Mark my words, Gilad Shalit is coming home. He will soon be set free but not because of German mediations or the thousands of appeals made by his parents and their supporters. He's coming home because Bibi needs Gilad more than Gilad needs him.

In a television address aimed at countering public pressure for the government to secure the release of Gilad Shalit, Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, said that "Israel is willing to pay a heavy price for the release of Shalit, but not at any price."

The man with the "three no(s) : no withdrawal from the Golan Heights, no discussion of the case of Jerusalem, no negotiations under any preconditions," finds himself in a position to reluctantly say yes to negotiations with Hamas, a "terrorist' organization in his book, an entity he was keen to topple from day one.

Mr. Netanyahu said that he would release 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in return for the freedom of Gilad Shalit, who has been held in captivity in Gaza for the past four years.

Netanyahu's address comes five days after the family and supporters of Shalit began a protest march from the Shalit's Galilee home to the prime minister's official residence in Jerusalem.

Noam Shalit, Gilad's father, dismissed Netanyahu's speech and said that he was "recycling statements made by Olmert in March 2009."

Noam is probably right, but Netanyahu is in trouble. Since assuming office in April 2009, he has managed to destroy Israel's global standing, and alienate if from its closest allies. Here is how:

The "Settlement Freeze" Saga

The saga began a few days into his term following Barack Obama's speech in Cairo over a request for a freeze on new settlement construction in West Bank Jewish settlements to encourage peace talks with the Palestinians. Mr. Netanyahu rejected the goodwill gesture.

The fallout over the settlements hit a pinnacle when Vice President Joe Biden was greeted in Jerusalem with the announcement of the approval of more settlement construction by the Israeli Interior Ministry in Occupied East Jerusalem. This was contrary to U.S. wishes and complicated Biden's mission to help jump start the peace process. This was followed by the snubbing of Mr. Netanyahu at the White House, and the rest is history.

The Mossad Dubai Debacle

The issue here is not about the Mossad's "reality TV" operation in Dubai, nor the comedy of errors that ensued. The operation became a diplomatic disaster for Israel when it was revealed that the members of the Mossad hit squad blamed for the assassination of a Hamas commander in Dubai used fake British passports, as well as those from several other countries. The repercussions from the Dubai Debacle are still felt today. The recent arrest of a member of the Dubai hit squad in Warsaw is threatening to disrupt relations between Israel and two of its closest allies in the EU, Poland and Germany.

The Flotilla

The raid on the Gaza flotilla is another fiasco operation that happened under Netanyahu's watch causing worldwide condemnation of Israel. The boarding and seizure of six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May 2010 resulted in the deaths of nine passengers, eight Turks and one American. It also resulted in rapid deterioration of relations between Israel and Turkey, a NATO member and the first Muslim majority country to recognize Israel. Although not-so-secret talks by Israel and Turkey are underway to repair relations, the damage has been done. Turkey's Prime Minister Erdoğan has made it clear that the Israel-Turkey relationship had been irreparably damaged.

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)

The boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) effort against Israel is getting progressively worse for the Netanyahu government in Europe and the United States. Several trade unions, academics, and artists have now joined the movement. Israel's War on Gaza spurred the campaign in the United States and around the world, but most recently, Israel's raid on the Free Gaza flotilla has added fuel to it. In an unprecedented move, dockworkers in Oakland, California recently refused to cross a picket line to unload a ship from Israel.

Against this rapidly deterioration of Israel's standing in world opinion, Netanyahu has to make a move to restore its image and his credibility as well. Short of launching another war, Gilad Shalit's release appears to be his best option for either creating a diversion or positive news to help him do this.

Article originally published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

The US treasury has recently expanded its blacklist on Iran to include another state-controlled bank, a shipping line, and more of its elite Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The latest move is the first step by the US in implementing new restrictions adopted by the UN Security Council last week. The Treasury also took a separate step to squeeze Iran's energy sector by identifying some 20 petroleum and petrochemical companies as being under Iranian government control--an action that puts them off limits to U.S. businesses under a general trade embargo.

On Wednesday, Iran announced that it will build four new reactors to expand its atomic research. It denies Western allegations that it is seeking atomic weapons, insisting that it only wants to develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In a televised speech, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to force the West to "sit at the negotiating table like a polite child" before agreeing to further talks, adding that Iran will not make "one iota of concessions."

The Obama administration says the goal of the punitive measures is to deter Tehran from its nuclear-enrichment program. Will these sanctions further that goal? Not really.

