Рав Авраам Шмулевич
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 19 most recent journal entries recorded in
avrom's LiveJournal:
| Monday, September 22nd, 2025 | | 3:56 pm |
Address of the International Hyperzionist Movement “Be’ad Artzeinu” for Rosh HaShanah 5786 Address of the International Hyperzionist Movement “Be’ad Artzeinu” for Rosh HaShanah 5786
Rosh HaShanah is Judgment. Judgment over the nations and over each of us. The world is collapsing before our eyes: old empires tremble, alliances crack, and Israel stands at the epicenter of global upheavals — under the rockets of enemies and the pressure of “friends” demanding capitulation. Yet it is precisely in such moments that history is born.
Mashiach comes only to where the people act. This is the essence of what is happening in our time. Redemption will not descend from heaven as a gift. Mashiach is a king of flesh and blood who will lead the building of the Temple, guide the people to establish Israel in its land — in the full boundaries given by God, from the Nile to the Euphrates — and direct the creation of a just society.
But he will come only to a people ready to act, not merely to pray and wait.
Do not weep over the destroyed Temple — begin to build it. Do not mourn the past — create the future. Two years of war have shown: we can prevail when we are unafraid to act. We have defeated enemies who seemed invincible. The time has come to dictate our own terms to history. Today’s crisis is not an end, but an opportunity. We have a state, an army, an economy, science, and faith. Everything needed to unite prayer with deeds, tradition with creation, loyalty with renewal.
The time of Mashiach — in our days, by our own hands. May it be a good year for us, and may we be inscribed and sealed in the Book of Life. May 5786 be a year of action and building, a year of mobilization and clarity, a year of Israel’s victory and the beginning of a new era.
May the people of Israel cease waiting for miracles — and become the miracle themselves.
Rabbi Avraham Shmulevich Chairman of the International Hyperzionist Movement “Be’ad Artzeinu” (“For Our Homeland”) Secretariat of the Movement Jerusalem, 5786 | | Friday, June 27th, 2025 | | 5:52 pm |
Military outcomes of the Israel–Iran conflict: Analysis of operations
By Abraham Shmulevich
Editor's note: Abraham Shmulevich, Israeli political scientist, president of the Eastern Partnership Institute. The article expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the view of News.Az.
The outcomes of the conflict between Israel and Iran can be broadly categorized into three key dimensions: military, political, and strategic—that is, the extent to which each side achieved its long-term objectives. In each of these areas, Israel appears to have gained a significant advantage, particularly in the military domain. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) carried out a large-scale and highly coordinated strike against Iran’s military infrastructure. The operation demonstrated a high degree of planning and effectiveness. Even within Israeli expert circles, such rapid achievement of objectives had not been anticipated.
One of the most notable outcomes was the neutralization of Iran’s air defense systems, which had previously been regarded as one of the strongest components of its national defense. The system included Russian S-300 and S-400 complexes, as well as Chinese equivalents supplied through bilateral military cooperation. These resources did not provide the expected level of resistance. There had been discussion about the possibility of engagements between Israeli and Iranian aircraft, and even potentially with Russian jets stationed in the region. However, such confrontations did not occur: the Iranian Air Force did not engage, several aircraft were destroyed on the ground, and others left the combat zone. Israel thus gained full air superiority within the first 48 hours. This enabled complete operational freedom and came as a surprise to both international observers and the participants themselves. Even assuming Israel’s aerial dominance, few anticipated that air control would be established so swiftly and with minimal resistance. Another significant result was the elimination of a substantial portion of Iran’s military leadership, including officers from both the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Reports indicate that some of those killed included both current commanders and their designated successors. Additionally, there is evidence that key experts involved in Iran’s nuclear program were among the casualties—potentially inflicting long-term damage on the country’s nuclear capabilities.
Israel also demonstrated the capacity to strike at Iran’s political leadership but refrained from doing so due to a range of considerations, including international legal and geopolitical concerns.
Israeli special forces conducted limited operations on Iranian soil. The IDF General Staff confirmed the involvement of reconnaissance and sabotage teams in strikes on key targets. Some drones used in the attacks were reportedly launched from within Iran, indicating extensive intelligence penetration and the apparent ineffectiveness of Iranian counterintelligence services.
It is noteworthy that no Israeli personnel were killed or captured during operations inside Iranian territory—an outcome that represents a serious failure for a state as tightly controlled as Iran. Regarding the performance of Iran’s air defense, an independent analysis published in open sources indicates that in the first six days, the interception rate of Israeli missiles ranged between 90% and 95%. This figure dropped to 65% in the middle of the conflict but later returned to initial levels. These fluctuations are attributed to Iran's need to recalibrate its systems in response to newly deployed Israeli munitions.
Importantly, no Israeli military installations sustained serious damage. Unlike incidents in 2004, air force bases remained intact. Civilian infrastructure, however, did experience some damage. A power plant supplying the Haifa oil refinery was hit, resulting in the deaths of three workers and an estimated two-month restoration period. Another power plant in Ashdod was damaged but fully restored within two hours.
One high-profile incident involved a strike on the Weizmann Institute of Science, which specializes in cancer research. Several unused government buildings, a facility near Soroka Medical Center, and a university laboratory were also hit. These losses, while not militarily critical, impacted scientific and humanitarian institutions, drawing concern from the global academic community. Despite this, Israel’s key strategic military and civilian infrastructure remained protected. Its multi-layered air defense system—including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow—performed with an overall interception rate of approximately 90%. Drone interception rates were near perfect: out of more than 1,000 UAVs, only one reached a residential building in Be’er Sheva, causing no casualties. The effective interception rate was 99.9%, indicating near-total airspace security.
Beyond the battlefield, political and diplomatic dimensions of the conflict also played a pivotal role. The Israeli operation was not carried out in isolation. The United States provided support from regional bases and naval assets. Additionally, military forces from the United Kingdom, France, and Jordan participated in coordinated actions.
This underscores the failure of attempts to isolate Israel diplomatically. Despite previous criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, these countries publicly supported its right to self-defense in the face of the Iranian threat. They emphasized that nuclear weapons in Iranian hands would be unacceptable.
Reports also suggest that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain may have assisted in intercepting Iranian missiles, some of which landed on their territory. Although these incidents have not been officially acknowledged, they point to an emerging pattern of security coordination. States that once opposed Israel are now, in effect, acting as its partners.
This shift suggests a fundamental transformation in the region’s geopolitical landscape. The traditional Arab–Israeli conflict appears to be effectively over. Former adversaries now view Israel as a strategic ally, largely due to a shared perception of Shia Iran as the primary threat to the Sunni Arab world.
The United States, for its part, provided both military and diplomatic backing. U.S. forces participated in defensive operations, while Washington supported Israel’s position at international forums. This reaffirmed the resilience and strategic depth of the U.S.–Israel alliance.
In contrast, Iran found itself in a position of complete diplomatic isolation. No state offered it direct assistance, either military or technical. Even Russia, despite its formal strategic partnership with Iran, chose to remain a neutral observer. While not legally obligated to intervene, the absence of even symbolic support from Moscow was likely perceived in Tehran as a disappointment.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that Israel achieved not only tactical and operational success but also a strategic victory. It secured the backing of a coalition comprising key Western democracies and regional powers and effectively neutralized a major threat from Iran. This outcome reshapes the regional security architecture and ushers in a new paradigm of deterrence in the Middle East.
https://news.az/news/-military-outcomes-of-the-israel-iran-conflict-analysis-of-operations | | 5:35 pm |
Военные итоги конфликта между Израилем и Ираном: анализ операций Авраам Шмулевич Примечание редакц Военные итоги конфликта между Израилем и Ираном: анализ операций Авраам Шмулевич
Примечание редакции: Авраам Шмулевич — израильский политолог, президент Института восточного партнёрства. Мнение, выраженное в статье, является личной позицией автора и может не совпадать со взглядами News. Az.
Итоги конфликта между Израилем и Ираном можно условно разделить на три ключевых аспекта: военный, политический и стратегический — то есть степень достижения долгосрочных целей каждой из сторон. В каждом из этих направлений Израиль, по всей видимости, добился значительного преимущества, особенно в военной сфере.
Армия обороны Израиля (ЦАХАЛ) провела широкомасштабный и высокоорганизованный удар по иранской военной инфраструктуре. Операция продемонстрировала высокий уровень планирования и эффективности. Даже среди израильских экспертов не ожидали столь быстрого достижения оперативных целей.
Одним из наиболее ярких результатов стало выведение из строя иранских систем ПВО, которые ранее считались одним из сильнейших элементов национальной обороны. В их состав входили российские комплексы С-300 и С-400, а также китайские аналоги, поставленные в рамках двустороннего военного сотрудничества. Однако они не обеспечили ожидаемого уровня сопротивления.
