UNM Israel Alliance

Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post

The growing power of the UN-based international community is one of the gravest emerging threats to Israel’s national security.

This threat stems from two sources. First, the UN-led system of global governance is working to redefine international law by on the one hand whitewashing war crimes by states associated with the majority, and on the other hand rendering it illegal for unpopular countries to take action to protect themselves against aggression. Second, and most important, Israel has become the scapegoat of the UN-led international community. The 57-member Islamic bloc has built an automatic majority for its unrelenting and ever-escalating assaults on Israel’s right to exist.

The new – and false – interpretation of international law gives every General Assembly resolution the weight of binding Security Council resolutions and international treaties. Among this new “legal” regime’s most dangerous features is its bid to overturn state sovereignty by subjecting leading citizens of weak states to politically-motivated criminal prosecutions under the rubric of universal jurisdiction.

With Israel’s right to exist – let alone to defend itself – being denied in an avalanche of General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions, the acceptance of universal jurisdiction is a short step away from turning every Jewish citizen of Israel into an international outlaw.

THIS ESCALATING threat is already hurting Israel’s ability to carry out routine relations with foreign countries. Just last week the IDF was compelled to cancel plans to send a delegation of its officers to England for a joint conference on asymmetric warfare after British authorities were unable to promise that their guests from the IDF wouldn’t be arrested over spurious war crimes allegations during their stay.

During her visit to Israel this week, British Attorney-General Patricia Scotland made clear that the British government is unwilling to cancel Britain’s universal jurisdiction law despite the fact that anti-Israel activists exploit the law to abuse Israeli officials visiting her country.

In her view, the most important thing is for Britain to maintain its commitment to universal jurisdiction. Any mitigation of the right of unaccountable, anti-Israel British judges to issue arrest warrants would, in her mind, water down this most precious of legalisms.

While Britain demonstrates that it prefers international legal conceit to both justice and its bilateral relations with Israel, senior Israeli jurists are making clear that they prefer to maintain their good reputations in places like London over defending the actual legal rights of their country.

On Monday, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak announced that in his view, Israel should accept the jurisdiction of the inherently anti-Israel International Criminal Court. In his words, “Israel is part of the international community, and it must conduct itself in accordance with the interpretation that is common ininternational law.”

The fact that this “common interpretation” is common only when convenient and is actually antithetical to international law and to the rights of nations is of no interest to Barak. Also of no interest to Israel’s international legal superstar is the fact that the institution set to do the judging is politically stacked against Israel, and that the Islamic bloc-dominated “international community” redefinedinternational law for the purposes of the ICC to make all Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines criminal.

Concerned not only about the anti-Israel likes of Richard Goldstone but also about the likes of “international community” obsessed Barak, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi this week ordered army commanders to integrate legal advisers in decision-making not only during the planning of battles, but also during battles themselves.

In an effort to offset some of the crushing pressure the UN-led international community is placing on Israel to stop defending itself, senior IDF officers have been dispatched to lobby US and UN officials. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how the IDF’s efforts to convince the UN or the US that it upholdsinternational law will make any difference. The UN is a lost cause and under US President Barack Obama, America has been moving swiftly in the direction of Europe in accepting the authority of the UN as the linchpin of a morally-relativist, post-nationalist, philo-Islamic international system.

In his speech at the UN General Assembly in September, Obama renounced the US’s right to lead the international community when he proclaimed, “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.”

Obama’s decisions to try terrorists as criminal defendants; to close the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay; to join the UN Human Rights Council; and to open criminal investigations against US intelligence operatives all demonstrate that the US supports the expansion of the power of the UN-led international system against actualinternational law that views independent nation-states rather than the UN as the foundation of the international legal system.

America’s behavior towards the UN today should serve as a reminder to Israel that we mustn’t put all our diplomatic eggs in America’s basket. If we wish to neutralize the threat the UN-based international community poses to our national interests, we must expand our international alliances.

