Tag Archives: Syria

Shocking Similarities Concealed

In a televised address to parliament, President Bashar Assad said foreign-backed terrorists and extremists were to blame for the massacres going on in Syria. Despite suspicions expressed by the UN that Assad’s forces are responsible for the Houla massacre, Assad denied it. Syrian opposition condemned his comments as lies.

Assad described protestors as paid killers, ridiculing freedom demonstrators as people not truly looking for reform. The opposition is seeking reform in a country where expressing dissent often leads directly to arrest and torture. They contend that Assad has offered nothing but cosmetic changes.

A revolt that began as peaceful protests can now only be described as an armed insurgency. This can be attributed to the harsh government crackdown that led protestors to take up arms in self-defense.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, barack obama and many other “progressive” politicians have called the Tea Party “teabaggers”, “racists”, “astroturf”, “Nazis” ” and “extremists” on multiple occasions. The Department of Homeland Security issued a report that described the Tea Party as “right-wing extremists” and “insurgents”, expressing concerns that “Right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.”

“Violent capacities”?

How much longer will it be before members of Tea Parties are called “paid killers”?

Hasn’t that already happened? Such a description was more than quite heavily inferred by multiple “progressive” politicians and virtually every member of the “progressive” Party Pravda after a nut job who was working solo shot Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Dee “Gabby” Giffords on January 8, 2011.

How soon will members of the “progressive” Democratic Party say that Tea Party members are “not truly looking for reform”?

David Axlerod, obama’s 2012 re-election campaign chief, claimed that the Tea Party “reign of terror” blocked immigration reform. Tea Party efforts to stop “progressive” Democrats from cramming unwanted “healthcare reform” down America’s throat are viewed by “progressives” and their media spokes-tools as “not truly looking for reform”.

How much longer will it take for the United States to become a country where expressing dissent can lead directly to arrest and torture?

According to former FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground Central Committee meant to cause the collapse of the United States government. Ayers and his group would deal with resistant Americans by “establishing re-education centers in the south-west”. Those who refused to convert to Communism, would be “eliminated”. As in: concentration camps would be used to kill 25 million Americans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

Politico’s Ben Smith reported: “In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn”.

The Tea Party movement began as a peaceful protest against big government, reckless government spending, high taxes and oppressive regulations. The Tea Party’s Contract From America expressed principles held by its members. The most basic being that “Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government.”

The principles of the Tea Party were clearly expressed in the Contract:

Protect the Constitution, reject Cap & Trade, demand a balanced budget, enact fundamental tax reform, restore fiscal responsibility and Constitutionally limited government in Washington DC, end runaway government spending, defund, repeal and replace government-run health care, pass an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy, stop the pork, and stop the tax hikes.

That sounds like people who are truly looking for reform. Just not the type of reform being insisted upon by members of the institutionalized “progressive” left.

Only those dedicated to the overthrow of the United States government would consider a stand for protecting the Constitution, rejecting the UN backed Cap and Trade agenda, demanding a balanced budget, et al “extreme” in their views.

The similarities between what’s happening now in Syria and plans envisioned for America by the institutionalized “progressive” left are both shocking and real. Why are those similarities being concealed by America’s fabled Fourth Estate? The only logical conclusion is that the views held by the “mainstream media” are sympathetic to those of the institutionalized “progressive” left. They are on the same team.

If violence does break out in the United States, it will be due to a harsh government crackdown leading to peaceful protestors having to take up arms in self-defense. God Bless the genius of America’s Founders and their insightful, forward thinking ratification of the Second Amendment. For they knew first hand that of which Tyrants are made.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/shocking-similarities-concealed/

America’s Destructive Lack of Realism

Last winter, when I heard John McCain drummed up support to bomb Syria, it makes me wonder if the 535 members in Washington have dementia.  We already had an unnecessary intervention in Libya, we’ve mostly concluded our business with Iraq, and Afghanistan is crumbling.  In a time where Americans are anything BUT enthusiastic or willing to become involved in another nation’s affairs, we must first ask, as George Will has, how many wars do we want to fight.