Обсуждалась вероятность воздушных боёв между израильскими и иранскими самолётами, а также с российскими истребителями, дислоцированными в регионе. Однако этого не произошло: ВВС Ирана не вступили в бой, несколько самолётов были уничтожены на земле, а остальные покинули зону боевых действий. В результате Израиль добился полного господства в воздухе в течение первых 48 часов.
Это обеспечило оперативную свободу действий и стало неожиданностью как для международных наблюдателей, так и для самих участников конфликта. Даже с учётом предполагаемого превосходства Израиля в воздухе, немногие ожидали столь стремительного установления контроля и при минимальном сопротивлении.
Другим важным результатом стало уничтожение значительной части военного руководства Ирана, включая офицеров как регулярной армии, так и Корпуса стражей исламской революции (КСИР). Сообщается, что среди убитых были как действующие командиры, так и их предполагаемые преемники. Также имеются данные о гибели ключевых специалистов, участвовавших в иранской ядерной программе, что потенциально наносит долгосрочный ущерб ядерному потенциалу страны.
Израиль также продемонстрировал способность нанести удар по политическому руководству Ирана, но воздержался от этого в силу различных соображений, включая международно-правовые и геополитические.
Израильский спецназ провёл ограниченные операции на территории Ирана. Генштаб ЦАХАЛ подтвердил участие разведывательно-диверсионных групп в ударах по ключевым целям. По некоторым данным, часть дронов, использованных в атаках, была запущена с территории самого Ирана, что свидетельствует о глубоком проникновении израильской разведки и неэффективности иранской контрразведки. Примечательно, что в ходе операций на территории Ирана не было ни одного израильского погибшего или пленного — что является серьёзным провалом для столь строго контролируемого государства, как Иран.
Что касается эффективности иранской ПВО, независимые источники сообщают, что в первые шесть дней уровень перехвата израильских ракет составлял от 90% до 95%. В середине конфликта он снизился до 65%, но затем вновь вернулся к исходным значениям. Эти колебания объясняются необходимостью перенастройки систем под новые типы иранских боеприпасов.
Важно отметить, что ни один из израильских военных объектов не получил серьёзных повреждений. В отличие от событий 2024 года, авиационные базы остались нетронутыми. Однако часть гражданской инфраструктуры пострадала. Удар был нанесён по электростанции, снабжающей нефтеперерабатывающий завод в Хайфе: трое рабочих погибли, восстановление займёт около двух месяцев. Другая электростанция в Ашдоде была повреждена, но полностью восстановлена в течение двух часов.
Один из наиболее резонансных эпизодов — удар по корпусу Института Вейцмана, занимающемуся исследованиями в области онкологии. Также были повреждены несколько пустующих правительственных зданий, объект возле медицинского центра «Сорока» и лаборатория университета. Хотя эти потери не критичны в военном смысле, они затронули научные и гуманитарные учреждения, вызвав обеспокоенность международного академического сообщества.
Тем не менее, ключевая стратегическая военная и гражданская инфраструктура Израиля осталась под защитой. Многоуровневая система ПВО — «Железный купол», «Праща Давида» и «Хец» — обеспечила общий уровень перехвата около 90%. Перехват дронов оказался практически безупречным: из более чем 1000 беспилотников лишь один достиг жилого дома в Беэр-Шеве, не вызвав жертв. Эффективность достигла 99,9%, что означает практически полную безопасность воздушного пространства. Помимо поля боя, ключевую роль сыграли и политико-дипломатические аспекты конфликта. Операция Израиля не проводилась в одиночку. США оказывали поддержку с региональных баз и с использованием морских сил. Также в скоординированных действиях участвовали военные Великобритании, Франции и Иордании.
Это подчёркивает провал попыток дипломатической изоляции Израиля. Несмотря на критику действий в Газе, эти государства публично поддержали право Израиля на самооборону перед лицом иранской угрозы, подчеркнув, что обладание Ираном ядерным оружием неприемлемо.
Существуют также сведения, что Саудовская Аравия, ОАЭ и Бахрейн могли участвовать в перехвате иранских ракет, часть которых упала на их территории. Хотя эти данные официально не подтверждены, они свидетельствуют о зарождающемся паттерне сотрудничества в сфере безопасности. Государства, некогда враждебно настроенные к Израилю, фактически стали его партнёрами.
Это указывает на фундаментальную трансформацию геополитического ландшафта региона. Традиционный арабо-израильский конфликт, по сути, завершён. Бывшие противники рассматривают Израиль как стратегического союзника — главным образом из-за общего восприятия шиитского Ирана как основной угрозы для суннитского арабского мира. Соединённые Штаты, со своей стороны, оказали и военную, и дипломатическую поддержку. Американские войска участвовали в оборонительных операциях, а Вашингтон последовательно поддерживал позиции Израиля на международных площадках. Это подтвердило прочность и стратегическую глубину американо-израильского альянса. В противоположность этому, Иран оказался в состоянии полной дипломатической изоляции. Ни одно государство не оказало ему прямой помощи — ни военной, ни технической. Даже Россия, несмотря на формальный стратегический союз с Ираном, предпочла остаться нейтральным наблюдателем. Хотя Москва и не обязана была вмешиваться, отсутствие даже символической поддержки, вероятно, было воспринято в Тегеране как разочарование.
Таким образом, можно говорить о том, что Израиль добился не только тактического и оперативного, но и стратегического успеха. Он заручился поддержкой коалиции ключевых западных демократий и региональных держав и эффективно нейтрализовал крупную угрозу со стороны Ирана. Это изменяет архитектуру безопасности на Ближнем Востоке и знаменует переход к новой парадигме сдерживания.
| | Thursday, March 27th, 2025 | | 9:47 pm |
No invasion, but pressure: The evolving U.S.-Israeli strategy on Iran No invasion, but pressure: The evolving U.S.-Israeli strategy on Iran By Abraham Shmulevich
Editor's note: Abraham Shmulevich, Israeli political scientist, president of the Eastern Partnership Institute. The article expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the view of News.Az.
The recent deployment of two B-2A Spirit strategic bombers to Diego Garcia is far more than a routine rotation. It is a signal. Amid escalating tensions in the region, the choice of the B-2A specifically underscores Washington’s intent to demonstrate its capability to deliver a strike "out of nowhere" — swiftly, precisely, and with minimal chances of interception. The uniqueness of these aircraft lies not only in their stealth. They are capable of carrying the Massive Ordnance Penetrator — deep-penetration bombs designed to destroy facilities buried tens of meters underground. These are precisely the kinds of targets that would be prioritized in the event of a strike on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure. News about - No invasion, but pressure: The evolving U.S.-Israeli strategy on Iran A B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber proceeds to an undisclosed location after completing a mission over Iraq March 27, 2003. Photo: AP The location of deployment — Diego Garcia — is also crucial. This base allows operational range over key parts of the Middle East and South Asia while remaining beyond the reach of Iran’s retaliatory capabilities. It is a clear deterrence strategy — one rooted in strength. One of the most powerful elements in the deterrence framework against Tehran remains Israel’s arsenal. Under President Trump, Jerusalem gained access to weapons previously considered exclusive to the U.S., notably the high-yield MOPs capable of penetrating tens of meters of concrete and rock. While the Biden administration has partially limited arms supplies, Israel, according to multiple sources, has begun discussions on developing domestic equivalents of these weapons. For a nation under constant threat, this is a matter of sovereignty — to no longer rely on an ally's decision at a critical moment. It may also signal that Israel is preparing for the possibility of acting alone — particularly if Washington again adopts a wait-and-see or ambiguous position. Israeli military doctrine is traditionally based on preemptive strikes. If precise intelligence indicates a critical Iranian breakthrough toward nuclear weapons, a response will be immediate. News about - No invasion, but pressure: The evolving U.S.-Israeli strategy on Iran Centrifuges used to enrich uranium at Iran’s nuclear fuel plant in Natanz in 2019. Photo: Atomic Energy Organization of Iran The primary objective of a potential military campaign would not be regime change but the destruction of Tehran’s ability to project power across the region. This is why U.S. and Israeli attention is focused on the IRGC infrastructure, which serves as both the military and ideological core of the Islamic Republic. This refers not only to bases, depots, and command centers. "Infrastructure" also encompasses supply routes, training hubs for proxy groups, communication nodes, and dual-use facilities — from ports to power grids. The “cutting off the tentacles” concept is applied systematically and has proven effective: strikes on the Houthis, attacks on Hezbollah positions, and isolation of pro-Iranian factions in Syria and Iraq. The use of venerable strategic bombers like the B-52 is particularly noteworthy. These aircraft not only project raw power but also exert psychological pressure: large, unmistakably visible, and fearsome, they evoke the era of U.S. total air warfare. It’s a message that Washington could revert to such tactics if necessary. On the diplomatic front, both Washington and Jerusalem are doing their utmost to distinguish between the Iranian people and the regime. Direct messages in Farsi from Israeli leaders and the IDF, propaganda videos, and statements about “friendship with the Iranian people” are part of a broader information campaign. The aim is clear and pragmatic: a significant segment of Iran’s population opposes the regime, and the military structure must be dismantled without triggering mass national consolidation. The U.S. and Israel seek to deny Tehran the ability to transform external aggression into a source of domestic unity. This explains the cautious, surgical tone of official rhetoric. Nonetheless, a "hard package" remains on the table: strikes on strategic ports, energy facilities, and nuclear sites. Such a scenario is a last resort — but it exists and is being meticulously planned. Perhaps the most important conclusion is that neither Washington nor Jerusalem is seeking a ground war with Iran. Politically, logistically, and morally, such a conflict is unfeasible. Even with international support, an invasion of a country with over 80 million people and extremely complex geography would be a disaster — for both attackers and the broader region. Thus, the focus is on strategic pressure: airstrikes, cyberattacks, dismantling of proxy structures, information operations, and sanctions. Everything aimed at weakening the regime from within without engaging in direct confrontation. The deployment of carrier strike groups to the region reinforces this scenario — it’s about readiness to respond swiftly, not about preparing for a land invasion. It is a “Plan B” should diplomacy ultimately fail. Tehran’s rhetoric remains in line with its ideological tradition: grandiose declarations, loud threats, and mystical claims of “weapons possessed by no other power.” This plays well with domestic audiences and creates an illusion of control — but in practice, it reveals weakness.<lj-cut> A recent announcement from the IRGC about a “revolutionary new development” surpassing even the capabilities of global superpowers was largely seen by experts as domestic posturing. In the absence of proof, it is a bluff. Meanwhile, the ongoing visit of an Israeli delegation to Washington indicates that both sides are approaching a point where diplomacy may be exhausted. If that happens, despite their reluctance, the strategy of limited military force will likely be implemented. Washington and Jerusalem are playing a high-stakes game: showcasing readiness for action without crossing the red line. They understand that massive destruction in Iran could trigger unpredictable consequences — a surge in anti-American sentiment, a humanitarian crisis, or mass migration. That is why their bet is on “negotiation from a position of strength,” not on full-scale intervention. Still, with every step Tehran takes toward escalation, the moment when that line will be crossed draws nearer. And once it is, the reality of the region will change irreversibly.