Lest we forget, the sanctions that were passed at the UN have been watered down during negotiations with Russia and China rendering them practically ineffective. The additional sanctions by the US and the ones planned by the EU have no crippling effect on Iran's economy and do not entail an oil embargo. Sanctions can be effective only if they threaten the regime's survival, and since these sanctions are all based on Iran's nuclear energy program and not human rights, they remain ineffective. The vast majority of Iranians support their government's nuclear-enrichment policies.

Additional sanctions will most likely come at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable, as they did in Iraq from August 1991 through March 1998.

"[The sanctions] will most probably lead to the suffering of the people of Iran and will play into the hands of people on all sides who do not want dialogue to prevail," according to the Brazilian ambassador to the UN, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti. Brazil, along with Turkey, voted against the draft resolution of the UN Security Council to impose new sanctions against Iran.

Furthermore, the sanctions would allow Tehran to blame outsiders for its economic woes. In fact, the sanctions will do Iran a favor that the Iranian government can't do for itself.

As for making a dent in Iran's import- export traffic of energy products, the sanctions will have little effect. Turkey has indicated that it plans to increase its imports of natural gas from Iran. Also, according to The Wall Street Journal, oil traders and oil industry analysts say Iran will have little trouble finding other gasoline supplies in the Persian Gulf, where a black market in fuel products thrives, even if Washington passes measures that would penalize firms or individuals with business in the U.S. that supply gasoline to Iran.

Capt. Mousa Murad, general manager of the United Arab Emirates' Port of Fujairah, says gasoline sanctions will likely give a lift to a thriving black-market fuel trade in the Gulf. The region has no shortage of suppliers, he says, who will continue to hide gasoline shipments to Iran because "prices will go up two times, three times."

What options does the US have?

Those who are anxious to stop Iran's nuclear program keep reminding us that the "military option is still on the table." For years, the US has tried to stop India and Pakistan from joining the nuclear club and briefly turned off aid to them. Today, it works secretly with Pakistan to secure its arsenal and has signed a treaty with India permitting it to buy nuclear material. The Unites States option might be no option.

Article originally published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

First came the clash at Davos in January 2009, when Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres during a panel discussion on Gaza at the World Economic Forum. Then came the surprise uranium deal with Tehran, undermining Western pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program, followed by the Israeli assault on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which sailed under Turkish flags, sending shockwaves throughout the world. Most recently, Turkey and Brazil have become the only countries that voted against UN sanctions to impede Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons capabilities.

There was a time when Turkey had looked west and never looked back. Some say that the drift began in 2002, when the Justice and Development Party (AKP), rooted in the country's Islamist movement, came to power. But others, like the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, lay the blame for Turkey's increasing independence squarely on European states opposed to Turkey's EU accession process, which has ground to an almost complete halt since it kicked off in 2005.

"I personally think that if there is anything to the notion that Turkey is, if you will, moving eastward, it is, in my view, in no small part because it was pushed, and pushed by some in Europe refusing to give Turkey the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought," he said.

This assessment has merits; the reality is that some EU member states - notably France, Germany and Austria - have become openly hostile to Turkish membership in recent years. France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, have stated that they would prefer Turkey to be granted what they call a 'privileged partnership' with the EU, instead of full membership. This came as a shock and an insult to the Turkish government and people, who had witnessed Eastern European countries, once hostile to the West ascend to the EU.

But why shouldn't Turkey look east?

Trade between Turkey and all 22 members of the Arab League has more than doubled over the past five years to just under $30 billion a year, still a fraction of its trade with the EU. However, since the recent global economic downturn, coupled with the collapse of the Euro, Turkish economists have been urging the government to expand its trade with the Middle East and the Far East.

Turkey recently signed a deal with Arab neighbors Syria, Jordan and Lebanon to establish a cooperation council to create a zone of free movement of goods and people. Although the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that the deal should not be seen as an alternative to the European Union, he invited all other interested countries to join.

In addition, with Turkey having no energy resources of its own, Iran is its second biggest source of energy imports after Russia, supplying roughly one-third of Turkey's total natural gas consumption last year, 10 billion cubic meters.

The West's loss of Turkey has frightening strategic consequences, as was evident in Turkey's stance on Iran. Its stance against Israel has also embarrassed U.S.-allied Arab states such as Egypt, which have shied away from confronting Israel despite popular demands to do so. Since his Justice and Development party (AKP) came to power in 2002, Erdogan has been accused by his detractors that he is trying to reclaim the former "grandeur" of Turkey's Ottoman Empire era. Did he succeed?

Perhaps not, but in Egypt, a reader of al-Masry al-Youm newspaper dubbed Erdogan as the "Caliph of the Muslims" in comments posted on its website, and his namesake is now popular with newborns in Gaza.