I was an unabashed neoconservative who supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq until I saw, as William F. Buckley aptly pointed out, how this movement grossly underestimates American power.  This was evident in the negligence in the post-war Iraqi reconstruction operations that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government. The planning of the entire reconstruction effort, outlined in National Security Presidential Directive 24 issued in January 2003, gave the Department of Defense complete authority over the post-war operations.  It’s absurd.  Rebuilding Iraq into a modern, free market democracy in three months or less.  No wonder chaos ensued.  This whole notion of liberal democracy proliferating throughout the Middle East, in a region with no historical precedent of such values, is mind numbingly naive.

Even with our involvement winding down in Iraq, it appears the only winner is Iran since we’ve weakened the only nation in the region to curb its growing influence.  The resilience of the new democracy in Iraq and its disposition towards the United States in the future remains to be seen.  However, Syria is still holding out from the so-called “Arab Spring,” Iran still has nuclear ambitions, which would set off a regional arms race, and Egypt has fallen prey to the radical Muslim Brotherhood after we threw our good friend, Hosni Mubarak, under the bus in the hopes that a vibrant democracy will emerge there. Is this our dividend after spending $700 billion in Iraq?  Was this the best use of American political and military resources?

America’s destructive lack a realism is becoming disastrously expensive and straining our military.  Afghanistan and Iraq has cost us a whopping $1.2 trillion dollars in war expenditures.  We could be facing a $4-6 trillion dollar price tag when this whole ordeal is over.  We need to reexamine our financial stability and national interest for future engagements.

Case in point, Libya had nothing to do with American interests.  We do not receive oil from Libya. We don’t have diplomatic relations with Libya.  It was a civil war that was none of our business in a tribal society whose various clans hated Qaddafi more than each, hence the fragile display of national unity.  Like in Iraq, civil institutions were derived from one man and his family creating a power vacuum that will lead to more bloodshed.  The various militias refuse to disarmand the eastern half of the country has declared autonomy.  Did we really stop a slaughter? I feel more bloodshed will ensue because of our reckless engagement in their affairs.

People die in war, especially in the brutal theater of civil war.  Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean it’s our business. Especially when we have become involved in tribal societies before with little success.  We realists do not deny the existence of moral truths and principles, but when applied in the anarchic field of international relations, it is inherently dangerous.  It thrusts a nation, whose only purpose is to survive, into entanglements that are diplomatically obtuse, detrimental to its interests, and leads to prolonging the conflict.

If Qaddafi had squashed the insurrectionists in Benghazi, it would have been over, but we intervened, allied ourselves with rebel elements affiliated with al-Qaeda, and escalated the civil war leading to more deaths. In Somalia, our intervention culminated in the infamous Black Hawk Down incident, despite the fact it was hopeless from the start. There was no government to open up a diplomatic channel, no infrastructure, and clan ties that prevented national unity.  We lost nineteen American soldiers to help feed people in a failed state. A tragic waste of American resources.

The era of nation-building and humanitarian interventions need to end.   If our criteria for involvement is humanitarian based, we will be in a perpetual state of war.  The essence of nation-building, as George Will rightly said on Charlie Rose, is oxymoronic since it’s an organic entity that take generations to perfect.  Just because American marines are on the ground, doesn’t mean the maturation process will be accelerated.  In all, these attempts at social engineering are textbook cases of the irresponsible and arduous tasks that have drained American power over the past decade.  I’m thankful that a growing consensus in this country is starting to view such ventures as nonsensical.  It’s simply not worth the cost.

Finding a Winning Strategy in Iran

Nuclear Iran

Preventing Iran from getting the capability to manufacture nuclear bombs is obviously high on the list of concerns for the White House, and will be for the foreseeable future. Finding a way to do that is another issue entirely. While pundits from the U.S. often talk about the concept of “spin” in news reports, our journalists are amateurs in comparison with the religious leaders in Iran. And that is part of our current problem in dealing with their leadership.

Nuclear Iran

Mark Rain (CC)


On a very simplistic level, Americans are incapable of fully understanding the depth of resolve in Iran. It is a cultural divide that exacerbates the situation. The region in general is influenced to this day by tribal and clan feuds dating back thousands of years. In Islamist regimes like Iran, government is backed by God, as far as the people are concerned. That, coupled with the relative isolation of the nation from the rest of the world, leaves religious leaders there with the ability to spin the story about the current trade restrictions against Iran as an evil plot by infidels, or whatever they choose. While those leaders control to some extent what information gets in to the citizens, they also control what gets out. Only recently, the West got a taste of what could be a daily occurrence in Iran for all we know – citizens protesting against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Add to that the fact that Iran has a history of instability, and cannot under any circumstances be trusted to honor promises or treaties, and it becomes one of the most difficult diplomacy problems facing the U.S.