https://news.az/news/-no-invasion-but-pressure-the-evolving-us-israeli-strategy-on-iran | | Thursday, January 23rd, 2025 | | 3:23 pm |
Abraham Shmulevich Interviews By Kerim Sultanov Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has confirmed the launch of a military operation in Jenin, a city in the West Bank. He emphasized that the operation's primary goal is to dismantle terrorist networks in the area, aligning with Israel's broader security strategy against militant groups.
In light of these developments, News.az spoke with prominent Israeli political scientist Abraham Shmulevich to analyze the situation.
- The events in Jenin highlight the complex security challenges Israel faces. In practice, the Palestinian Authority (PA), led by Mahmoud Abbas, has limited control in this city. Instead, radical groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad dominate, rejecting any prospect of peace with Israel and undermining the PA’s authority. These groups pose a dual threat: to Israel’s security and to the stability of Palestinian governance.
The PA has attempted to reassert control, but its efforts have met fierce resistance. Armed only with limited resources, its forces have struggled to contain the violence. This internal conflict has largely escaped international media attention despite its intensity. When Israeli forces intervene, they act to neutralize threats that the PA cannot manage, fulfilling both a legal and moral obligation to protect civilians and restore regional stability. News about - Why did Israel launch the operation in Jenin? - INTERVIEW - Critics argue that Israeli military operations escalate tensions. What is your response?
- Israel prioritizes the safety of its citizens, a fundamental right under international law. Allowing terrorist groups to operate unchecked would be irresponsible and dangerous. Organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad pose a threat not only to Israel but to regional stability as a whole. Their explicit aim to destroy Israel leaves no room for compromise.
These groups perpetuate violence within their communities, targeting both Israelis and Palestinians. They indoctrinate children with hate, perpetuating a cycle of violence. As long as these extremist ideologies persist, prospects for lasting peace remain bleak.
- What role does the Palestinian Authority play in this situation?
- The PA finds itself in a precarious position. While it has formally supported peace agreements with Israel, its inability or unwillingness to confront radical factions like Hamas and Islamic Jihad undermines its credibility. In areas like Gaza and Jenin, the PA's influence has waned, allowing extremist groups to gain power and exacerbate instability. News about - Why did Israel launch the operation in Jenin? - INTERVIEW - How do you assess the involvement of countries like Iran and Türkiye in this conflict?
- Iran is a key sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, funding groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad to destabilize the region and weaken Israel’s security. This agenda extends beyond Israel, threatening broader international stability.
Türkiye’s role is more nuanced but problematic. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Türkiye has provided tacit support to Hamas, even allowing the group to operate within its borders. This complicates not only Türkiye-Israel relations but also the broader dynamics of regional alliances.
- Is there hope for peace in the region?
- Peace is always a goal, but it requires both sides to engage in meaningful dialogue. Unfortunately, radical groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad remain staunchly opposed to any peace process. Their calls for Israel’s destruction leave little room for negotiation.
Nevertheless, there are positive examples, such as the peace agreements Israel has maintained with Egypt and Jordan for decades. These treaties demonstrate that peace is possible when mutual recognition and cooperation prevail. The disempowerment of extremist groups and a shift in regional attitudes toward Israel will be critical for future progress.
- What measures should the international community support to address the root causes of instability in the Middle East, and how can these efforts contribute to a sustainable peace while ensuring Israel’s security and regional stability?
- Israel’s actions are not about punishing Palestinians but about protecting its citizens and ensuring regional stability. The fight against terrorism is a global issue, and Israel’s efforts contribute to broader security in the Middle East. The international community should support measures that address the root causes of instability while advocating for a path to sustainable peace.
Once the influence of radical groups is diminished, there will be greater potential for constructive dialogue. Until then, Israel will continue to act decisively to defend itself and its people.
https://news.az/news/-why-did-israel-launch-the-operation-in-jenin-interview | | Saturday, January 18th, 2025 | | 8:47 pm |
Ceasefire with Hamas: A strategic pause or a dangerous concession? By Abraham Shmulevich
The recently brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas marks a significant, albeit contentious, development in their protracted conflict. While the cessation of hostilities may provide temporary respite for civilians on both sides, it raises pressing questions about Israel’s long-term security and the broader stability of the Middle East. The fundamental issue lies in the nature of Hamas itself: an organization whose charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. This unwavering ideological commitment casts a long shadow over any prospects for sustainable peace and challenges the very notion of negotiating with such a group.
For decades, Hamas has relied on external funding to maintain its operations, much of which is channeled into military infrastructure rather than humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. Financial support from various sources in the Arab world, the West, and even the United States has allowed Hamas to build a formidable military apparatus. Reports from former Israeli military officials suggest that Hamas’s military capabilities now surpass those of many Middle Eastern states. This alarming development highlights the group’s capacity to wage war at any given moment, making any ceasefire inherently fragile.
The current ceasefire agreement, while hailed by some as a step toward de-escalation, introduces several troubling dynamics. First and foremost, it enables Hamas to reestablish control over key territories in Gaza that were previously disrupted by Israeli military operations. This territorial regain will undoubtedly be used to fortify its presence, rebuild its infrastructure, and prepare for the next confrontation. Historically, humanitarian aid meant to alleviate civilian suffering has been diverted by Hamas to fund its military ambitions. Weapons, tunnels, and fortifications—the hallmarks of Hamas’s strategy—are likely to see a resurgence, undoing any short-term gains achieved by Israel.
One particularly concerning aspect of this ceasefire is the fate of the Philadelphia Corridor, a critical smuggling route along the Gaza-Egypt border. If Hamas regains full access to this area, it will accelerate the flow of weapons and supplies, strengthening its arsenal for future conflicts. This poses a severe risk to Israeli security, as it undermines efforts to disrupt Hamas’s supply chains. The continued captivity of Israeli hostages by Hamas further compounds the sense of injustice, as it highlights the group’s ability to operate with impunity even amid ceasefire negotiations.
From a strategic perspective, this agreement could be seen as a dangerous concession. By withdrawing from critical areas and allowing Hamas to rebuild, Israel risks facing an even stronger adversary in the near future. The ceasefire has inadvertently handed Hamas a propaganda victory, bolstering its image as a resilient force capable of withstanding one of the world’s most advanced militaries. This perception not only emboldens Hamas but also strengthens the resolve of other adversaries in the region, creating a ripple effect of instability.