Article originally published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

As thousands of outraged demonstrators poured into the streets of Ankara and several capitals across the globe in the aftermath of Israel's bloody attack on an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip early Monday, an Israeli sergeant stood in front of reporters claiming that the activists on board "were armed with knives, scissors, pepper spray and guns." He said he was armed only with a paintball rifle.

"It was a civilian paintball gun that any 12-year-old can play with," he said; yet, at least nine activists were killed, including a 19-year-old American who was shot in the head four times, and scores were injured.

Soon after, a video was released on the official website of the Israel Defense Forces and was made available to the media. It showed Israeli paratroopers jumping onto the international Gaza aid flotilla; a clip showing IDF commandos being beaten as they boarded the ship and one thrown overboard was looped endlessly. The military video did not show how and when the activists were shot, although the Israeli helicopters' infrared cameras would have easily recorded the flashes caused by gun discharge. Instead, the IDF has selectively released only a portion of the tape that showed its commandos under attack but has omitted the killings. Both Al Jazeera and reporters from Turkish TV news channels were reporting that the Marmara was under gunfire.

The "lynch" scenario came next. The victims were not the nine dead activists, nor the dozens of internationals who were beaten, humiliated, and dragged against their will to the Israeli port of Ashdod, instead they were the IDF's finest. What a departure from the days of Entebbe, when Hollywood made legends out of Israeli commandos.

Israel's Foreign Ministry then started showing pictures of sticks, knives, slingshots, and bottles which they said were the activists' weapons. The message is that several hundred activists gathered from all over the world to confront one of the best equipped and trained militaries in the world with these. But we are then told that the activists weren't really activists at all, but rather terrorists with ties to Hamas and al-Qaeda.

Yediot Ahronoth, one of Israel's most widely circulated papers broke with the headlines, "A Brutal Ambush at Sea." Arutz Sheva, the official news site of the settler movement attacked Associated Press for its "biased" reporting with an article entitled "Media War on the Flotilla Clash: AP Anti-Israel Bias Exposed." And the IDF website had this blaring story: "Attackers of the IDF soldiers are found to be Al Qaeda mercenaries," later to be reported in the Jerusalem Post as, "IDF: Mercenaries to blame for violence."

Israel's hasbara at its best. But is it working?

"Hasbara is only succeeding in Israel," says veteran journalist David Michaelis.

Michaelis believes that there is a disconnect between the way Israel sees itself and its actions, and the way they are viewed by the rest of the world.

"That was not a love boat. That was a boat of hatred," said Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A nice sound bite for FOX News, and headlines for the New York Post but this time hasbara is not working...not after the War on Lebanon, Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, and a Mossad assassination caught on tape in Dubai.

Article originally published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

In a clear break from former president George Bush's two national security strategies issued in 2002 and 2006 which endorsed unilateral military action and spoke of the threat posed by "Islamic extremism," President Obama has unveiled a new national security strategy which calls for more global engagement and aims to downplay fears that the U.S. is "at war" with Islam.

President Obama also expressed his desire to break away from the unilateral military approach of "either you are with us or against us" established in the wake of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.

"While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction," President Obama said.

Not since Mr. Obama addressed the Arab and Muslim worlds from a podium at Cairo University on June 4, 2009, pledging "to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims," did the U.S. president send a clear and powerful message that America's foreign policy towards 1.5 billion Muslims across the globe has changed.

The 52-page document, entitled National Security Strategy, distanced the administration of President Barack Obama from the Bush-era doctrine of preemptive war and emphasized global cooperation and robust diplomacy to make the use of military force less likely to be updated every four years. The document omitted some of the most controversial language from the Bush administration, like the phrase "global war on terror" and references to "Islamic extremism".

"Yet this is not a global war against a tactic - terrorism, or a religion - Islam. We are at war with a specific network, al-Qaeda, and its terrorist affiliates."

Earlier on Saturday, the President, while offering a glimpse of his new national security doctrine to the West Point 2010 Cadets, reiterated his administration's position towards Islam and that of the actions of extremists and terrorists.

"Extremists want a war between America and Islam, but Muslims are part of our national life, including those who serve in our United States Army. Adversaries want to divide us, but we are united by our support for you soldiers, who send a clear message that this country is both the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Obama's National Security Strategy has been read carefully across the globe, and he has been widely credited with improving the tone of U.S. foreign policy towards the Arab and Muslim worlds. However, with unfinished wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nuclear standoff with Iran, and no progress on peace between Palestinians and Israelis, his words remain just words. We understand that the war on Islam is over, but war should end in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine as well.

Article originally published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video