It is a given that Iran will be a large part of the foreign policy debate between Obama and Romney this fall. But, it will necessarily be in general terms that will likely be useless in practice, and will only be for the benefit of the public and pundits. And it is unlikely that there will be much from Romney’s side that will differ greatly from the current course of action, if for no other reason, because the options are fairly limited. No one that wants to be elected this November will suggest military action in Iran, outside of unmanned air-strikes, or limited surgical actions to reduce Iran’s ability to produce enriched Uranium. And any debate on that would be limited to what is already known publicly about those operations, so there would be logistical issues to address in such a plan – Iran apparently has been building facilities underground, presumably out of the reach of conventional air-strikes.

While the release of video showing domestic unrest is somewhat heartening, it is without real context. Yes, the people are angry with Ahmadinejad, but they could just as easily be more angry with the U.S. – a likely scenario, given that they are undoubtedly given daily doses of anti-Western rhetoric from clerics. The video evidence is also anecdotal, so it would be foolish to think that it is a sign of a potential mass uprising and eventual regime change. For the true cynics out there, change might not be good either – there are no guarantees that once the dust settles, the new leadership would be any friendlier with the U.S. or Israel.

Arab nations in the region add to the instability of the situation as well. Syria’s problems give Iran incentive to move forward faster toward nuclear capabilities, since that nation is its only real ally in the region. Then there is the issue of other Arab nations seeking nuclear arms in the wake of Iran accomplishing that end. That alone is arguably the greatest reason for preventing Iran from entering the nuclear club.

Then there is the possibility that Israel would render all U.S. diplomatic considerations moot by initiating a strike against Iran. If this happens before November, it would radically change the situation for our election, obviously. If it happens at all, it virtually guarantees U.S. involvement in yet another war. Any plan for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities that does not take Israel into consideration should be left on the drawing board. If Romney wants to truly exploit deficiencies in the Obama course of action, this is it. The current administration’s diplomatic failures with Israel should be tied into the Iran problem.

The one thing this administration might have done right was to enlist Russia in the diplomatic process. There is a tiny glimmer of hope that their restarting of talks with Tehran may cause the end of the current problem. While it may not leave all parties happy, since it may result in Iran’s ability to export power from nuclear plants, it is at least progress.

As for finding a winning strategy in Iran, perhaps the answer lies in the middle, between extending an open hand as the Obama administration is doing, and offering only a fist, like Iran. But, no matter what is chosen, if the U.S. does not stop characterizing itself as a weakling on the world stage, our nation will pay for it. There is such a thing as tough diplomacy, and as a nation, we need to embrace that stance once again.

Suggested Reading:

Keeping Iran in Check

The Israeli and Arab Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Program

The Ghost of Iran’s Future

UN Considers Action Against Syria

Syrian Protestors

Amid violence and unrest in Syria has the UN Security Council proposing a resolution that would call on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down from office and transfer power to a new government.

Reports from the Syrian State Media Monday say that the ‘terrorists’ have blown up a gas pipeline near the border with Lebanon.

According to a Breaking News Report from The Associated Press at 4:30am ET:

Syrian activists report hearing gunfire and explosions in suburbs of Damascus as the country’s conflict moves ever closer to the capital.

Monday’s reports by the Local Coordination Committees, an opposition group, could not be independently confirmed.

On Sunday, Syrian troops in dozens of tanks and armored vehicles stormed rebellious areas near the capital, shelling neighborhoods that have fallen under the control of army dissidents and clashing with fighters.

Activists and residents said at least 62 people were killed in violence nationwide.

The widescale Sunday offensive suggested the regime is worried that military defectors could close in on Damascus, the seat of President Bashar Assad’s power.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

The reports of the effects of Syrian violence differ, depending on whose statistics are cited.  According to CNN:

 The United Nations last month estimated that more than 5,000 people have died since March, when the government launched a crackdown against demonstrators. Opposition groups estimate a higher death toll, with counts near or exceeding 7,000 people.

The opposition has blamed the deaths on government actions. The Syrian government says terrorists are responsible for the casualties.