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the ceasefire represents a significant political and strategic setback. Domestically, the agreement has fueled criticism from both the left and the right, exposing fractures within Israel’s political landscape. The opposition has seized upon the deal as evidence of weak leadership, arguing that it compromises Israel’s security and emboldens its enemies. Internationally, the ceasefire has been framed as a victory for Hamas, which undermines Israel’s standing and complicates its efforts to secure broader support against terrorism.
The implications extend beyond Israel’s immediate security concerns. A weakened Israeli position risks destabilizing regional alliances with nations such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states, which rely on Israel’s strength to counterbalance shared adversaries like Iran. Furthermore, the international community may interpret the ceasefire as validation of appeasement tactics toward terrorist organizations. Such a precedent could embolden groups with similar objectives, undermining global counterterrorism efforts and jeopardizing the security of other sovereign nations.
Israel must confront an uncomfortable yet inescapable reality: no ceasefire or diplomatic negotiation can achieve lasting peace as long as Hamas remains ideologically committed to Israel’s destruction. The group’s actions—whether launching rockets, constructing tunnels, or taking hostages—are not anomalies but the direct result of its foundational principles. Until these principles are addressed, any truce will serve only as a temporary pause in an ongoing conflict, one that Hamas will reignite when it perceives the conditions to be favorable.
This does not imply that Israel should abandon efforts to reduce violence or protect civilian lives. Rather, it underscores the need for a more comprehensive strategy, one that goes beyond temporary ceasefires and addresses the root causes of the conflict. Such a strategy might include intensifying military pressure to dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure, leveraging international partnerships to cut off its funding sources, and engaging with moderate elements within Palestinian society to offer alternative pathways to peace.
The lesson for Israel and its allies is clear. Peace with groups like Hamas is impossible as long as their core objectives remain unchanged. Diplomatic concessions, while often well-intentioned, risk emboldening those who seek Israel’s destruction. This is not merely a matter of national security but a test of Israel’s resolve to defend its sovereignty and ensure the safety of its citizens.
As the ceasefire unfolds, Israel must remain vigilant. It must strengthen its defenses, reinforce its alliances, and prepare for the inevitability of future confrontations. The stakes are too high to rely on temporary solutions or half-measures. Only through a sustained, multifaceted approach can Israel hope to secure lasting peace and stability in a region fraught with challenges. Anything less risks perpetuating the cycle of violence and endangering the future of the Jewish state. | | Monday, November 25th, 2024 | | 10:19 pm |
Решение МУС — антисемитский выпад глобалистских элит Европы Решение МУС — антисемитский выпад глобалистских элит Европы Финкель и Шмулевич на Caliber.Az
Вадим Мансуров
Журналист Caliber. Az
25 Ноября 2024 11:25
Международный уголовный суд (МУС) выдал ордеры на арест премьер-министра Израиля Биньямина Нетаньяху и бывшего министра обороны Йоава Галанта. Суд обвинил израильских политических деятелей в военных преступлениях и преступлениях против человечности, совершённых на территории сектора Газа. В частности, согласно вердикту МУС, оба политика «намеренно и сознательно лишили гражданское население Газы предметов, необходимых для выживания», и препятствовали оказанию палестинцам гуманитарной помощи как минимум с 8 октября 2023 года.
Особенно шокирует то, что одновременно с этим решением МУС выдал ордер на арест одного из лидеров группировки ХАМАС Мухаммеда Дейфа (уже ликвидированного в результате израильского удара 13 июля по городу Хан-Юнис в секторе Газа). Таким образом, МУС окончательно приравнял действия израильских политиков к действиям радикалов.
Как расценили подобный шаг МУС в самом Израиле? – с этим вопросом Сaliber. Az обратился к израильским политологам.
В то же время, как полагает специалист по Кавказу, исламскому миру и Ближнему Востоку, председатель Института Восточного партнерства (Иерусалим) Авраам Шмулевич, данное решение МУС надо рассматривать не только в контексте европейской политики.
«Международный суд в Гааге формируется ООН, а многие страны из этого списка ООН относятся враждебно к Израилю. Поэтому суд отражает их позицию. И это, конечно, совершенно шизофреническая позиция, когда, с одной стороны, так называемое международное сообщество не замечает многочисленные преступления, которые совершаются на всей планете, но при этом всё их внимание сосредоточено на мнимых преступлениях, которые якобы совершает Израиль. Но правда состоит в том, что ни один человек в Газе не умер от голода, просто потому что Израиль посылает в Газу международную помощь, а также непосредственно израильские гуманитарные грузы. Каждый день в сектор Газа отправляются сотни грузовиков с продовольствием, энергоносителями, медикаментами и так далее. То, что это решение МУС абсолютно абсурдно, я думаю, отчетливо понимают все. Израиль, конечно, будет игнорировать это решение и уже заявил об этом. Канцелярия премьер-министра уже назвала решение Международного уголовного суда «антисемитским» и отметила, что Израиль «не поддастся давлению» в том, что касается защиты его граждан», — заметил политолог.
По его мнению, в Азербайджане хорошо понимают эту несправедливость, потому что Международный уголовный суд не принял ни одного решения в защиту азербайджанских беженцев, которые в ходе Карабахской войны были изгнаны армянской стороной.
«И мы прекрасно понимаем, что международное сообщество просто закрыло на это глаза. Ни один из армянских генералов, которые участвовали в этих преступлениях и прямо заявляли о том, что они убивали гражданское население, не был привлечен к ответственности. При этом вся Западная Европа выступала как бы в поддержку территориальной целостности Азербайджана, но и одновременно против того, чтобы Азербайджан принимал меры, чтобы эту целостность себе вернуть. Такая же лицемерная политика наблюдается в отношении Израиля. Израиль является страной, которая более всего подвергается критике практически за любые действия, которые совершает. И даже беспрецедентные шаги Израиля для обеспечения жителей Газы гуманитарной помощью тоже поторопились объявить международным преступлением. Но я надеюсь, что многие цивилизованные европейские страны выступят против абсурдных действий МУС. Показательный пример — заявления правительства Венгрии, которое не приняло решения МУС и выразило поддержку Израилю, пригласило Нетаньяху посетить свою страну», — подчеркнул политолог.
Так что никаких особых последствий для Израиля, по его мнению, ордер МУС иметь не будет, но, к сожалению, это определенный успех для ХАМАС.
«Я хочу отметить, что до сих пор почему-то ни один живой лидер ХАМАС не был привлечен к ответственности. Они предъявили обвинение Мухаммеду Дейфу, который уже убит, поскольку он один из лидеров ХАМАС, которые были ответственны за резню израильтян 7 октября 2023 года. А есть и ныне здравствующие руководители «Хезболлы», которые каждый день обстреливают израильские гражданские поселения, что является безусловным нарушением международного права, но против них МУС почему-то никаких обвинений не выдвигает», — добавил А. Шмулевич.
По мнению политолога, это доказывает, что международное право, международная система в том виде, в котором она есть, не работает, она стала игрушкой в руках определенных стран-интересантов, которые никакого отношения к международному праву не имеют.
«Поэтому такая система должна быть реформирована. И я надеюсь, что с возвращением во власть Дональд Трамп эту систему изменит, по крайней мере попытается ее капитально переформатировать. Я напомню, что в прошлую каденцию администрация Трампа ввела даже судебное преследование против тогдашнего руководителя МУС за ряд противозаконных деяний. Думаю, то же самое будет происходить и сейчас. Так что, повторюсь, никакого давления на Израиль данные игры МУС оказать не смогут. Разве что Нетаньяху откажется от поездки в какие-то страны, которые он и так посещал крайне редко.
Конечно, жаль, что при этом данное решение МУС придает ХАМАС дополнительную легитимность, осложняет переговоры по поводу освобождения израильских заложников. Но я думаю, Израиль справится и с этой проблемой. Если же попытаться ответить на вопрос, чем руководствовались те, кто принимали это решение, я думаю, что теми же мотивами, что и 70–80 лет назад, когда в Европе шло уничтожение еврейского народа. В этом смысле эти страны не очень изменились. Я напомню вам, что именно в Гааге, в Нидерландах, именно голландская полиция, которая сразу перешла на сторону нацистов после оккупации страны, беспрекословно осуществляла депортацию евреев в лагеря смерти. В Европе и в мире много людей, которые все еще желают уничтожения Израиля, и все эти действия являются продолжением их политики. Им не удалось уничтожить евреев при Гитлере, им не удалось уничтожить евреев во время многочисленных арабо-израильских войн, они пытаются сделать это сейчас», — резюмировал А. Шмулевич.
Caliber. Az
https://caliber.az/post/reshenie-mus-antisemitskij-vypad-globalistskih-elit-evropy | | 10:09 pm |
ICC's decision – Anti-Semitic attack by Europe's globalist elite Israeli experts on Caliber.Az Vadim Mansurov Caliber. Az The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip. Specifically, the ICC alleges that both leaders "intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival" and obstructed the delivery of humanitarian aid to Palestinians at least since October 8, 2023.
