's exposé is that he – and presumably an entire Saudi establishment of foreign relations behind him – sees no possible hope for the Palestinians under their current leadership. This damning judgment, in effect, puts the Palestinian leadership on notice: The days of Saudi unconditional support are over. However, another important implication for Prince Bandar's interview has less to do with Israel and more to do with the divide inside the royal family itself. As Bandar came to the aid of the crown prince, it has shown that bin Salman is able to win the support of some of the most powerful royal figures and the chief Saudi foreign-relations veteran.

Meanwhile, the traditional pro-Palestinian position of his father, King Salman, remains unchanged as the official position of the Saudi foreign ministry as repeated many times by the kingdom's foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan. That is the commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state prior to any normalization effort with Israel. If one must speculate, it seems that the Saudi-Israeli agreement is both a matter of time and a changing of the guard, as it is a cooling-off of old enmities.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Days of unconditional Saudi support of PA are over appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.