IN OUR efforts we have a potential ally in China. One of Beijing’s abiding positions is that it opposes UN sanctions on individual states. In the Chinese view, such sanctions diminish national rights to sovereignty. It is on the basis of this claim that China has justified opposing sanctions against rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

Israel should make the case to the Chinese that China should back Israel in international institutions, by among other things vetoing UNSecurity Council resolutions against Israel. If in defense of the principle of sovereignty China is willing to block sanctions against Iran and North Korea, then surely Beijing should be willing to take the far more benign step of supporting Israel.

China’s willingness to buck the US and Europe in refusing to support sanctions against international rogue states has expanded China’s international influence by making it a country that cannot be taken for granted. Likewise, were China to block international sanctions against Israel, it would become an influential player in the big power game in the Middle East. And whereas its support for Iran and North Korea potentially endangers China by empowering destabilizing actors, support for Israel would serve China’s interest of enhancing regional stability since a strong Israel deters regional aggressors from stirring up trouble.

Israel should back up its approach to China with a prolonged public diplomacy campaign to educate the Chinese about the Jewish state. A groundbreaking effort in this field is being initiated this week by StandWithUs, the US-based Israel-advocacy organization. This week, StandWithUs members from Israel will travel to Harbin, China, to present a photography exhibit called “Inside Israel.” Their goal is to educate the Chinese about Judaism, Israel’s history and life in Israel.

It is true that China does not share Israel’s democratic values. Owing to this, it may be difficult for Israel to sustain a bilateral alliance with China over time. However, China and Israel share the distinction of being the two oldest, continuous civilizations. This shared direct line to antiquity can form the basis of a strong bilateral relationship. It is already a source of Chinese attraction to the Jewish state.

Over the past 15 years or so, Israel’s expanding trade ties with China have been a source of friction with the US. As the US turned a blind eye to Chinese theft of US military technologies at places like Los Alamos, New Mexico, American officials were quick to attack Israel for selling military technologies to Beijing. To placate Washington, Israel effectively ended its military sales toChina in recent years. It is probably reasonable to continue this practice if only because there is a strong likelihood that China will sell Israel’s military technologies to the likes of Iran and Syria.

At any rate, it is not anti-American for Israel to cultivate closer ties to China. As America’s alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia and its courtship of Iran and Syria show, international affairs are not and should not be monogamous. This has never been more apparent than now. The Obama administration’s moves to subordinate US foreign policy to the UN-based international community make it less clear that Israel can rely on the White House to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council.

It is fortuitous that this time, when Israel’s need to diversify its international affairs has become acute, that the foreign minister is not a Shimon Peres-type who believes that Israel’s ability to achieve its national interest is a function of the number of European cocktail parties he attends. Whatever Avigdor Lieberman’s drawbacks may be, they clearly don’t include excessive worship of the international community’s taste for opulent statecraft or a desperate desire to be loved by Europe.

From his first moments on the job, as the Obama administration subordinated the US’s joint interests with Israel to the president’s dream of establishing a Palestinian state by 2011, Lieberman moved quickly to diversify Israel’s international ties. Noting that his predecessors harmed Israel by behaving as though our international relations began and ended with negotiations with the Palestinians, Lieberman turned his attention to the great world they ignored.

In September, Lieberman travelled to Africa. There he bolstered Israel’s strategic ties with potential allies in Ethiopia, Kenya and Nigeria. In July, he went to South America with the declared goal of blunting Iran’s influence in the continent. In at least one of the countries he visited – Colombia – great potential exists for a strategic alliance.

On Tuesday, Lieberman reached out to the Balkans. During a meeting with visiting Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, he noted that the forces of global jihad are making a concerted effort to penetrate the Balkans through the Albanian and Bosnian Muslim communities. This encroaching threat should induce states like Macedonia to enhance their relations with Israel.

Lieberman should seek a diplomatic opening to China just as he has reached out to states in Africa, South America and the Balkans, as well as to Russia. With its Security Council veto,China would be a major asset to Israel in its bid to neutralize the UN-centered international community’s campaign to delegitimize its right to exist.

By supporting Israel, Beijing stands to lose nothing and gain a great deal. Just as China’s support for Iran has not harmed its trade ties – and its burgeoning military ties – with the likes of Saudi Arabia, so its support for Israel will likely have no impact on its ties in the Arab world. More important for China, its support for Israel would enhance its ability to challenge the UN-besotted Obama White House in the great power game.