What is particularly shocking is that, at the same time, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for one of Hamas's leaders, Mohammed Deif—who had already been killed in an Israeli airstrike on July 13 in the city of Khan Yunis in Gaza. In effect, the ICC has equated the actions of Israeli politicians with those of extremists.
How has this decision been perceived within Israel? Caliber. Az reached out to Israeli political analysts to explore their views.
According to Abraham Shmulevich, a specialist on the Caucasus, the Islamic world, and the Middle East, and the head of the Institute of Eastern Partnership (Jerusalem), the ICC's decision should not only be viewed in the context of European politics.
"The International Court in The Hague is formed by the UN, and many countries on this UN list are hostile to Israel. Therefore, the court reflects their position. And this is, of course, a completely schizophrenic stance, where, on the one hand, the so-called international community ignores numerous crimes occurring around the world, but at the same time, all its attention is focused on the supposed crimes allegedly committed by Israel. But the truth is that no one in Gaza has died of starvation because Israel sends international aid to Gaza, as well as Israeli humanitarian shipments directly. Every day, hundreds of trucks with food, energy supplies, medicines, and more are sent to the Gaza Strip. I think everyone clearly understands that the ICC's decision is utterly absurd. Israel, of course, will ignore this decision and has already stated as much. The Prime Minister's office has already called the ICC's ruling 'anti-Semitic' and emphasized that Israel 'will not bow to pressure' when it comes to defending its citizens," noted the political analyst.
In his view, Azerbaijan understands this injustice well, as the International Criminal Court has not made a single decision in defence of Azerbaijani refugees who were expelled by the Armenian side during the Karabakh war.
"And we clearly understand that the international community simply turned a blind eye to this. Not one of the Armenian generals who participated in these crimes and openly stated that they were killing civilians has been held accountable. At the same time, all of Western Europe has expressed support for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, but at the same time opposed Azerbaijan taking measures to restore that integrity. A similar hypocritical policy is evident concerning Israel. Israel is the country most often criticized for practically any action it takes. Even Israel’s unprecedented efforts to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza were hastily declared an international crime. However, I hope that many civilized European countries will oppose the absurd actions of the ICC. A telling example is the statements made by the Hungarian government, which rejected the ICC's decision and expressed support for Israel, even inviting Netanyahu to visit their country," emphasized the political analyst.
Therefore, in his opinion, the ICC's arrest warrant will not have any significant consequences for Israel, but unfortunately, it marks a certain success for Hamas.
"I want to note that, for some reason, no living Hamas leader has been held accountable so far. They have charged Mohammed Deif, who is already dead, because he was one of the Hamas leaders responsible for the massacre of Israelis on October 7, 2023. Yet there are still living leaders of Hezbollah, who fire on Israeli civilian settlements every day, which is an undeniable violation of international law, but for some reason, the ICC has not brought any charges against them," added Shmulevich.
According to the political analyst, this proves that international law, and the international system as it currently exists, are not functioning. It has become a tool in the hands of certain interested nations that have nothing to do with true international law.
"Therefore, such a system needs to be reformed. And I hope that with Donald Trump returning to power, he will change this system, or at least try to fundamentally reshape it. I remind you that during his previous term, the Trump administration even initiated legal action against the then-head of the ICC for a number of illegal acts. I believe the same will happen now. So, once again, the ICC’s actions will not be able to exert any pressure on Israel. Unless, of course, Netanyahu decides to refrain from visiting certain countries that he already visits very rarely.
Of course, it’s unfortunate that this ICC decision gives Hamas additional legitimacy and complicates negotiations for the release of Israeli hostages. But I believe Israel will manage this issue as well. If we try to answer the question of what motivated those who made this decision, I think it’s the same motives that guided them 70-80 years ago, during the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe. In this sense, these countries haven’t changed much. I remind you that it was in The Hague, in the Netherlands, where the Dutch police, which immediately sided with the Nazis after the occupation, carried out the deportation of Jews to death camps without question. Many people in Europe and around the world still desire the destruction of Israel, and all these actions are a continuation of their policy. They failed to destroy the Jews under Hitler, they failed during the numerous Arab-Israeli wars, and now they are trying to do it again," concluded Shmulevich. https://caliber.az/en/post/icc-s-decision-anti-semitic-attack-by-europe-s-globalist-elite
| | Thursday, September 5th, 2024 | | 4:44 pm |
American economist, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University (New York), Professor Jeffrey Sachs, said that an armed conflict between the United States and Iran could very likely turn into World War III. "The United States is not interested in a war with Iran because Iran has allies, including Russia. So a war with Iran could easily turn into World War III, and World War III into a nuclear war," Sachs said in an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson. The expert added that Israel is trying to drag the United States into "a larger war in the Middle East, which is 100% contrary to American interests." How likely is it that World War III will break out and then turn into a nuclear war from this very region? And how right is the expert in believing that Israel is trying to draw the US into a “wider war in the Middle East”? Is such a thing in the interests of this country? After all, it directly threatens its existence - America is far away, and Israel, you might say, is next to Iran, in the same region. Answers to these questions came from well-known foreign experts in an interview with Caliber. Az. Avraham Shmulevich, a specialist on the Caucasus, the Islamic world and the Middle East and head of the Institute for Eastern Partnership (Jerusalem), believes that the outbreak of World War III is an absolutely improbable thing. "In the current situation, it is impossible, especially due to the conflict in Iran. Even if a large-scale confrontation were to occur between Israel and the US on one side and Iran on the other, it is inconceivable that Russia would come to Tehran's aid. The relationship between Russia and Iran is quite complex and contradictory. It is by no means a 100% alliance. The same applies to the relationship between Russia and China. There is also no military alliance between Iran and China. China uses Iran for its oil needs, but that doesn’t mean China would sacrifice its own interests for Iran. Even if Iran were to cease to exist in its current form, China and Russia would not be significantly affected. The notion that if there were a strike on Iran, Russia would retaliate against the US and that China would join in is an entirely unrealistic fantasy. There’s nothing to discuss here," asserts the head of the institute. 
Regarding Israel's interest in igniting a wider Middle Eastern conflict, this notion is rooted in anti-Israel propaganda, he explains. "Israel has no interest in initiating war, and none of the conflicts around it have been started by Israel. It’s important to remember that Iran is the one that has publicly called for the destruction of Israel, as documented in the foundational texts of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is the aggressor. It attacks Israel directly now and has long waged proxy wars against it. Naturally, Israel responds, but its primary goal is to halt these attacks. If Hamas and Hezbollah ceased their aggression, Israel would be content. However, this is unlikely because these terrorist groups are funded and directed by Tehran. Thus, it is logical for Israel to target the source of its threat. Arab countries neighbouring Iran, which face even greater damage and threats from Iran, would also benefit from such actions. Particularly, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. During Obama’s presidency, which indirectly supported Iran (as Biden’s administration does now), Iran-Israel relations soured, and Saudi Arabia implored Israel to take action against Iran, even offering its airspace. I believe that had Israel acted on this, it would have received covert support from Bahrain, the Emirates, and Saudi Arabia." However, Israel is keen on resolving all issues without resorting to war, as any war carries significant risks. Nevertheless, I don't believe such an outcome is feasible. Sooner or later, Israel will need to take decisive action, and the sooner it happens, the better. Iran is leaving Israel with no other option. Regarding the attempt to drag the US into a Middle Eastern war, Israel is not interested in a full-scale conflict. It simply wants to end the constant attacks instigated by Iran. It is very difficult to envision a full-scale war in this region. I should remind you that Israel has peace treaties and even military-technical cooperation agreements with several Arab states, which are unhappy with Iran's interference on their territories through the support of anti-government militant groups,” the expert noted. However, he added, what is more intriguing is how this interview with Sachs came about. "Columbia University is indeed one of the leading American intellectual centers, especially in the realm of foreign policy. As for Tucker Carlson, he is one of the most popular American journalists aligned with the Republican Party, and this article reflects the contradictions and struggles surrounding Israel within the American establishment. Recently, it's become common to view the Democratic Party as having an anti-Israel stance. However, this isn't entirely accurate. This perception primarily pertains to the radical faction of the Democratic Party, which consists of explicit anti-Semites who oppose the existence of Israel. But they do not represent the majority within the Democratic Party. Similarly, anti-Israel sentiments can also be found among some Republican supporters. It is not coincidental that a large portion of American Jews traditionally vote for Democrats, as the core of the Republican Party includes Christian fundamentalists, some of whom are pro-Israel while others are anti-Semitic. Carlson's stance on Israel is quite ambiguous. He frequently hosts authors with anti-Israel viewpoints, and the aforementioned interview should be understood in this context. It should also be viewed within the framework of the American electoral struggle, as the position of the Republicans on Israel is being shaped. Going back to the beginning, Israel is not interested in launching a war, but a war has already been launched against Israel. But the Netanyahu government wants to put the Iranian issue on hold and does not want to risk launching a full-scale strike against Iran,’ Shmulevich explained. https://caliber.az/en/post/could-us-iran-conflict-trigger-world-war-iii-and-nuclear-war | | Thursday, May 30th, 2019 | | 10:44 pm |
Lack of Horizontal Ties among Regions Means Weakening of Vertical Ones between Them and Moscow Threa
Lack of Horizontal Ties among Regions Means Weakening of
Vertical Ones between Them and Moscow Threatens Country, Shmulyevich Says
Paul Goble
Staunton, May 30 – “Russia is very poorly administered,” Avraam Shmulyevich
says. “Horizontal ties are practically non-existent, and vertical ones are very
poor.” As a result, such systems can last a long time but then disappear
overnight because any weakening of the vertical ties means there is little to
hold the country together.
