|
Why are the US and the EU so insistent on keeping territorial integrity of countries like Ukraine, Iraq and even the Palestinian proposed state (based on the 1948-1967 borders), whereas actual conditions on the ground would be better served otherwise?
Crimea: The Crimean peninsula has been part of Russia since the 18th century and all throughout the first half of the 20th century when it was offered as a gift from Russia to Ukraine by former (Ukrainian-born) leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev (perhaps he did so when he was under the influence), and became part of the Soviet Republic of Ukraine . The change in ownership was more symbolic than material because Ukraine was a region in the Soviet Union under Russian leadership. Consequently, this figurative transformation did not bring about any meaningful metamorphosis in the Crimean peninsula’s citizens’ daily life. With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1990, Crimea remained part of Ukraine, but unlike the rest of Ukrainian administrative regions, it was able to preserve its special Russian character by becoming the only autonomous Ukrainian republic. According to the 2001 Ukrainian population census 58.5% of the population of Crimea were ethnic Russians and 24.4% were ethnic Ukrainians. Consequently, Russian has been (still is) the principal spoken language in Crimea. What’s more, Russia inherited (as per the breakup agreement with Ukraine) the Soviet Union’s most important warm water Black Sea seaport with its accompanying fleet of war ships in (Russian-governed) Sevastopol, Crimea, where its navy retains one of its principal bases. The latest revolution in Kiev brought to power politicians whose chief common attribute has been their hostility toward Russia. The re-energized Ukrainian authorities have just repealed a law giving regional rights to minority languages. This was one of their most prominent initiatives since assuming power. They have also signed a new bill banning Russian media in Ukraine. These moves must have been popular in the western part of the country, but in Crimea and in some Eastern regions it must have been seen as an indication of further repression (of the Russian and Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens) to come. Anxiety among Russian-speaking Ukrainians has been justifiably intensified in the past few days. Had a referendum been offered in Crimea today over whether the republic should be part of Ukraine or part of Russia, there is no doubt in my mind that the local citizens would have chosen the latter. If we believe in Democracy; if we believe in facilitating the will of the people, then why are we upset when someone else’s territorial integrity is sacrificed in order to make the most out of what the affected people really want? It’s their way of life, their welfare and their happiness that we are trying to downgrade in the name of territorial integrity. What’s so divine about unnatural territorial integrity, an integrity that came to pass as a result of a historical accident? Let’s think it over. Please note, however, that I am not supporting a Russian invasion of western Ukraine. If Russia tries to control the rest of the Ukrainian territory and embrace it as part of a greater Russian empire, then it would commit the same human rights violation they are trying to prevent from occurring in Crimea. Iraq: The state boundaries of Iraq were established by the British Empire after the First World War. There was nothing natural about those boundaries other than political considerations by the British who considered gifting King Faisal with territory he could rule over under British guardianship. In fact, Iraqi citizens comprise three major sects—Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds—concentrated in three contiguous regions respectively, except for the capital city of Bagdad where the different sects are more mixed, although most neighborhoods are dominated by a majority of one sect or another. The fact is that whoever assumes power in Iraq, whether it is a leadership dominated by one sect or another, is trying to suppress the other sects. There is also deep hostility and mistrust between the various sects. Iraqi minorities like the Sunnis and the Kurds could be better off if they could form their own state in the region where they are a significant majority and govern themselves. And these people know it. The current sectarian civil war that takes place in Iraq is proof that forcing territorial integrity on this country—only because of a historical accident that unified it under a puppet king—is rooted in an addiction to preserving a status quo regardless of whether or not it makes sense; regardless of whether or not it brings about violations of human rights for minorities; regardless of whether or not it serves World Peace. Israel and the Palestinian Territories: The border between Israel and Jordan was established over the ceasefire line at the end of the 1948 war. It was accidental. In fact, had the war continued for one more month, Jerusalem would not have been a divided city for the subsequent 19 years. It would have fallen into the hands of the Jewish State and the rest of Israel’s borders would have moved further east. Still, in the name of “territorial integrity” the rest of the world views the West Bank (a.k.a. Judea and Samaria) as Palestinian territory. Once again, the rest of the world sticks to preserving a historic status quo regardless of whether or not it makes sense. The only correct way to draw the borders of a future Palestinian state is to ensure that it includes all major Arab population centers. Empty regions should be subject to direct negotiations between the parties involved, and areas populated by Jewish settlements contiguous to the state of Israel should be annexed by the Jewish state. Furthermore, areas populated by Arabs west of but contiguous to the 1948 ceasefire line, may be incorporated into the new Palestinian state as part of the final settlement. Preserving territorial integrity does not, in many cases, serve justice, happiness or human rights. We have witnessed the peaceful divorce of Czechoslovakia, the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia, the Sudan split, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. In all of these cases, the resulting independent states were better off after the uncoupling had transpired. The EU and the US should let go of the concept that territorial integrity must not be violated even when it makes no sense. Let’s not pretend that we are the Catholic Pope. Let these countries get a divorce when divorce is the best option. BIOGRAPHY Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was Vice President at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, as well as a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and an Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. He may be reached through his web site www.aviperry.org
0 Comments
The international campaign to boycott Israeli products manufactured in West Bank settlements has claimed one more casualty. Scarlett Johansson has parted ways with the international charity Oxfam because of a dispute over a “fundamental difference of opinion” concerning her work for the Israeli company SodaStream.
