For a relatively small initiative, the European Union has certainly made a big statement with its decision to ban deals with Israel unless they explicitly exclude areas containing illegal settlements. The rule does not take effect until next year and is modest in scope because it applies only to the EU bloc as a whole, leaving individual member states and European companies free to deal with settlements on the West Bank and in Jerusalem.

But the political impact of the decision is far greater: it is the first initiative taken by the EU that targets the illegal settlements that many see as an impediment to achieving peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

It is clear that this is one of the few areas in which Israel feels vulnerable. With its military superiority over the Palestinians and with the United States always available to use its veto to block any measures by the United Nations Security Council, Israel faces few immediate threats to its 46-year occupation of the West Bank.

That sense of security has allowed Israel to pay lip service to the peace process while relentlessly changing the facts on the ground by permitting 500,000 settlers to build outposts on Palestinian lands.

But Israel feels vulnerable to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, which was launched in 2005 to exert pressure on Israel. The threat posed by BDS has been taken sufficiently seriously by the Israeli government for it to pass a law making it illegal to advocate boycotting products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The EU decision has to be seen in the context of the BDS movement's increasing momentum. Last month, for example, the Israeli branch of the McDonald's restaurant chain revealed that it was asked to open an outlet in a shopping mall in the Ariel settlement on the West Bank but refused because the company has a policy of staying out of the occupied territories.

The EU is also thought to be close to introducing product labelling rules that will make it easier to identify and boycott goods from illegal settlements.

Israeli politicians were quick to denounce the EU's ban as unacceptable and a barrier to achieving real peace. A cynic might think that sentiment indicates the ban will have the desired effect. Certainly, the terms in which the ban has been described - as an "earthquake" and as a "moment of truth" - underscore the importance of this big shift in international relations. t u p��Jzhands of the Syrian opposition. It has also not provided key Arab governments like Saudi Arabia and UAE with an “end user agreement” on arms purchases they have made from the U.S. Without such an agreement, re-exporting these arms is not an option.
A Militias Melting Pot

The rise of al-Qaeda elements in the north of the country has contributed a great deal to the administration’s reluctance in acting on Syria. Just in the last two weeks, the “Islamic State of Iraq and Levant” (ISIL) an affiliated al-Qaeda group, killed Kamal Hamimi, a leader from the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The ISIL has also increased its coordination with the al-Nusra Front, a terrorist organization according to U.S. designations, and has been making gains in Northern Syria especially around Aleppo and is fighting Kurdish militias on the Turkish border. Islamic councils are emerging across Aleppo, and so are Fatwas (religious decrees) banning “provocative clothes,” while the civil state is eroding. Even groups within the FSA such as Ahrar Sham have become more radicalized, attracting more foreign fighters, and attempting to establish their own ‘emirate’. Multiple sources have told Al Arabiya that the U.S. administration is considering adding one of the groups within the FSA umbrella to the terrorism list.

On the regime side, military escalation with the help of Hezbollah has become the norm. Even as Israel launched an airstrike on July 5 targeting allegedly Russian missiles in Latakia, the regime continued to be consumed in the civil war, and battling the opposition in towns around Homs and the capital Damascus. Even Hezbollah has been dragged into fighting on its own turf with a car bombing in its stronghold in Beirut, and an attack on its convoy in the Bekaa valley just six days apart.

There is little appetite inside Washington as it starts preparing withdrawal from Afghanistan, to be dragged into a military confrontation inside the Middle East. Even on the political level, Kerry is prioritizing the Peace Process between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as his plans for a “Geneva 2” conference have gone with the Russians on a “summer vacation.” The prospects for a political solution seem dimmer than ever before in Syria, and the U.S. has little to lose in a contained battle between Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda. Never in the history of Syria has Israel launched three airstrikes within one year, without expecting retaliation.

The conflict in Syria will probably go through many cycles of violence with gains and/or losses between the Assad regime and the rebels. But throughout those cycles, the U.S. seems more prone to keep its involvement to the minimum, by focusing on limiting the regional spillover, as well as containing Al-Qaeda threat and weapons transfers into and out of Syria.