That is what
was the case in 1917 and again in 1991, the Israeli specialist on the North
Caucasus says; and as a result, “the Russian Federation could fall apart in
three days.” Because that is so, the regions and republics are
increasingly having to think about how they will cope and what they will do in
that event (afterempire.info/2019/05/30/hronika-imperii/).
Because
of his expertise, Shmulyevich develops this point by discussing the Caucasus.
He suggests that “over the post-Soviet years, the Caucasus has been transformed
into an ordinary colony,” one that is costly and difficult for the center to
administer. Moscow lacks the skills to do so. As a result, it is “the source of
turbulence for the entire Russian Federation.”
“Mentally,” the analyst says, the North Caucasus has “already distanced itself
from Russia and Russia from it. Therefore, Moscow most likely in the coming years
will simply throw off it as ballast” holding Russia back much as the West
European colonial powers let their colonies go in the 1950s and 1960s.
The
question arises, however, “will this be a good thing for the Caucasus and for
the world?” Could it take the form of normal nation states? Of dictatorships
like Chechnya already is? Or a region of Islamist terrorism and
radicalism? Or could it consist of all these things competing among
themselves and drawing in outside powers?
According
to Shmulyevich, “the Circassians are the only people of the caucaus among whom
there is an ideological system that can serve as an alternative to Islam … the
ideology of Khabze.” But within the divided Circassian nation, that
ideology is now locked in a competition with Islamism.
“Any
people which exists under a colonial yoke degrades,” the Israeli analyst says.
“The North Caucasus and all its peoples have lived in three empires” and as a
result various “unhealthy phenomena” have emerged. But these phenomena have not
completely destroyed the underlying cultures of these peoples.
Many of
them have healthy elements within them, Shmulyevich says. One mustn’t
feel that everything is bad but rather work to help the health elements defeat
the unhealthy ones. “There are all kinds of possibilities to do this, and
that requires in the first instance to remember that the first source of all
the problems is that the Caucasus became a Russian colony.”
“Anti-colonial revolutions both in European colonies and in the Russian Empire
in the 19th and 20th centuries were headed by members of the intelligentsia and
businessmen who went to study and make careers and money in the metropolitan
center and abroad and then returned to their
Motherlands.”
For
centuries, he continues, “the Caucasus peoples have suffered many catastrophes,
attacks and conquests. Russian colonial rule is only one of them.” Russia has
been and remains “a disintegrating factor,” and there is no reason to think
that the region will recover quickly or easily from its occupation.
One may
certainly quibble with Shmulyevich about varius aspects of the situation in the
North Caucasus, but his insight on the relationship between vertical and
horizontal ties is fundamental and should become the basis of analysis of the
Russian situation not only by Western observers but by participants of all
kinds within the Russian Federation.
Unless
Russia develops more horizontal ties among its regions, any weakening of the
vertical ones between the regions and the center will inevitably call the
territorial integrity of the country into question. Those who think that
vertical ties will be enough have been proved wrong before and are quite likely
to be proved wrong again.
https://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2019/05/lack-of-horizontal-ties-among-regions.html
Window on Eurasia -- New Series, May 30, 2019 | | Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 | | 7:53 pm |
Putin Preparing for Third World War to Force Ukraine and West to Make Some Hard Choices, Shmulyevich Перевод и изложение Paul Goble моей статьи Paul Goble
Staunton, December 1 – Vladimir Putin is actively preparing for a third world war, Avraam Shmulyevich says, one in advance of which Ukraine and the West must decide whether Kyiv is “an ally of the West or part of the Putin system.” Indeed, the Kremlin leader’s actions are designed to show the West just how expensive it will be for it to support Ukraine against him.
The Israeli political analyst makes those comments in the course of an interview with Taavi Minnik, a journalist for Tallinn’s Postimees newspaper, ones in which he makes clear that Putin is not planning for “’the small victorious war’” many talk about but rather about something more (rus.postimees.ee/6466473/avraam-shmulevich-putin-zhazhdet-revansha).
Putin is very much in control however much the situation in Russia has deteriorated, Shmulyevich says. “There is no opposition in Russia; all opposition figures (except perhaps Navalny) are either in the West or more likely under the control of the FSB. The West isn’t supporting any real opposition or spending money to oppose Russian propaganda.”
Moreover, and far from the least important, the Israeli analyst says, “Putin has a very powerful repressive apparatus. In fact, nothing threatens him.”
“The West’s problem is that it doesn’t listen to Putin who with remarkable candor says what he wants,” Shmulyevich says. He said it already in Munich: he is seeking to reestablish the Russian Empire. Putin wants the greatness of Russia as he imagines it at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20 centuries.”
According to the Israeli analyst, “Putin wants to return what was lost with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. He has pursued that goal through his entire period in office, building up a repressive apparatus and a military and putting the economy on military rails.” Russia’s strength has grown but the standard of living of the Russian people has not.
“In order to return to the status of empire, Russia must recover Ukraine. Putin has more than once said that Ukraine is a state that should arose as a result of a mistake and which should not exist because Ukrainians are part of the Russian people.” Putin in Crimea and the Donbass has used a strategy of “creeping annexation.’”
Given this goal, Shmulyevich says, “Putin doesn’t need ‘a small victorious war’ but a big war which will give him control over Europe and the world.” (emphasis supplied)
What has just happened in the Kerch Strait raises the stakes and show how far Putin is now prepared to go, the analyst continues. “Never before has the Russian regular army opened fire on Ukrainian forces. The transfer of Crimea took place without a single shot being fired. And Russia had denied that its forces are in the Donbass.”
Now, however, “Putin has attempted to annex the Sea of Azov de facto and for the first time has opened fire on Ukrainian ships in international waters.” Today, “the question, ‘Is NATO prepared to defend the Kerch Straits?’ is equivalent to the question ‘Is NATO prepared to die for Narva?”
To avoid disaster, Shmulyevich says, “there must be a clear reaction and not just words expressing concern.”
Ukrainian elites and Ukrainian society are not ready to fight an all-out war with Russia, he adds. They have used various euphemisms to avoid facing up to the sweeping nature of Moscow’s aggression. That has had the effect of only leading Putin to conclude that he can go further and further.
Putin’s aggression now echoes Hitler’s in the years before World War II, and the response of many in Europe to it now echoes the reaction of many Europeans in that period as well. Everyone must understand that “Putin is preparing for a third world war and for revenge,” Shmulyevich says.
“Ukraine must define itself: either it is an ally of the West or it is part of Putin’s system. To continue to sit on two stools at the same time is no longer possible. I very much doubt,” the Israeli analyst concludes, “that European politicians understand this truth” and the stake not only for Ukraine but for themselves as well.
As long as they don’t, he suggests, Putin will continue his advance, pocketing anything he can. http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2018/12/putin-preparing-for-third-world-war-to.html | | Friday, June 29th, 2018 | | 1:09 am |
Paul Goble
Staunton, June 28 – Irakly Kobakhidze, the speaker of the Georgian parliament, said in Washington this week that Russia continues to threaten the national independence of his country, maintains its occupation forces on Georgian territory and has refused to respond to Tbilisi’s efforts to find common ground (apsny.ge/2018/pol/1530210649.php).
Because of this threat, Georgia has been pursuing membership in the Western alliance; but as Vladimir Putin has demonstrated again and again, he will use all means, including invasion and occupation, to prevent that from happening by creating a situation in which some NATO member states will be leery of becoming involved.
In a personal communication to this writer, Israeli analyst Avraham Shmulyevich says that recent statements coming out of South Ossetia and recent Russian actions in support of the Armenians in Georgia’s Javakhetia region suggest that Putin may in fact be ready to threaten or even carry out the dismemberment of Georgia by cutting that country in half.