The reason for the dispute is the fact that SodaStream’s principal manufacturing plant is in the industrial park of the Ma’ale Adumim settlement, a community of approximately 40,000 people located about seven miles east of Jerusalem in the West Bank. Oxfam supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. It calls for the boycott of Israeli products, Israeli-held sporting, cultural and academic events, and divestment of holdings in Israeli companies as long as Israel continues to “occupy” Palestinian territory. The BDS movement is quite successful. It has swayed many star artists from performing in Israel; it has won over many retail outlets, inducing them to boycott Israeli products; it has penetrated academic institutions— like the 5,000-member American Studies Association, which forbids interactions with Israeli scientists and scholars; it has even gone as far as having Christian religious institutions exploit their pulpit to advocate BDS’s ideology. The BDS movement was able to convince many around the world that Israeli settlements beyond the (green) 1948 ceasefire line are illegal. But its assertions regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are simply incorrect. Israel conquered the West bank in a defensive war. International law, spelled out by the charter of the League of Nations, states that the status of territories occupied in consequence of a defensive war shall remain in dispute as long as there is no peace agreement between the warring parties. Accordingly, the conquered territory is disputed rather than occupied. And although Israel’s control over the West Bank makes peace with the Palestinians more challenging, it is, nonetheless, legal. What’s more, international law states that a territory conquered in a defensive war may be used to maintain security in the absence of a peace treaty. The conquering party may resettle it if it had been driven out of the area (like East Jerusalem, Hebron, Gush Etzion) in an earlier war (1947-8) and the rest of the west bank during the Roman revolt in 135 CE. Besides, UN Resolution 242 states clearly that in the absence of peace between Israel and the Arabs, Israel may develop and settle any public unoccupied land. This public unoccupied land was never owned by a Muslim Palestinian state, since no Muslim Palestinian state had ever existed. Four hundred years prior to the end of World War I in 1917 this land was occupied and owned by the Ottoman empire; then between 1917-1948 it was controlled by the British, and following the 1948 war between Israel and the Arab states, the kingdom of Jordan occupied — and, I must say, illegally absorbed — the same territory. An Arab Palestinian authority has never owned public land in Judea and Samaria, (a.k.a. the West Bank) or the Gaza strip. The Jews were the only legitimate local resident owners before the Roman Empire’s conquest of the land. After the Romans drove the Jews out of Israel and renamed the territory, the only owners were foreign imperialists who took control of Palestine after defeating a former imperialist occupier. Public unoccupied land in Judea and Samaria had never been in possession of a Palestinian Arab authority or government. Israel captured the land from its illegal possessor, the Jordanian Hashemite kingdom, in a defensive war. In the absence of peace between Israel and any Palestinian authority, it has been Israel’s legally justified right to maintain its sovereignty over these territories, develop and settle them, as long as the Israeli government has not deported or displaced the original residents. Accordingly, Palestinian Arabs were able to challenge the Israeli government concerning land use and ownership and that several of these challenges were successful. Consequently, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the Israeli government to reverse position and hand the land over to its rightful owners whenever it found such land grab illegal or unjust. It is important to note that Palestinians and many other Arabs consider Israel proper to be an occupied territory. A UN resolution that partitioned the land in 1947 into a two-state solution was rejected by the Arabs, and the resulting war ended similarly to the 1967 Six-Day-War. Israel captured more territory in consequence of a defensive war. That war of independence did not end up in a peace treaty. It was concluded in a ceasefire and a demarcated ceasefire (green) line, serving as a temporary border between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Israel went ahead and annexed the conquered territory, which became an integral part of the Jewish State. Although it had been designated by the UN partition plan as part of a Palestinian State, Israel’s captured territory was recognized by the rest of the world, with the exception of the Arab states, as an integral part of Israel. If Jewish settlements established over territory captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day-War are considered illegal, then one could extrapolate the same reasoning to proclaim illegality for the entire State of Israel. History tells us that Israel was established in the aftermath of a defensive war over territories the Arabs claim to be Islamic. And similarly, territories captured in the aftermath of wars like-- · Northern Ireland—captured, occupied and annexed by the British · Territories belonging to Poland and Romania—captured, occupied and annexed by the Russians · Kurdistan—Occupied and annexed by Turkey and Iraq · Catalonia—Occupied and annexed by Spain · German territories before WWII—occupied and annexed by France and Poland · Hungarian territories (Transylvania)—occupied and annexed by Romania · Tibet—occupied and annexed by China · The whole of the US—captured by force from the native Americans and settled by the White Americans · Texas—Captured from Mexico —ought to be classified by BDS to as illegal and should be boycotted. Had Oxfam and BDS been consistent in following their erroneous interpretation of international law they should have boycotted all of the above occupiers. By unjustifiably singling out Israel they have exposed their anti-Semitic tendencies. Scarlett Johansson was right to part ways with this hypocritical organization. She has not done it to gain extra cash as some Israel-bashers claim. She went with her heart. She understood that SodaStream was actually one of the largest employers of Palestinians whose territory, according to the World Bank, is bloated with 22% unemployment rate. She understood that the SodaStream plant provided Palestinians with compensation and treatment equal to what SodaStream provided Jewish employees, and any economic boycott that would force closing of the plant or downsize its operations would hurt Palestinians more than it would hurt Israel. Scarlett Johansson, I applaud you. You have done the right thing. BIOGRAPHY Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was Vice President at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, as well as a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and an Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. He may be reached through his web site www.aviperry.org With the dramatic growth of the Islamic population in Europe, it is no surprise that European-bred antisemitism has rocketed to new heights reminiscent of the 1930s. What most people fail to recognize is that the chauvinistic phenomenon is not limited to Muslims. It is promoted by leftist politicians who seek votes among the rapidly swelling Muslim minority as well as devout Christians looking for a scape goat when rationalizing their own failures. In Poland, for example, not only a majority of Poles believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the banking system and the world media, but a notable number accept as true the anti-Semitic propaganda claiming that Israel treats the Palestinians just as Hitler treated the Jews of Europe, that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, and they use Christian blood for ritual purposes.