Ironically, to the extent that by supporting Israel China secures the rights of nation-states threatened by the rapidly expanding UN colossus, China will become a pivotal defender of embattled democracies on the world stage.

Bernard Glick, published in the Oregon Stump on Dec. 28, 2009

Over the past 60 years, the political architecture and political mathematics of the United Nations have changed drastically. Not only has the number of non-permanent members in the Security Council been increased from six to 10, but the pivotal position in the General Assembly once held by Latin America is now held by Third World countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. They have hijacked the U.N. and transformed it into one of the most anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-democratic organizations on the planet.

They are also determined to make the U.N. the substitute for sovereignty and the surrogate for a state’s decision-making institutions. Except when their own interests are at stake, they preach that the Security Council is the government of the Earth and the General Assembly the parliament of mankind.

The United States can keep the Security Council at bay because it has a veto there. But in the veto-free General Assembly, America, which pays 20 percent of the United Nations’ regular budget and about a third of its peacekeeping budget, has only four options: Either it abstains on a resolution, or it supports one it doesn’t like, or it introduces one it does like, or it waters it down to utter ineffectiveness in order to get the two-thirds vote required to pass a resolution in a General Assembly that is unrecognizably different from the one the U.N.’s founders envisaged in San Francisco in 1945. The situation is now so bad that it forced John Bolton, when he was the United States ambassador to the United Nations, to remark: “Many people want me to be the U.N.’s ambassador to the U.S. That is not my job. I am the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and my primary duty is to advance U.S. foreign policy.”

States, like individuals, can be inert. They tend to cling to policies and processes long after they have ceased serving intended purposes. One example is America’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Only God knows why the United States still belongs to NATO. It is a Cold War anachronism whose only purpose was to deter Soviet aggression in Western Europe. The Soviet Union is gone, but Europeans still want America to help them whenever they get into trouble. However, they have neither the means nor the will to help America when it gets into trouble.

Another example of how inertia triumphs over intelligence is America’s membership in the United Nations. Although the United States was one of the organization’s founding members, it should separate itself from that body. And while it is doing that, it ought to encourage the United Nations to move its headquarters from New York City to a place more congenial to its orientation.

Whatever usefulness the U.N. had in its early years has been dissipated by its indecency and irresponsibility in later years. A case in point is its incessant denunciations of Israel, to which it gave birth and legitimacy when it adopted the Palestine partition resolution in November 1947. Palestine and Israel aside, really important events, such as America’s recognition of Communist China, the ending of the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the defusing of the Cuban missile crisis, were settled not by the United Nations but by diplomats operating outside the world organization.

To those who would say that America’s jettisoning the United Nations would mean its return to pre-Second World War isolationism, one should answer that in the age of the computer, the Internet, and the high-speed airplane, the United States can defend its interests and still be part of the world in old-fashioned ways: ambassadorial diplomacy, summit meetings, trade talks, cultural and scientific exchanges, and bilateral and multilateral treaties.

When a more realistic administration comes to Washington, one of its first moves should be starting the legal and administrative process of extracting the United States from the United Nations, and the United Nations from the United States. Surely, America can find better domestic uses for the U.N. dues it pays and for the money it loses from the expensive untaxed property along New York’s East River.

Edward Bernard Glick of Northwest Portland is a professor emeritus of political science at Temple University in Philadelphia.

by Louis René Beres, Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science at Purdue University
1 November 2009

“For By Wise Counsel, Thou Shalt Make Thy War”
Proverbs 24, 6

Still following his “Road Map,” President Barack Obama now seeks to create a twenty-third Arab state. Known, of course, as “Palestine,” this state would be carved from the living body of Israel, and would become an immediate and open enemy of the United States. In the end, the birth of Palestine could even enlarge regional and worldwide risks of both nuclear war and nuclear terrorism.

What should be Israel’s operational and doctrinal response to the U.S. supported Palestinian state? In part, Israel will need to clarify and possibly codify significant elements of its still-ambiguous nuclear strategy. One such element concerns the “Samson Option.”