If one looks at a map of Georgia, one can see that the Russian unrecognized client state of South Ossetia looks like a dagger pointed directly at the Georgian capital, Shmulyevich points out. For confirmation of this, he points to a series of maps of the area available online at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trialet_Ossetia.png.
Any further expansion of Ossetian control, something that could only be achieved with the strength of Russian arms, would threaten Tbilisi even more directly. But as Shmulyevich notes, there is an even greater danger to Georgia in evidence, one that reflects the recent changes in Armenia.
That is in the Javakhetia region in southern Georgia, a region populated largely by ethnic Armenians and led by people who were closely associated with the ancient regime in Yerevan. They are thus more disposed to follow Moscow’s demands than the Pashinyan government and could be set against Tbilisi as well.
Were Moscow and its agents to stir up trouble in Javakhetia, Shmulyevich says, that would create a dagger from the south that would almost meet the Ossetian dagger from the north and cut the Republic of Georgia into two parts. Even the threat that Moscow could do that must be worrisome to Georgia and its supporters in the West.
Obviously, this is an argument based on capabilities rather than on knowledge of intentions; but it is not so far-fetched that it should be dismissed out of hand, as some may be inclined to do. Instead, it could become a scenario for yet another Putinist hybrid war and for the same purpose as in Ukraine, to block a country that wants to turn to the West from doing so.
https://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2018/06/is-moscow-planning-to-try-to-cut.html | | Tuesday, April 17th, 2018 | | 5:29 pm |
Israeli Analyst Says Putin Like Hitler of the 1930s But Not Yet Prepared for a General War Paul Goble
Staunton, April 16 – Vladimir Putin’s actions “resemble those of the early Adolf Hitler,” Rabbi Avraam Shmulyevich says. And like the Nazi leader, the Kremlin boss is testing his forces in smaller conflicts and seeking to raise a generation of people who are prepared to die for him and his ideas.
“One can compare [Putin] with the early Hitler of the 1930s,” Shmulyevich says on Espresso television, when the Nazi leader “step by step increased the military capacity of the Wehrmacht, carried out ‘pilot’ steps in Spain, Austria and Czechoslovakia and then began a big war.”
“This in principle is what Putin said openly that he intends to do,” the Israeli expert continues.
At the same time, Shmulyevich says he is “convinced that for the time being Putin ‘will not cross a red line’ in relations with the West. It is possible there will be some local clashes” in which he will test his army against the American one but that the Kremlin leader will always pull back before things get out of hand. https://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.co.il/2018/04/israeli-analyst-says-putin-like-hitler.html
| | Friday, February 9th, 2018 | | 3:56 pm |
The Terror in Daghestan has Begun to Spread – And Will Last as Long as Putin Does. The Terror in Daghestan has Begun to Spread – And Will Last as Long as Putin
Does.
The
country has entered a new 1937, the beginning of terror. “Today Russia is ruled
by Chekists … They even call themselves that. But Chekists do not know how to do
anything but arrest people.” That is what it was established to do and that is
what it is doing now.
“In
contrast to Perm, Tver or Sakhalin,” Shmulyevich continues, “Daghestan is viewed
as a colony of Russia as a certain alien place and therefore everything which is
taking place there is examined with particular interest – although in this
specific case, there is no difference between Daghestan and Kirov oblast or
Magadan.”
But there is one
difference that Moscow appears to have forgotten: unlike in these other places,
in Daghestan, there is a tradition of partisan war, of going into the forests
and fighting back. And consequently, if Moscow
continues to repress people in Daghestan, it is more than likely that this
tradition will return to the fore.
But
at the same time Moscow is arresting people in Daghestan, Shmulyevich points
out, “arrests and even murders in the ruling stratum are occurring throughout
the entire country” – in Tatarstan, in Ingushetia, in Stavropol and in
Kaliningrad. And that means something else: it has begun and will continues as
long as this [Putin] system exists.”
| | Monday, January 8th, 2018 | | 3:00 am |
Iran is an Islamic Variant of the Soviet Union at Its End, Shmulyevich Says Iran is an Islamic Variant of the Soviet Union at Its End, Shmulyevich SaysPaul GobleStaunton, January 7 – Iran today resembles the USSR in its final days, “an ideological regime in collapse;” but the Iranian protesters are more radically inclined against the ayatollahs than were Russians against the communists and also more willing than Russians to bear their share of responsibility for the regime they hope to overthrow, Avraam Shmulevich says.In an article on the After Empire portal and in an interview with Radio Liberty, the head of Israel’s Eastern Partnership Institute argues that is the case even if the current upsurge in protests in Iran is put down for a time (afterempire.info/2018/01/04/night-revolution/ and svoboda.org/a/28956976.html).Authoritarian regimes “do not fall by themselves,” and they do not fall when they first face public opposition, the commentator says. Instead, they collapse as wave after wave of opposition appears and as their opponents become more radical in their criticisms and in their demands.That was true of the Russian Empire and of the Soviet Union, and it is very much true of Iran now, Shmulyevich says. “If in 2009, protesters [there] demanded honest elections; now, no one talks about elections and the chief slogan is death: ‘Death to Khomeini,’ ‘Death to the Islamic Revolution!’ and so on.”Like their Russian and Soviet precursors, the Iranian people see that the regime ruling over them oppresses the ordinary people while allowing “the golden youth to what it wants.” They see corruption all around them, with the rulers enriching themselves while the people suffer ever more.All this, he continues, is very similar to what was the case in the Soviet Union in the 1980s.But there are some big differences, Shmulyevich says; and those deserve to be attended to because they show that the Iranians in the streets are more angry and more committed to real change than were the supporters of perestroika at the end of Soviet times.“In Iran, there is a real demand for democracy. People who are now going into the streets of Iranian cities really want freedom and really want the establishment of a normal democratic society. In Russia, there [was and] is no such demand.” Instead, there is a demand for another but “good tsar” to rule over the people.The Iranians protesting now are talking “precisely about the complete destruction of the existing system. One of the slogans [they are marching under holds] ‘we were wrong when we made the Islamic Revolution.’ Such repentance and recognition of their own errors and that it necessary to go in another way does not exist in Russia now and did not in the early 1990s.”What is happening in Iran now is a genuinely popular rising. No outside forces can get hundreds of thousands of people to go into the streets, although the current Iranian regime like all authoritarian ones elsewhere “accuses external forces” in order to try to mobilize patriotic feelings on its behalf.Another way Iran is both similar to and different from the late Soviet Union is that in Iran today there are “quite powerful ethnic conflicts” and the existence of “at a minimum three national liberation movements – the Kurds, the Beluchi, and the Arabs” – not to mention the Azerbaijanis. And the Iranian demonstrators can expect to gain the backing of many in the outside world not only because of their commitments to democracy and freedom, Shmulyevich says, but also because “in Iran is the very lowest level of anti-Semitism among the populations in the Middle East.”https://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.co.il/2018/01/iran-is-islamic-variant-of-soviet-union.html | | Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018 | | 4:44 pm |
Iranian Protests Resonating in Russia, Caucasus and Central Asia, Shmulyevich Says Paul Goble
Staunton, December 31 – The outcome of the events in Iran remains far from clear, with the possibilities ranging from the restoration of the power of the existing government to its weakening to its complete overthrow, Avraam Shmulyevich says, with all but the first certain to have a dramatic impact in the post-Soviet space.
According to Shmulyevich, “civil society in Iran is more mature than it is in Russia. There, there is a real demand for democracy.” And that in turn means that few Russians are likely to be inspired by the Iranian protesters and go into the streets with the goal of overthrowing the existing system.
But that doesn’t mean the Iranian events don’t matter in Russia and especially to the Putin regime. On the one hand, the current Tehran government is one of Russia’s few allies in the world and that is a matter of concern for Putin. “Not that Russian television isn’t saying anything about the events in Iran, and this is very indicative,” the analyst continues.
The Iranian events will affect “not only the Russian Federation,” of course. They will resonate in Central Asia and in the South Caucasus, “above all in Azerbaijan.” If the ayatollahs fall, that will lead people in both of those places and in the North Caucasus to think about what they might do to get rid of their current rulers.
“Such thoughts may arise also in other Islamic regions of Russia, above all in Tatarstan, and this may accelerate the process of the separation of national borderlands from Russia,” Shmulyevich argues.
He continues: “If the Iranian revolution turns out to be successful, then Russia will lose those remnants of its influence which it has in Syria and in the region as a whole. This will be a strong shock on Putin’s self-esteem and his foreign policy because the only ally he has is Iran.” Moreover, a change in Iran “will strengthen Turkey’s position in its talks with Russia.”