The fact is that present and past antisemitism is one more reason why a Jewish state, a religion and an ethnicity-centered state is befitting the 21th century, even though every western style democracy — and Israel belongs in this group — rejects the notion of a Christian state, an Aryan state or a white state. Jews, unlike Catholics, are bound by their ethnicity and heritage over and above their religion. They have been rejected, discriminated against, robbed, demonized, raped and massacred. Too many in the old and the modern world have placed Jews at the top of the “most-hated” list. The world forced Jews into ghettos, death camps, and other unspeakable horrors in which the only logical way out was — and still is — to create their own Jewish state where they could be free to be Jewish without the fear of persecution. Israel, the Jewish state, is the only nation where the head of state is Jewish; the government is Jewish, the Supreme Court is mostly Jewish, the military chief of staff is Jewish and nobody blames it on a Jewish conspiracy. If Israel is not categorized as a Jewish state, this would render Arab claims to a Muslim Palestine that extends from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River as being totally justified. As such, Jewish immigrants to Israel would be rightfully regarded as the new Crusaders, the Palestinian right of return would be unequivocal and Helen Thomas would most certainly be deemed a prophet. Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza see Jews as foreign invaders who do not belong there. Had it been up to the Arabs, Jews would have been forbidden from settling in all of Palestine – including Israel proper. They protest when Jews build homes in Jerusalem, the ancient Jewish capital — with the claim that “it’s Palestinian land.” They define their dream of a future state not as being a Muslim or a Christian state, rather they characterize it as a non-Jewish state in which only Jews will be prohibited from residing. Over and over they reinforce the notion that the world is divided into two types of human beings, Jews and non-Jews. It’s true that more than 20% of Israeli citizens are not Jewish. But that number, albeit not a small one, is nonetheless marginal. The state of Israel assumes a definitive Jewish character. The government is run by Jews as is the military. The social atmosphere, the media, the national holidays, and the democratic institutions are all immersed in Jewish tradition, values, and moral fiber. Israel was a Jewish state since the times of Joshua. The Roman Empire destroyed it, renamed it, killed millions and enslaved the rest of its Jewish residents. The empire tried and failed to wipe the Jewish state off the map. It took 2,000 years for Jews to return and reclaim their ancestors’ land, and no one can wipe the Jewish state off the map simply by denying the reality of what Israel is all about. Jews have a home. The only place in the world where they are not deemed foreigners, a minority, or special. Nonetheless, character, demographic statistics and historical rights are all moot points: The real motive behind Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s insistence on Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is that such acknowledgment is the sole element that has a chance of generating an end to the conflict. As long as the Palestinians regard Israel as another Palestinian state, one that happens to have Jewish residents, their dream of a Greater Palestine will not be extinguished and the volcano will remain active – ready to erupt at the first opportunity. Following Eduard Snowden’s revelations regarding scope and methodology of the NSA domestic and international spying the discussion evolved around the proper red lines, limits, oversight and constraints that must, should or should not be imposed on those responsible for keeping us safe and free.