The Brits cover violent civil war in Syria as the American media takes a nap

While most Americans are largely ignorant about what is happening in the news around the world, let alone the political happenings here in their own country, the British publication The Telegraph announces almost by accident that the nation of Syria has descended in recent weeks into bloody civil war to include infantry, militia fighters and tanks.

Reporting no doubt from a bar stool in a seedy tavern in Beruit, Lebanon, Telegraph reporter Ruth Sherlock reports:

  After five days of intensive battles, dozens of government tanks, along with armoured vehicles and infantry pulled back from the town of Zabadani following what was said to be a ceasefire agreement with opposition militias.

 But the insurgents heralded the move as an unprecedented victory, claiming Zabadani to be the ‘first free town in Syria and a haven in which to build and strengthen their troops, as Benghazi became in the Libyan uprising.

 I must admit I was largely ignorant myself of the latest occurrences until an U.S. Army Officer of my acquaintance who is readying his team for deployment recently hinted that I should pay attention to the goings on in that country. I was shocked to learn that there was a tank battle in the region, and even more surprised that it has been going on for over five days now; and this without any mention at all from much of the main stream media here in America.

Sherlock continues her report by quoting militia troops on the ground in Zabadani.

“A lot of soldiers have refused to obey orders, and tried to escape,” said a resident, who gave his name as Zean al-Zabadani. “Many of them have been killed. We are going now release the soldiers from Bashar al Assad’s prison grip and help them to escape.

 “But this is a tenuous safety. We are frightened that they will bomb us from the air, or try again to retake the town. We need international help to make this a real safe zone”.

While the residents of the small mountain town await the possibility of renewed ground or air attack, many there are hopeful that there will be some kind of ‘buffer zone’ provided for by the militaries of Syria’s neighboring countries, said Sherlock. Fat chance of that since Syria’s neighbors in the region have had their own problems dealing with the so called, “Arab Spring”.

See the Telegraph’s full story at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9026222/Syrian-town-to-become-hub-of-armed-resistance.html

This report from the Telegraph doesn’t come completely out of the blue, even though the story has largely been ignored here in the US. The Telegraph has gripping video of violence in the streets as Arab League observers watch government soldiers attacking unarmed civilians with sniper fire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8981176/Syria-protesters-flee-gunfire-in-Hama.html

Another video apparently shows insurgents destroying a tank.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9013496/Syrian-insurgents-claim-to-attack-tank-in-Homs.html

On the 12th of this month The Telegraph reported the death of the first Western journalist to have been killed in the violence in Syria. Gilles Jacquier of France was killed by a mortar in the contended city of Homs while another camera crew caught the attack on video tape.

The French journalist Jacquier who had experience covering combat in Iraq and Afghanistan was being escorted by the Syrian military as a part of a larger media group in what was supposed to be a safe, pro-government area.

The latest news from Syria seems to indicate that the government there led by president Bashar Al Assad seems to be losing control of the protests and the insurgency that is following it. Assad has been defiant so far, giving open air speeches in public promising to crush the protests with military force rather than negotiating with the insurgents. Assad’s rule began over 30 years ago as a result of a coup.

Meanwhile, here in America, the media seems more interested in pointing out Romney’s millions in off shore accounts, his penchant for firing people and Newt Gingrich’s lack of a conservative record, his corruption as Speaker of the House and his talkative and bitter ex-wife.

President Obama and his Secretary of State have said little in regards to condemning the violence now going on in the Middle East. When they aren’t being mum about the people being killed, they are all too quick to praise the glorious Spring as a triumph of democracy.

I’d hate to see that kind of “democracy” spreading here in the streets of the United States.

When Middle East Policies Collide

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 will prove to be a very busy and interesting day.  On that day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address the United Nations general assembly, followed soon after by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Both men will outline the state of affairs between the two peoples who reside in a very contentious region.  Their perspectives, however, are very different, and in the end, only one of them is right.

Netanyahu will start out the day in an effort to defend Israeli policy and practice.  The reception, however, is likely to be very chilly, to say the least.  The U.N. General Assembly has been known for its blatant anti-Israel stance, so Netanyahu’s message is more of a matter of record than of sway.  He simply wants to get everything out there for the world to hear, even if it’ll all fall on deaf ears.