Moreover, if the Iranian events produce regime change there, this could “push Russia’s Muslim regions, above all in the North Caucasus, to move more actively toward independence and threaten the pro-Russian regimes in Central Asia,” as well as creating “serious problems” for Ilham Aliyev in Azerbaijan. | | Sunday, September 10th, 2017 | | 1:31 am |
Window on Eurasia -- New Series_ North Caucasus Republics Could Flourish on Their Own, Israeli Polit
Paul Goble
Staunton, September 8 – Often observers look at the divisions among Circassians and even within the Circassian national movement and conclude that they are no threat to anyone, Avraam Shmulyevich says. But they forget that almost all national movements including the ones which have become successful have begun with such problems.
But those more closely involved, including in the first instance the government and special services of the Russian Federation, the Israeli analyst says, are very much frightened by that prospect and have deployed many forces to disorganize and suppress Circassian activism wherever it manifests itself (afterempire.info/2017/09/07/circassian/).
“The Circassians,” Shmulyevich continues, “are the only people for whom the Caucasus War has still not ended, the only people who not only seriously suffered in the course of this war but for whom the negative consequences of defeat are still important and more than that catastrophic.”
Their “main problem is that 80 percent of the Circassians to this day are in exile and being subject to active assimilation,” but in addition, those who remain in “their historical motherland, the North Caucasus, “are divided among six administrative units” something that represents a barrier to their coming together.
Moreover, “even in their own ‘national’ formations, the Circassians are deprived of the opportunity to freely develop their culture and define by themselves the path of their national development.” Moscow’s complaint that the Circassians talk “’too much’” about the past is baseless given that Russian forces expelled “more than 95 percent” of them.
That action, along with the murderous campaign and discrimination the Russian state imposed before and after 1864, qualifies as a genocide. That is how most international legal scholars view it, and it is so much a part of the Circassian national identity that few Circassians feel the need to articulate it on a regular basis, Shmulyevich says.
Moscow is not willing to discuss any of this. Nor is it willing to allow Circassians from the Middle East to return to the North Caucasus. The reason is simple, he says. “The arrival of tens and then hundreds of thousands of citizens with experience in more democratic states and having foreign citizenship and thus immunity … is a mortal threat to the Putin order.”
But Moscow is not content just to keep the Circassians from returning. Because of its fears, the Kremlin has taken steps to completely control Circassian organizations inside the Russian Federation, groups that “imitate activity and try to distract young people from the main Circassian problem.” They have been largely successful in “’setting the tone’” in these groups.
Today, however, Shmulyevich argues, “the situation is changing; and the meaninglessness of these organization has become evident to many Circassians. Circassian young people are coming to back the idea of the need for the creation of an international organization based on the principles of international law.”
The Israeli scholar says that in his opinion, such an organization “will appear in the coming years.”
In addition, he points out, “the Russian special services are devoting colossal efforts for the neutralization of the Circassian question. But they are not all-powerful. Even the powerful Soviet KGB was not in a position to control a multi-million-strong people; and its successors are weaker by an order of magnitude.”
All these things mean, Shmulyevich concludes, that Circassian problems are only going to intensify. As one Circassian activist told him, he reports, “God alone knows how all this will end, but there isn’t going to be any peace in the Caucasus.” And that is something that many in Moscow already have many reasons to fear. | | Friday, July 28th, 2017 | | 6:17 pm |
Putin Preparing to Reprise Stalin’s Winter War in Finland Strategy Against Ukraine, Shmulyevich Says Paul Goble
Staunton, July 28 – One of the most important features of Moscow’s behavior but one that at the same time Western leaders typically fail to recognize and incorporate in their responses is that the Kremlin employs regularly employs the same strategy and tactics again and again albeit in new times and in new locations.
Indeed, it all too often seems to be the case that Russia’s relationship with the West is best captured by what was said of the Bourbons two centuries ago: the Russians have never forgotten anything that they have done before and the West has never learned anything from that all too obvious and heinous historical record.
That makes analyses which draw a parallel between what the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union did in the past with what Putin is doing now especially valuable because if the West recognizes the first steps of what is likely Moscow’s strategy, it will be in a far better position to counter it.
This is something that at least some Ukrainian officials understand, Shmulyevich says, because they recognize that “Russia has frequently used such a scheme in the past,” most prominently in the case of the Winter War. Now, he and they think, there is a strong possibility of another “Winter War” action but this time against Ukraine and in the summer.
In 1940, “Stalin declared that a communist uprising against ‘the Whites’ had occurred.” It then announced “the formation of ‘the Finnish Democratic Republic,’ headed by Finnish communist Otto Kukusinen.” This republic, like Malorossiya, was “proclaimed on Finnish territories occupied by Soviet forces.
“The USSR recognized it and to assist ‘the Finnish brothers,’ the Red Army launched an attack along the entire front from the Gulf of Finland to the Barents Sea,” Shmulyevich reminds. Earlier, during the Russian Civil War, Moscow used a similar tactic against Ukraine and Georgia, ultimately incorporating them into the Soviet Union.
Now, “the Donets Army created by Moscow is again trying to liquidate the independence of Ukraine,” the Israeli analyst says. And “in exactly the same way.” And that must be a matter of concern because in all previous cases, “when Moscow applied this strategy, the West did not provide real military and even diplomatic help to the independent states which had become the victim of Russian aggression.”
“Three Russian divisions were recently brought up to [Ukraine’s] borders,” and the question arises: “What could stop Putin from a full-scale attack?” NATO countries “certainly do not want to intervene militarily. [And] even the answer to the question ‘Will NATO die for Narva?” up to now is not clear.”
But what is clear, Shmulyevich says, is that the Western alliance will not intervene on Ukraine’s behalf not least because Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Moreover, its forces are much reduced from two decades ago, and the alliance would need “a minimum of 14 to 18 days” to introduce forces. “By that time, Russian forces would reach the Dnipr.”
Consequently, he continues, “even if NATO would like to intervene, it would not be able to stop the advance of the Russians.” It might introduce more sanctions but that won’t frighten the Kremlin or stop the Russian advance. Given that Kyiv is only about 300 kilometers from the Russian border, such a strike could allow Moscow to install a comprador regime there.
“Putin – and he has said this himself – has an idee fixe about the restoration of the borders of the USSR,” just as “his idol Stalin had a dream about the restoration of the borders of the Russian Empire of 1914.” And thus “Malorossiya” should “disturb not only Ukrainians but all the neighbors of the Russian Federation.”
An article in the Moscow newspaper Vzglyad, Shmulyevich says, suggests what may be ahead and against which Ukrainians will have to fight with relatively few allies unless the scope of the danger is recognized in Western capitals and a more forceful policy is articulated and put in place.
In that article, ominously titled ‘Ukraine is Fated Again to Become Malorossiya,” the author says that “Russia is conducting a struggle for Ukraine not with the West … [but] with Kyiv. No one knows how much time it will take to transform Ukraine into Malorossiya – three years, five or even ten. But it inevitably will become Malorossiya and htne part of a single Great Russia” (vz.ru/politics/2017/7/18/879201.html).
Shmulyevich notes “history warns that the essence of the Russian Empire hasn’t changed … Whether the proclamation of ‘Malorossiya’ will be the beginning of the realization of the tested old scenario of imperial expansion depends in the first instance on whether the states under threat … can mobilize and mobilize the support of the free world.”
In the first Winter War, the Finns supported by volunteers from Estonia and other countries fought the Soviet Union to a draw; in the second, Shmulyevich concludes, whose first “shots” have already been fired, the Ukrainians are likely to be forced to try to achieve the same outcome in the same way. http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.co.il/2017/07/putin-preparing-to-reprise-stalins.html | | Friday, July 12th, 2013 | | 11:59 am |
Пол Гобл опубликовал сокр. перевод моей статьи Кавказский взгляд на уход России. Кровавый прогноз Я здесь охарактеризован как Israeli analyst Avraam Shmulyevich, one of the closest and most thoughtful observers of events in the North Caucasus - приятно, не скрою. Thursday, July 11, 2013
Window on Eurasia: Most Ingushes Think North Caucasus Will Gain Independence, Ingush Historian Says
Paul Goble Staunton, July 11 – Although fewer than one percent of Ingushes are now involved with the underground militants, approximately half of all Ingushes are certain that their republic and others in the North Caucasus will eventually be independent but at the same time fear that the process will be long and bloody, according to an Ingush historian now living in Western Europe. In an interview with Israeli analyst Avraam Shmulyevich, one of the closest and most thoughtful observers of events in the North Caucasus, the unnamed historian, who received his education in the Russian Federation but now lives abroad, described the hopes and fears of his nation regarding the immediate future (apn.ru/publications/article29585.htm). “Everyone knows that Russia will go, all have heard the stories of elders about prophecies [in that regard]. Now these prophesies are being realized. Those who think that way only guess what and how quickly.” Of course, “there are many who don’t believe that; they didn’t believe in the disintegration of the USSR either and they were mistaken. It will be the same this time around. ( Read more... ) |
|