There is no question that the NSA’s and potentially other world intelligence agencies’ data mining of phone call records, email, records of web surfing, credit card and other financial transactions comprise a massive invasion of privacy. It is also true that unadvertised benefits of these spying measures hinder terror attacks on innocent civilians by unearthing criminal and terrorist plots before they have a chance to transpire. When traveling by air, people subject themselves to burdensome security screening but very few, if any, complain about the obvious invasion of privacy. Normally, people are unhappy about the long lines and the extra time they have to spend in the airport before boarding their flight, but in the post 9/11 era almost everyone accepts the spent time as a welcome inconvenience. Why are most travelers willing to trade off privacy for extra security in this case? Israel is a security-conscious country. Terrorism comprises a high probability threat. Most people in the Jewish state have either witnessed the consequences of a terror attack or know at least one person who had fallen victim to it. The Israeli internal security agency, Shabak, has been very successful in breaking off murderous plots before they come to pass. Shabak has been effective because of its sophisticated diversified methods of snooping, spying, nosing around and undercover work. Shabak’s massive breach of privacy takes little push back from most Israelis, bar those who seek ways for harming the Jewish state. Why do we see such a statistical difference between Israel and the U.S. when it comes to the question of security versus privacy? The answer to the question of where the proper balance is depends on whom you ask; it hinges upon the particular responder’s perceived proximity to risk associated with either criminal and terror activities on the one hand and private or less than kosher dealings on the other hand. People let airport security invade a piece of their privacy because they are the ones whose life may be at risk without it. It’s close and personal. Most Israelis understand that freedom without security is a fake freedom. Security guaranties freedom of movement. It is a prerequisite for enjoying a meal at a restaurant with no fear of getting blown up, It guards against the possibility that a shopping experience would end up in a trip to the morgue. Terrorism risk in Israel is close and personal. The sense that ‘’next time it could be me’’ is real. That is why security takes such a high priority and privacy concerns move way down the priority list. The U.S. has experienced devastating terror with massive casualties on 9/11. But the US is a big country. New York is as far from Nebraska, Iowa or Arizona as Israel is from Romania or Italy. What happens in a faraway place inside the US may not carry the same anxiety as if it took place in one’s backyard. It may draw sympathy, anger, a burst of patriotism, calls for revenge, even criticism of security authorities. But it may not produce the same feelings of vulnerability as it would in Israel. It’s not as personal in the U.S. as it is in a small country where everyone knows of almost everyone. I always find it interesting that rich and famous people whose closest relatives fall victim to a particular disease tend to found a non-profit charity with the objective of eliminating and eradicating that particular illness. I also experience thought-provoking brainwaves when I hear a conservative gay-bashing politician eating back his hate-filled arguments once he learns that his son or daughter has come out of the closet. When an issue becomes personal, people tend to amend their position accordingly by elevating its priority and change their attitude in support of their own agenda. They do so even when their newer stance is 180 degrees clear of where they were when the matter was less personal and more academic. So next time, when you kvetch about the NSA’s data mining activity and their invasion of your privacy don’t be selfish and do not remove yourself from the scene of the crime. Imagine that these spying activities have just foiled a terrorist conspiracy to detonate a car bomb next to your bedroom window while you were dreaming about living peacefully in your free country. Envision being right there, right where the bomb could have gone off; imagine being victimized by a terror activity. If you still believe that the NSA has been overstepping its charter then it is obvious. You must have failed the “imagining” exercise I have suggested above. Unesco’s recent cancellation of a Jewish exhibit entitled "People, Book, Land - The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel", following Arab pressure, is the latest confirmation that the road to peace between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews is filled with land mines, some of which are so deep, it may take more than a generation to scoop them out - if at all.
The core of the conflict is Muslims’ persistent efforts to delegitimize the Jewish State by denying Jewish historical existence in Israel, including Judea and Samaria, by rejecting well established facts, and by fighting any archeological attempt to unearth historical evidence linking Jewish life to the holy land. Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State is merely a derivative of their fabricated history, designed to establish their rights to the land while denying Israel’s right to exist at the same time. Muslims propensity to rewrite history began with the prophet Muhammad. The Quran makes the claim that the biblical Abraham, the first patriarch ancestor of the Jewish people and the originator of the Jewish religion, was a Muslim, irrespective of the fact that he lived some 2600 years before Muhammad conceived of the Islamic religion. The biblical account of how God tested Abraham, commanding him to have his and his wife Sara’s only son, Isaac, sacrificed, before stopping him at the most critical moment, was revised in the Quran. This time, Abraham was about to sacrifice Ismail, the alleged ancestor of all Arabs, his son from Hajar, Sara’s servant, who was never mentioned by name in the Quran, leading the reader to infer that the nameless mother was Abraham’s wife. The Muslim holiday, Eid al-Adha, commemorates this altered biblical tale. What’s more, The Muslim version of the story, once again, alters the biblical account to correspond to an Islamic agenda. It claims that Ismail and his mother were able to quench their thirst at the well of Zamzam, near Mecca (rather than near Beer Sheba), nearly 1000 miles of desert away from their starting point at Beer Sheba (a town in Israel). Muslims and PA leaders over and again label Moses and Jesus as Palestinian Muslims who practiced and preached Islam some 2000 and 600 years, respectively, before Islam came into being. Altered biblical accounts conceived to fit an Islamic framework are not a major cause of concern because most