Abbas has different motives.  He is seeking a U.N. Resolution, preferably from the Security Council that declares, unilaterally, the existence of a State called Palestine.  He wants full U.N. membership and representation, and his goal is to force Israel’s hand by having the U.N. outline the borders.  The Palestinian Authority is intent on securing borders from prior to the 1967 war.  At least, that’s the border they want to start with.

Israel, however, has argued that those borders are indefensible and negotiations must be undertaken to choose different borders.  Israel also insists that Jerusalem not be re-divided and remain the capital of the Jewish State.  One other thing that Israel wants, however, is something that the Palestinians are unwilling to give:  a declaration that Israel as a Jewish State has a right to exist.

The P.A. won’t resume negotiations until Israel stops building settlements in the so-called occupied territories.  That, of course, is a straw man being used to further the Palestinians’ goal.  They’d prefer to have the world exert pressure on Israel through the United Nations by painting themselves as the good guys.

The P.A. is undertaking this move by saying they are just copying what the Israelis did in 1948.  An article ran in the Sydney Morning Herald on August 29th in which Sonja Karkar distorted history and portrayed it as fact.  He said:

“Israel’s own unilateral move in declaring statehood after the UN’s intention to partition historic Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state cannot be avoided. It underscores that Palestine was never a land without a people and that Israel’s existence was imposed on Palestinians, robbing them of their homes and land and destroying their proud and millenniums-old society.”

What Mr. Karkar fails to mention in his first sentence is that when Israel declared independence, they did so within the U.N. partitioned borders in good faith.  The Arab League opposed the plan.  They argued that the U.N. lacked the authority to divide the land and they viewed the division as being unfair.  On the day Israel declared her independence, the surrounding Arab States declared war with one purpose in mind:  the obliteration of Israel.  They wanted to push the Jewish infestation in Arab lands into the sea.

The Palestinians in the region at the start of the war were urged by the surrounding Arab States to leave their homes.  They were promised prime land, once Israel no longer existed.

Mr. Karkar’s reasoning again is faulty by his assumption that the “Palestinians” were actually a distinct society.  There, of course, have always been people there.  Those people come from all different sorts of backgrounds and cultures, but never once has there been a nation of Palestine that was run by the people who call themselves Palestinian.

The Arab confederation lost this war.  Several more military campaigns would be waged over the years and each time the result was the same:  Israel was victorious and the surrounding nations were clueless.

In 1949, the land that the U.N. had partitioned for the Arab State was firmly in the hands of the Jordanians and Egyptians.  It remained in their hands until 1967.

In those 18 years, no effort was made to establish a nation of Palestine according to the U.N. plan.  The only thing the Egyptians and Jordanians did was plan their next war.  In 1967, they lost the now so-called “Occupied Territories”.  Egypt also lost the entire Sinai Peninsula.

On the eastern side, Israel had taken the West Bank of the Jordan River along with East Jerusalem from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.

Israel reunited Jerusalem, but under treaty with Jordan, left the temple mount under Jordanian control.

In 1979, Egypt and Israel signed a Peace agreement that formally ended 30 years of war.  As part of the deal, Israel gave Egypt back the Sinai Peninsula and wanted to give Egypt the Gaza Strip at the same time.  Egypt did not want Gaza.  They viewed the residents there as being problematic and preferred to leave the problem in Israel’s hands.  Once again, no effort was made by the Egyptians to secure that land, which they could have then turned around and ceded to the Palestinians.

Over the course of time, the Palestinian Liberation Organization evolved from a purely terrorist organization to a “respected” representative of the Palestinian interests.  Various accords have been signed and Israel has withdrawn from large portions of the land.  The exception would be the settlements that are being constructed in the West Bank.

This is where the racist aspect of the Palestinians comes clearly into view for those of us who want to look.  The Palestinians have no interest in having any Jews live in what will be their State and so they oppose, often violently, any Jewish settlements in those areas.  This sort of apartheid is condemned elsewhere, but for some reason, is not only accepted in this region, it’s promoted as the only way to have “peace”.

The truth is there won’t be peace in the region because there are two peoples in one region that both want the same land and refuse to live together and work together.

With the exception of re-dividing Jerusalem, Israel is more than willing to share the land with the Palestinians, side by side.  They just want to make sure their borders are wide enough to be defended.  The Palestinians, however, only view such an existence a stopgap to their goal:  A Palestinian State that extends from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

The United States wants to stop Abbas from making his demands, and Netanyahu wants to make sure the world knows why.  If both efforts fail to change the course the world is on, September 20th could prove to be a very busy, perhaps even bloody, day, indeed.