At first glance, a Palestinian state would have no direct bearing on Israel’s nuclear posture. Yet, although non-nuclear itself, Palestine could still seriously impair Israel’s capacity to wage certain essential forms of conventional war. This, in turn, could heighten the Jewish State’s incentive to rely on unconventional weapons in perilous circumstances.

Confronting a new Arab state that could act collaboratively with other already-existing Arab states, Israel would feel itself compelled to bring elements of its long-secret nuclear strategy (the “bomb in the basement”) out into the light of day. Palestine, whether or not it would actively seek collaboration, could also be used militarily against Israel by other regional enemies.

Israel’s nuclear strategy, however ambiguous, is oriented toward deterrence. The “Samson Option” refers to a presumed policy that is based upon an implicit threat of massive nuclear retaliation for specific enemy aggressions. This policy could be invoked credibly only where such aggressions would threaten Israel’s national existence.

The main point of the Samson Option would not be to communicate the availability of a graduated Israeli nuclear deterrent. Rather, it would intend to signal the unstated promise of a counter city (“counter value” in military parlance) reprisal. The Samson Option is therefore unlikely to deter any aggressions short of nuclear and/or certain biological first strike attacks upon the Jewish State.

Samson would say this to all potential attackers: “We (Israel) may have to “die,” but (this time) we won’t die alone.” The Samson Option could serve Israel better as an adjunct to deterrence and certain preemption options than as a core nuclear strategy. The Samson Option should never be confused with Israel’s main security objective, which is to seek deterrence at much lower levels of possible conflict.

To strengthen Israeli nuclear deterrence, visible preparations for a Samson Option could help to convince enemy states that aggression would not be gainful. This is especially true if Israeli Samson preparations were coupled with some level of nuclear disclosure (i.e., ending Israel’s posture of nuclear ambiguity); if Israel’s Samson weapons appeared sufficiently invulnerable to enemy first strikes; and if these weapons were plainly “counter value” in mission function.

Samson could also support Israeli nuclear deterrence by demonstrating an Israeli willingness to take existential risks. Earlier, Moshe Dayan had understood this: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”

In our topsy-turvy and often counter-intuitive nuclear world, it can sometimes be rational to pretend irrationality. The precise nuclear deterrence benefits of pretended irrationality would depend in part upon prior enemy state awareness of Israel’s counter value targeting posture. The Project Daniel Group, in its then-confidential report to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, recommended exactly such a posture more than six years ago.

To strengthen essential strategies of preemption, preparations for a Samson Option could convince Israel’s own leadership that defensive first strikes would be cost-effective. These leaders would expect that any Israeli preemptive strikes, known under international law as “anticipatory self-defense,” could be launched with reduced expectations of unacceptably destructive enemy retaliations. This expectation would depend upon previous Israeli decisions on nuclear disclosure; on Israeli perceptions of the effects of such disclosure on enemy retaliatory intentions; on Israeli judgments about enemy perceptions of Samson weapons vulnerability; and on presumed enemy awareness of Samson’s counter value force posture.

As with Samson enhancements of Israeli nuclear deterrence, last-resort nuclear preparations could enhance Israel’s preemption options by displaying a bold national willingness to take existential risks.

But pretended irrationality can be a double-edged sword. Brandished too “irrationally,” Israeli preparations for a Samson Option could possibly encourage enemy preemptions.

Left to themselves, neither deterred nor preempted, certain Arab/Islamic enemies of Israel, especially after the creation of a Palestinian state, could bring the Jewish State face-to-face with the palpable torments of Dante’s Inferno, “Into the eternal darkness, into fire, into ice.” Israeli strategic planners and political leaders, therefore, must now begin to acknowledge an obligation to dramatically strengthen their country’s nuclear security posture, and to ensure that any failure of nuclear deterrence will not then spark nuclear war or nuclear terror.

One way to meet this vital obligation, especially after President Obama’s continuing support for Palestine, would be to focus more productively on the Samson Option. Indeed, to ignore or reject this option altogether could ultimately imperil not only Israel, but also the United States.

——–

LOUIS RENÉ BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and articles dealing with Israeli security matters. He was Chair of Project Daniel, and recently published “Facing Iran’s Ongoing Nuclearization: A Retrospective on Project Daniel,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Vol. 22, No. 3., Fall 2009, pp. 491-514.