non-Muslims are either unaware of them, refrain from challenging religious texts, or ignore and dismiss them due to their absurdity. Still, these Islamic falsehoods offer key characterizations of a culture filled with made-up historical fabrications intended to serve the purpose of the story-tellers. Fabrications, but Muslim believers and their children are brain-washed to deny any Jewish roots to “the land of the biblical Muslim ancestors”. This denial of truth, this revision of history, is meant to take a more believable direction when Palestinian Arabs claim (over and over on PA TV) to be descendants of the Biblical Canaanites, notwithstanding the fact that Arabs first arrived in Israel with the Muslim invasion in 637 C.E. and the Canaanites had long dispersed and disappeared by then. The “Canaanite- Palestinians,” they claim, “have been in Palestine for the past 10,000 years.” And in the same breath, they add, “Jews have no historical rights in the region,” and in schoolbooks: “Zionism is an imperialist colonial implant conspired by the Europeans to get rid of their Jews and steal the “natural resources” of the Middle East.” Israeli Arabs are among those whose creativity pertaining to historical misrepresentations does not fall behind their brothers in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In his latest statement, Arab Israeli MK, Ibrahim Sarsour (Ra’am Ta’al), has claimed that there was proof in the Quran that there is no Jewish connection to Judea, Samaria and Temple Mount. He added that the Quran “proves without a doubt” that Abraham was a “Muslim” and that Isaac and Jacob were “hanifs” (the Islamic term for pre-Quranic figures who “submitted” to Allah.) PM Benjamin Netanyahu conditioned peace with the Palestinian Arabs on their recognition of Israel as a Jewish State. But this condition may only be satisfied once the Arabs accept real history as the truth rather than their falsified Islamic adaptation. I find it difficult to believe that Muslim Palestinian Arabs will reject their invented culture and history. I find it difficult to believe that Muslims can accept the fact that Israel was a Jewish state with a rich Jewish history and culture even before the Islamic invasion of the Promised Land. I find it difficult to believe that the Palestinian Arabs will acknowledge the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, and will always be a Jewish state. If the Arab states find an exhibition, entitled "People, Book, Land - The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel" deeply disturbing, they are telling the world that in their view: “Jews do not belong in Palestine; they never did, and they never will.” Nelson Mandela was not the saint that world leaders and the media depict him to be. He was merely a gifted, practical politician. After being released from prison and becoming president of South Africa, Mandela understood—what many perceived as being saintly rather than practical—that South Africa would sustain civility, stability, economic growth and security only if he embraced the White minority, retain the state’s institutions, including the police, the army, and the rest of what the Apartheid regime had employed to reinforce the White minority rule over the Black majority. He treated the Whites with respect, did not avenge their crime of Apartheid, and did not deprive them of their rights, wealth and security. He did so because it was in the best interest of his fellow Black citizens. It was a bright, genius move, devoid of emotional needs for revenge. It was the rational act that earned him the world’s admiration.
But then he stumbled badly. He slipped into the trap of mischaracterizing many of the world’s bad guys as freedom fighters akin to himself. He befriended, embraced and allied with Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi, Yasser Arafat, Ayatollah Khomeini and his successor Ali Khamenei. He viewed these oppressors as liberators. Outside of his country, he approved of violence as means for achieving independence from the “bigoted minority rule” over the “sizeable oppressed majority”. He failed to see that those “liberators” failed to free the “oppressed majority”, but rather subjected their own people to a different and even worse form of tyranny and suppression. Outside of his own country, he was not the same Nelson Mandela who had transformed South Africa from an Apartheid state to a true democracy by means of an olive branch and reconciliation. Outside of his own country he approved of violent resistance to what he considered to be either an imperialistic foreign element, or corrupt elite in control of the suffering masses. So was the case in Cuba, in Libya, in Iran, and in Palestine. Nelson Mandela deemed the Palestinian propaganda as truth. He referred to Israel as a “Terrorist State”; he made known to the Palestinians that they were his “Comrades in Arms” and supported their struggle for the liberation of Palestine. He repeated Palestinian blood libels and false propaganda claiming that Israel was slaughtering defenseless, innocent Palestinians. He likened Israel to an Apartheid State, implying that Yasser Arafat was a Palestinian Mandela and that his South African countrymen were ready and willing to fight with the Palestinians against the racist Zionists. He viewed Zionism as an imperialistic movement, the objective of which was to seize Palestinian territory and subjugate the true owners of the land. He was not speaking the truth. He was repeating lies and propaganda that he wanted to believe in. His hostility towards the state of Israel did not end there. He let it spill over and cover the rest of the Jews as well. When Iran tried 13 Jews for espionage in the year 2000, Mandela claimed that these Jews “received a fair trial”—as if anyone can receive a fair trial under the Ayatollah’s oppressive system. He dismissed South African Jews’ likely concerns regarding his stand on Israel. He let it be known that he cared less about their feelings. But the worst part of all was the fact that Nelson Mandela was a George Washington of South Africa. He was the first leader of the new true Democracy. He set examples and established paradigms for others to follow. And although the examples he set and the path he outline internally was great and pure, the roadmap he delineated outside of his country and the especially the one concerning Israel and Jews was filled with anti-Semitism flavor. Desmond Tutu, the influential South African Leader, and his anti-Semitic views are a perfect specimen to that fact. Sorry world, but I can’t bring myself to the same outpouring feeling and extolling eulogies I have been reading, watching and listening to in every news medium I have tuned to. I just can’t. Left-minded western intellectuals, habitual anti-Semites, and other enemies of Israel have addressed the insistent discontent expressed by the Israeli government concerning the recent agreement between Iran and the P5+1.