Obama Sticks to ‘1967 Lines’ Doctrine in AIPAC Speech

Israel before 1967 and after six-day warThe President spoke to supporters of AIPAC, a pro-Israel political action group. Obama’s remarks were surprisingly greeted with rousing cheers from the crowd despite Obama’s recent  unreasonable demand that Israel return to the pre-1967 indefensible borders.

The full text of his speech can be found here, but the important part of the speech came more than halfway through it.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

This is a re-iteration of Obama’s attempt to change American foreign policy with respect to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. Why should Israel agree to start the debate at the pre-1967 lines? Why not start the negotiation from a position of strength – from the position of the current borders. Mutually-agreed swaps, based on conditions today can take part just as honestly and agreeably using today’s borders. The push to start the discussion from a pre-1967 position is to revise history so that the last four decades and 1967 in particular never happened. That is neither honest nor logical.

The President then tried to explain his pro-Palestinian policy in a poorly-styled walk-back of his new middle-East doctrine:

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.

The specificity about June, 1967 is intentional. June 5th was the beginning of the Six Days War that lasted until June 10th and ended with Israel having held off unprovoked, coordinated attacks from the Arab nations of Jordan, Syria and Egypt.

By June 10, Israel had completed its final offensive in the Golan Heights, and a ceasefire was signed the day after. Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel’s territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel’s direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel’s strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north.[1]

Obama’s pressure to return to the pre-1967 lines as a starting point also ignore the Yom Kippur war where the post-1967 lines helped Israel defend herself in a second round of unprovoked set of attacks from an Egyptian and Syrian-led coalition.

What’s even more important is that the Arab attacks on Israel were in response to Israel’s refusal to return to the pre-1967 lines in exchange for a non-belligerency agreement. Obama is re-offering the Arab peace pact from 1973? Yes, he wants Israel to accept the pre-1967 lines in return Israel gets a peace agreement. One that will be broken in short order and Israel would be left in a weakend defensive position.

Whether Obama is ignorant of history or simply complicit in attempts to weaken the Jewish state is unknown. Either way, his Middle-East doctrine is dangerous for the Jewish people and their homeland.

Sources:
[1] Six-Day War – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Arab Apring

Middle East set to explode: Obama’s Failure to Support Israel Complicating the Situation

And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,

And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:

And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:

Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
–    Ezekiel 38: 1-5

Persia. Ethiopia. Libya. The Old Testament Prophet Ezekiel forsaw the day when the nations of the Earth would rise up against Israel. And leading the way? Persia. Ethiopia. Libya. Persia has a new name now – it is called Iran. Iran is violently anti-Jewish and has vowed to destroy the State of Israel. Libya is now in the midst of a civil war with a brutal dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, on one side and Al Qaeda-backed rebels on the other. It doesn’t matter which one of these factions wins the war – they both hate the State of Israel. Two down, one to go – Ethiopia.

“Ethiopia is one of the cornerstone countries in the region. The reason why it is a cornerstone is because a look at its size, look at its position and look at what we are trying to do together in a broad range of areas. … The main issue for us,USA, has to be stability of the country (Ethiopia),” Ambassador Donald Yamamato, Former ambassador of America in Ethiopia, said.  The relationship between Ethiopia and America has had long standing roots dating back to 1903. The people to people and government to government relationship has a strong bond. The number of Ethiopians living in America is so considerable. The participation of Americans investors in Ethiopia has been increasing from time to time. Their trade relations have also been showing an upward trajectory. Besides, America’s food and development aid to Ethiopia is remarkable.