They have been suggesting that Israel should dispose of its alleged nuclear arsenal as a condition for insisting on an Iranian termination of its nuclear program. They have pointed to the US relations with Nuclear India, the administration tolerance of the Pakistani bomb, and the world absentmindedness concerning Israel’s refusal to admit its undeniable status. Why is Iran different? They have been questioning. Why can’t Iran try to seek what others, and specifically, what Israel already possesses? Is there really no distinction, or are these “intellectuals” blinded by superficial generalities? It is a fact that, among the official and unofficial nuclear club members, none There is a strong suspicion that Iran’s leaders view Israel as a requisite bus stop on the way to other Middle-Eastern countries, Europe, and beyond. other than Iran is controlled by an Islamic religious fanatic leader who views martyrdom as a religious dictate. It is a fact that Islamic religious fanatics have no regard for innocent lives. They believe that Allah wants them to kill anyone who stands on the way of their version of world order. 9/11 and the culture of suicide bombing prove that point. It is a fact that Islamic religious fanatics take their orders directly from Allah’s earthly self-appointed representatives and follow it blindly without a question. It is a fact that Iran’s supreme leader and many of his followers, including his former president have already announced their intent to wipe Israel and its “rabid dogs” leaders off the map. They clearly implied that they would use a nuclear bomb for the task had they had one. There is a strong suspicion that Iran’s leaders view Israel as a requisite bus stop on the way to other Middle-Eastern countries, Europe, and beyond, in their Jihadi mission to cleanse the world from its infidels. There is a strong suspicion that Iran may actually bring its nuclear bomb into play, or let its Islamic comrades experiment with it on real human beings. There is no analogous anxiety when it comes to other members of the nuclear club. But what about Israel? Why does the Western World beg off pressuring the Jewish state to open its nuclear facilities to international inspections? Why is Israel given a preferential treatment on the issue? Apparently, the West, the US and even its Arab neighbors, understand that Israel would not use its nuclear arsenal in battle unless it is under an imminent existential threat or is being attacked with WMD first. The Yom Kippur war—initiated by Egypt and Syria who invaded Israeli-occupied territory in 1973—and all Arab-initiated wars that followed are a clear and present proof of that assertion. They all understood that the Israeli capability was, still is, defensive. The attackers knew that Israel would not resort to nuclear weapons. They dared attacking a nuclear power, and they were proved right. Nevertheless, Sunni Arabs, neighboring Iran, have indicated that they would seek parity once Iran becomes a nuclear power. They understand that Iranian nuclear aspirations are offensive. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was never on the table when Israel was alleged to having the bomb. The US and the rest of the civilized world understand that Israel is the only country in the world whose citizens rather than their government are targeted for elimination by its religious fanatic enemies. Israel is the only country in the world whose citizens are threatened with a massive genocide by those aspiring to nuke it. The North Korean government does not want to kill all of its Southern neighbor citizens. It wants to control them. India and Pakistan do not want to kill all of their enemy civilians. Their dispute is confined to territorial control. All recent wars among the nuclear club members and other nations amounted to wars, cold or hot, between governments over territorial or political jurisdictions. These objectives are in contradiction to the utilization of nuclear weapons. Iran’s “wipe them off the map” call is clearly a departure from the norm. If these neurotic desperados place their hands on this WMD button, the world may actually witness mushroom clouds for the first time since Nagasaki. And that is why Iran should never have the capacity affording it the potential of fabricating a nuclear bomb. One of the major anxieties concerning the Iranian nuclear program is the Israeli angle. Iran’s repeated calls for the destruction of Israel and its Zionist population gave rise to a strong suspicion that its “peaceful” nuclear project is aimed at producing nuclear bombs, the first and foremost target of which is Israel.Although this suspicion should not be ruled out, it is my opinion that Iran has other designs involving a blend of religious hostility combined with ambitions for economic hegemony and political super powers.