The Jamestown Foundation reports Islamic radicalism is now threatening Ethiopia via the war-ravaged country of Somalia:

To Ethiopia’s east lies Somalia, a chaotic state that has no central government. Substantial segments of Somalia’s population are highly radicalized, as witnessed in the consistent attacks by Somali militias against international forces within the country, with the most notable incident resulting in the deaths of 18 U.S. Army Rangers in 1993. Furthermore, Somalia is the home of al-Ittihaad al-Islami (AIAI), or the Islamic Unity group, a radical organization that seeks to establish an Islamic state in Somalia and Ethiopia. While not a serious threat to Ethiopian national security, AIAI has the potential to undermine Addis Ababa’s interests. As printed in the Addis Tribune in June 2003, the Ethiopian Security, Immigration and Refugees Affairs Authority (SIRA) concluded that “after a thorough assessment of the current situation of the country and of the terrorist threats in the Horn of Africa region, SIRA has come to the conclusion that the groups that might carry out terrorist attacks in Ethiopia by their own initiative or as agents of other sponsors would be the [nationalist] OLF and Al-Ittihaad al-Islami.”

In fact, the Jamestown Foundation is reporting that the specific threat facing Ethiopia is Al-Qaeda:

The greatest threat to Ethiopia from al-Qaeda lies in Somalia. The lack of an effective government in Somalia makes the country a potential haven for al-Qaeda militants. The country’s hopelessly impoverished and lawless situation, in addition to it being 99.9% Muslim, would give al-Qaeda the ability to operate free from fear of government and factional oversight. In the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell, “terrorist activity might find some fertile ground there, and we don’t want that to happen.”
There is widespread concern that al-Qaeda is exploiting the lawlessness prevalent in Somalia to establish military and other training facilities in that country. Indeed, in November 1998 the U.S. government brought forth an indictment in the Southern District of New York accusing al-Qaeda of providing “training camps and guesthouses in various areas, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Kenya for the use of al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups.” The indictment also stated that al-Qaeda “provided military training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the United Nations’ intervention in Somalia.”

This concern is especially plausible considering that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has eliminated the primary country where these facilities were formerly located, forcing al-Qaeda to move its training and planning operations elsewhere.

Hussein Aideed, a powerful Somali warlord whose father was responsible for the attacks on U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu in 1993, agreed with this assessment, stating in late 2001 to the Ethiopian International Institute for Peace and Development: “Clearly Somalia has become a second political homeland or shelter for Osama bin Laden and his international Islamic extremist network and a base for an alternative hideout purposes. It could be defined as an ideal base for the world wide Islamic fundamentalist movement due to the persistent civil war conditions.”

The Jamestown Foundation concludes that the threat to Ethiopia from Al-Qaeda is currently manageable but is growing:

While al-Qaeda and other Islamist militant groups currently pose a mere nuisance to Ethiopian interests, the threat has the potential to escalate exponentially. In the words of Kebede, speaking to the Terrorism Monitor, “As regards Ethiopia, all indicators suggest that the problem is going from bad to worse. The political, social and economic problems that are conducive for the emergence and growth of radical revolutionary thought are not being addressed. Public discontent emanating from government policy is increasing.”

The instability and lawlessness in some countries of the region, particularly Somalia and Sudan, will make it difficult for the United States to prevent al-Qaeda from infiltrating East Africa. Washington’s attempt at using Ethiopia as a bridgehead against such instability is an important step, but it is not clear whether it will be successful. Nevertheless, because East African Muslims are not religiously animated in the same way as Muslims in different parts of the world, it will prove difficult for al-Qaeda to establish an effective East African force capable of launching massive attacks against western interests in the region and beyond.

It seems Ezekiel may have been on to something. Two of the three specific countries he mentions are fully radicalized at this point in time. And they both hate Israel and have vowed to destroy the State of Israel – simply aiming to wipe it off the face of the earth. The third country, Ethiopia, remains fairly stable, but it is seeing an increased threat to that stability in the form of Al-Qaeda.

At the center of the maelstrom is the State of Israel.

The Temple Mount and Dome of the Rock

It finds itself with not just a military dilemma with the nations of Islam but a religious dilemma as well. Iran has been quite vocal the past few years about the coming of the 12th Imam, who will supposedly lead the military armies of Muslims to victory against Israel. And the Israelis have a fully different, and inflammatory agenda. The Jews intend to build a temple on the Temple Mount, also known in the Bible as Mount Moriah, – which is currently occupied by the Muslims’ Dome of the Rock mosque.

The Dome of the Rock is the third most holy site for Muslims. It is located on the spot from which, Muslims contend, the prophet Mohammed ascended to Heaven. Complicating that fact is the Jewish position that their future temple must be built on that exact same spot. Imagine the conflagration in the Middle East if and when Israel takes the bulldozers to the Dome of the Rock to clear the site prior to their temple construction.
A private Jewish organization, The Jerusalem Temple Foundation, is making preparations to rebuild the temple. Naturally, their activities are most inflammatory toward Muslims. Given the Muslim position that Israel must  be destroyed and the Jewish position that their temple must be rebuilt on Mount Moriah and we have the perfect storm of a potential major war in the Middle East.

Enter Barack Hussein Obama. The United States has long been an ally to Israel. But Obama, though denying accusations that he is Muslim, has deliberately stepped back the position of the United States in defending the State of Israel. Obama has continually put pressure on Israel to accede to Palestinian demands on the pretext that appeasement is the only way to avoid war. But Obama isn’t taking the seriousness of the Jewish people into consideration in his Middle Eastern calculus. The State of Israel will never voluntarily give up their holy city of Jerusalem. The State of Israel will never give up defensible borders. And the State of Israel will never allow another “Final Solution” to be propagated against them. Israeli conscripts take an oath on the heights of Masada that Masada will never fall again. Masada was the site where, in the first century A.D., Jewish rebels committed mass suicide rather than be killed or enslaved by the Romans.

If anything, Obama’s intransigence regarding the security, or lack of it, for the State of Israel, is pushing Israel further into a corner. And a cornered Israel could conceivably go nuclear if it feels its very existence threatened. Israel came close to using nuclear weapons when their positions were almost run over in the Yom Kippur War. And don’t doubt that the Israelis would be willing to actually use them if they felt sufficiently threatened in the future. And that includes the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The ideological nature of a diplomatic amateur night by the Obama Administration in its dealings with the State of Israel is unprecedented. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is holding the line against the demands of the Obama regime. Which is a wise position considering the current upheaval within Arab countries in the Middle East.

The Israeli security web site Debkafile reported this week that the Syrian rebellion has taken a dramatic step towards open civil war. Interestingly enough, this development is not being reported in the western press:

For the first time in the anti-Assad uprising, elements of Syria’s popular protest movement are turning to armed revolt on lines similar to those marking the Libyan conflict. Wednesday, April 27, armed civilians were seen for the first time, some openly carrying anti-tank weapons, in the Daraa district of the South and Banias and Jableh on the coast, the primary targets of the regime’s armored-backed offensive on the six-week old protest movement.

Debkafile’s military sources report that these dissidents resorted openly to arms after discovering that Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) officers were masterminding the brutal crackdown against them, lending the Assad regime the experience they had gained in crushing the 2009 anti-regime opposition in Tehran.

In no surprise, Iran is protecting its investment in Syria by masterminding the response of the Assad regime in Syria to the rebel uprising. Obama has finally taken sides in the Syrian conflict. On Friday, April 29th, Obama signed an executive order imposing an expanded level of economic sanctions against Syria. These sanctions freezes property and assets in the United States of specific Syrian officials and groups. The executive order also bans American citizens from conducting business dealings with these officials and Syrian groups.

The Obama sanctions specifically target the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate and the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Qods Force (IRGC-QF). The Syrian General Intelligence Directorate is Syria’s internal intelligence service. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Qods Force (IRGC-QF) is considered by the Obama Administration to be the conduit for Iranian support of the Syrian regime.

Meanwhile, according to Debkafile, western military experts are predicting that:

The next stage of the Syrian crisis will see protesters-turned-rebels shooting at the military tanks and armored vehicles spearheading the assaults by commando units on foot in the towns under siege, while snipers pick off demonstrators or ordinary passers-by from the rooftops.

In the first two days of the military operation, the tanks have been rolling through the streets sowing panic and fear in targeted cities and providing cover for the soldiers shooting civilians at random. Disabling the tanks, the protesters believe, will disarm that tactic, which has been directed first against the million inhabitants of Daraa and its outlying towns in the Horon province.

With the most powerful military in the Middle East, Israel is closely monitoring developments in Syria, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and other countries experiencing Al-Qaeda and Iranian inspired turbulence. It is impossible to predict which, if any, additional countries may fall to protesters. But the potential for large-scale warfare is problematic, if not likely, given the current situation in Syria. The problems besetting both Israel and the Arab countries of the Middle East are compounded by the Obama Administration’s misguided policies.

It appears that Ezekiel may very well have been spot on in his prophetic warning. Stay tuned.

Recent Entries »