It is no secret that Sunni/Shiites hatred among Muslims is as fierce as Arabs’ hostility towards Israel. The civil wars in Syria and in Iraq are sectarian in nature where Sunnis and Shiites kill innocent civilians of the other Islamic sect. Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia are historic adversaries; their rivalry intensified following the Iranian revolution in 1979, replacing the secular Shah with an Islamic fundamentalist, Ayatollah Khomeini and his gangs of religious extremists. The new Iran, controlled by Ayatollah Khamenei, Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of the elite Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and their would be successors is much more extreme and exceedingly aggressive in pursuing its ambitious goal involving dominance over the oil-rich, Persian Gulf region. Iran’s strategy comprises three phases, at the end of which it would be in control of 28% of the world oil supply. Iran would be able to set prices, blackmail, dominate and influence world politics, impose its will and brand of religion on a significant part of the world. And its leaders would become the ruling Caliphs of the latest Islamic Caliphate. The first phase of this grand design has already been embarked on. Parts of the western coast of the Persian Gulf is dominated by Sunni leaders ruling over a Shiite majority in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, or a large Shiite minority in the UAE, (which has started cleansing their territory by deporting Shiite residents for no apparent reason other than sectarian). Iran has been using their Shiite brothers in fomenting unrest, engaging in insurgency and undermining authority in these territories and beyond. Eventually this Shiite population would facilitate an uprising intended to overthrow of the existing government and replace it with an Iranian proxy. The second phase would comprise the fabrication of a nuclear weapon. It would be used as the main tool for bullying Iran’s neighbors and imposing Iran’s hegemony over the Persian Gulf and its oil rich resources. Iran would try to call the shots concerning OPEC’s strategy with regard to prices and quotas; it would use its nuclear clout to bully its neighbors and dominate the economic discussion and its conclusions. Once Iran encounters resistance it would defer to the third phase—a full invasion of Saudi’s oil-rich Eastern coast, evoking memories of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. This time, however, Iran would feel shielded due to its possession of a nuclear deterrent in addition to local backing of the majority Shiite population in the occupied areas. Iran’s calls for “Wiping Israel off the Map” are an attempt to cover up their grander design. By focusing on Israel, Iran is trying to sedate its neighbors, have them support or, as a minimum, trim down their criticism and opposition to its nuclear ambitions. Saudi Arabia has been anxious ahead of the signing ceremony in Geneva, calling for a slowdown in Iran’s progress on the road to a nuclear bomb in lieu of relaxation of some sanctions. Nevertheless, the Saudis have seemed to have succumbed to the agreement’s conclusions. They seem eager to believe that the interim agreement struck in Geneva brought about a pause in the Iranian action, and that the P5+1 interpretation of what the agreement entailed was the proper understanding of what would take place on the ground for the next six months before a final agreement, which would effect a reversal and a full cessation of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Not so. The Iranians deception and cover up of their real intent has been effective. Iran is intent on pursuing their agenda as outlined above. They already interpret the Geneva agreement differently from the P5+1. They continue to claim - in contradiction to the P5+1’s understanding - that the agreement they have signed acknowledges their right to continue enriching Uranium to the 3.5% level. Like a diver running out for air before passing out under water, the sanctions relief obtained by Iran in return for minor, mostly cosmetic, concessions on their nuclear program, felt to them like a lifesaving lungful of fresh air. It let the Iranians break their rapid dash on the road to an economic catastrophe. It gave them time to reload and continue to foment unrest, engage in insurgency, undermine authority in Saudi, Bahrain, in Eastern Arabia, Yemen, and continue to commit terrorist acts around the world. What’s more, the agreement did not address Iran’s buildup of an aggressive military capacity including ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear war heads. The agreement does not cover what the West does not know about the Iranian nuclear program. Even if new information may be forthcoming due to closer inspection by the IAEA, this new information will only be dealt with during the next phase of negotiations, but that new phase will find the Iranians less flexible since some of the sanctions pressure has been lifted and the economic pressure that drew them to the table in the first place has been alleviated. The universal consensus among most intelligence agencies is that the present Iranian enrichment capacity—even after dishing out the stockpile of the existing 20% enriched uranium and exclusive of additional centrifuges—is capable of attaining a nuclear breakout in less than two months. This time window is shorter than the time it would take to revive the sanctions. And in general, there is a considerable lag between sanctions imposition and their associated impact due to the fact that the Iranians, like most other nations, maintain reserves of economic resources. The best (and maybe the only) way to undermine the Iranian design of domination over the oil-rich Persian Gulf is to facilitate a regime change in that country. A choking economic pressure, considerably more severe than the present level of sanctions, could have yielded that goal. The nuclear question helped in unifying the world against Iran, but the unspoken (regime change) true goal should have been even more compelling. It should have guided the US and the EU in their pursuit of a better world. Unfortunately, the politically correct west (they could not go in for a regime-change agenda in the open) and their misreading of the Iranian’s true intentions led to a bad agreement. It relieved pressure at the wrong time; it saved the Ayatollah and his militant IRGC from a potential implosion. It let Iran continue to carry out its grand scheme. And it failed to realize the monumental mistake they have made in letting the present Iranian regime off the hook Nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible, rational, peace-seeking governments who truly care for their citizens aren’t as dangerous as when these WMDs are owned by extreme hot-headed, hate-dipped dictators. This was the case with Saddam Hussein, and this is the state of play with Iran. Furthermore, this is the reason why concerned leaders of the world are terrified by the prospects of letting the Ayatollah possess that kind of colossal venom. They know that the Iranian leader is capable of using his nuclear bomb, not simply as a deterrent, but either for intimidation of his neighboring states or as a weapon of war, designed to wipe his chosen nemeses off the map.
While nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible governments may never be set off in advancing their political goals, these weapons will likely be deployed by ruthless fanatics whose hate-filled souls take precedence over their love for their own citizens. The Iranian leadership is packed by suicide bombers whose belts could be replete with fissile material ready to detonate at the sight of a Zionist—only if we let them have it. The same applies to the Tea Party members of the US Congress. The debt Ceiling instrument is potentially a financial weapon of mass destruction. However, as long as Congress included a majority of reasonable legislatures, willing to compromise for the sake of the country, the debt ceiling instrument served only as a reminder that government debt needed to be regulated. On the other hand, once Congress grew into a house controlled by extreme ideologues, whose hate for their president dwarfed their love for their country, they bullied, intimidated, then tried, could and would deploy that weapon in their attempt to destroy the president and his accomplishments. They would try to prevent the debt ceiling from rising; they didn’t and wouldn’t mind if the US defaulted on its debt and the world economy collapsed in consequence, as long as the “black, African-born, communist, fascist, Muslim dictator with the alien name, Obama,” is damaged beyond repair. These Tea Party aficionados do not even realize the fact that they are potential suicide bombers whose belts are stuffed with financial weapons of mass destruction; they are quite comparable to the Iranian leadership. The only way going forward—if world security bears any merit—is to prevent extremists from employing and producing WMDs. This conclusion applies to the Iranian regime outside the US and to the Tea Party domestically. The most effective way of preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear bombs is to keep applying economic pressure along with potential military threats on them. The best way to prevent the Tea Party from replaying the default scenario is to abolish the debt ceiling once and for all, preventing it from becoming a weapon of mass financial destruction in the hands of ideological extremists. The US is the only country in the world with a debt ceiling. (Denmark is the only other country which has a debt ceiling, but it is set far above the country’s actual debt; it is not a real constraint on government spending). Defaulting on US government obligations is unimaginable. It should never take place. Any time the US government approaches the debt ceiling it must raise it. It makes no sense to have a non-constraint constraint while letting it become an instrument that can be used by Tea Party-like enthusiasts to spawn a worldwide financial disaster. The US debt ceiling must be abolished. Instead, the discussion concerning government spending should focus on the annual budget, and once it is determined; once it has been agreed upon, the effected government obligations must be honored. Let’s prevent fanatics from bringing about massive damage when their hate for their adversaries exceeds their love for their country. Let’s prevent them from having access to WMDs. It’s time. Can you imagine pouring water on a bald man’s head, then asking him why he sweats? This is analogous to criticizing president Obama for letting the Russians take the lead on dismantling Assad’s chemical weapons.
The American people served their president with a weak hand, let his opponents in on the fact that he had no aces, no kings, and no negotiating power, then complained that he let the Russians win at the poker table. When the bulk of the bi-partisan Congress and the majority of the American people expressed their loud opinion (and it was quite deafening) against the use of military force in Syria, Obama was stripped of the only support he hoped to have in his efforts to stop Assad’s mad dash toward further use of chemical weapons. The president understood that employing military force following a ‘No’ vote by Congress would be a significant political setback. Obama was not the only one to come to this conclusion. Everyone with IQ above room temperature (as measured in Fahrenheit), including the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, could see that the gunman (the president in this case) was running out of bullets. Congress and the American people weakened America’s negotiating power, intimidating power, and enforcement power. The American nation did not want to use military force and Obama could not ignore it. Although the threat of using military force had never been removed from the table, it lost a great deal of credibility in the eyes of the president’s adversaries. The probability of employing military force to punish Assad and deter his future use of chemical weapons spiraled down and crashed like Wall Street in the wake of the 2008 Lehman Brothers’ collapse. This is why the American-Russian agreement looks, on the surface, like a positive outcome for the American administration. It was the best possible aftereffect given the empty hand Obama had been dealt with by the American people and their representatives. The only problem—in all probability, the actual implementation of the agreement’s details may not be adhered to by the Assad regime. The Syrians may not cooperate, deceive the UN inspectors and everybody else; the Russians will continue to protect Assad and veto any UNSC proposition calling for the use of force; and the Americans will complain but will be stonewalled by the process they had signed on to, which called for the UNSC to resolve any violation committed by the Assad regime. What’s more, the American people, will again, voice their rejection of enforcing the disposal of Assad’s chemical weapons by resorting to the military threat. The other bigger problem is Iran. The Ayatollah and his newly elected president have been watching the Syrian development. They have witnessed the American president’s lack of bold leadership as he shifted critical decisions to an uncooperative Congress; they have seen the war-fatigued American public’s rejection of a military strike on another Muslim country; they believe they are watching a light turning green on the road to their nuclear ambitions. Israeli leaders have also concluded that the American president may rerun the unacceptable Syrian scenario when it comes to the Iranian nuclear situation. Recent comments by Israeli officials stating an old idiom: “If I am not for me, who will be?” have clearly signaled that when it comes to Israel’s security, the Jewish state will not trust anyone else but itself to watch over and safeguard its existence. In other words, Israeli officials have made it clear that Israel would take it upon itself to launch a preemptive strike against Iran without waiting for a US initiative or even a mere nod when the Ayatollah crosses the nuclear red line. I believe that President Obama erred when he asked a reluctant Congress to back him up. He did not have to travel that route. He should have been bolder and demonstrate to the Iranians and to the Syrians that his word should be taken seriously. Consequently, thanks to the American Congress and their voters, he found himself negotiating with the Russians from a point of weakness. Still, he was able to come out of the negotiations with a meaningful result—on paper. But in the Middle East, and in Syria or in Iran in particular, the same paper would probably end up being flushed down the toilet as soon as it becomes clear that the same agreement and the same Congress practically nullify the use of force as punishment and deterrent when it comes to Muslim nations’ noncompliance concerning their development and use of WMD. America’s holding off punishing Assad in the short term may very well give rise to a catastrophic war with Iran down the road. |
Categories
All
|
