Beyond the Cusp

March 25, 2014

United States to Side with Palestinians in Blaming Israel

Filed under: Israel,Middle East,Palestinian,Hamas,Palestinian Authority,Gaza,Jews,Jordan,President Obama,Administration,Peace Process,Netanyahu,Politics,United States,Terror,Arab League,Europe,European Union,Samaria,Judea,Jerusalem,Mahmoud Abbas,Fatah,Zionist,Anti-Israel,Borders,Anti-Zionist,Settlements,Right of Return,1967 Borders,Arab World,History,Rafah Crossing,Anti-Semitism,Boycott,Sanctions (BDS),1949 Armistice Line,PLO,Old City,Jewish Leadership,Government,Hate,Third Intifada,Kotel,Temple Mount,Condemning Israel,Secretary of State,Statehood,Pre-Conditions,Terrorist Release,Building Freeze,European Governments,Judean Hills,Western Wall,Building Freeze,Blood Libel,Jewish State,Zionism,Executive Order,Jonathan Pollard,Jewish Home,Israeli Capital City,Smuggling Tunnels,Jordan River,Land for Peace,John Kerry,Jewish Heritage,Appeasement,World Opinion,World Pressures,International Politics,Foreign NGOs,Domestic NGOs,Foreign Funding,Divided Jerusalem,Samantha Power,Mediterranean Sea,Forced Solution,European Council,European Pressure,Conflict Avoidnce,Appease Islamic Interests,United Nations Presures,Palestinian Pressures,Arab Appeasement,Islamic Pressure — qwertster @ 3:55 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There has been much made over Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu insisting that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the home for the Jewish People. He has stated that just as Israel has accepted the Palestinian demands for their own homeland, that Israel should receive the same recognition from the Palestinians as being the state for the Jewish People. Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas has repeatedly drawn a line refusing to recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish People claiming that no nation has the right to claim to be home to a particular religion. Obviously Chairman Abbas would make exceptions and claim that Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are not really nations whose existence is based on preference of a single religion or perhaps he would claim that Islam is more than just a religion and since it also has a political structure as part of practicing the religion, that it is therefore different and entitled to establish national entities. Of course the same argument could be made about Judaism as there are rules in the Old Testament which pertain to limits and responsibilities of a King or ruling body in relation to the Jewish People when they would form a government in the Promised Land, Israel.


The real reason for both men making these demands is being skirted and avoiding direct mention as part of the debate is the demand from Chairman Abbas that over five-million Palestinian refugees be given the right to resettle in Israel as they left Israel right before or during the 1948-9 war during which half a dozen Arab armies attempted to annihilate the nascent Jewish State immediately after Israel declared their independence from British rule. The original number of refugees has been estimated to have been approximately six-hundred-fifty-thousand individuals, the majority of which left voluntarily in response to the demands of the commanders of the invading Arab forces along with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini who claimed that they should allow room so that the Arab armies could freely slaughter every individual in the new state of Israel and the Arabs could return after the victory and share in the spoils of the defeated Jews; but under United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) rules every descendent of a Palestinian refugee is also to be counted as an individual new refugee and is granted the same status and rights as the original refugees hence forth and permanently into the future generation after generations, a separate and unique definition of who qualifies as a refugee separate and different than the definition used in every other instance of refugee status throughout human history. This special situation is the reason that the original approximately six-hundred-fifty-thousand individual refugees numbers have swelled to the number today being quoted as being over five-million refugees spread out in refugee camps in several Arab nations and the Palestinian ruled areas in the disputed territories. The reason for this separate and unique definition being implemented for the Palestinian refugees was the Arab League demand that these refugees be granted special consideration in perpetuity so as to use their existence as a bludgeon to eventually destroy the Jewish identification of Israel through their eventual return no matter the amount of time that might transpire. To simply have utilized the normative definition of a refugee population which counts solely those individuals who were displaced at the time of the hostilities or other cause of their dispossession would have made the threat or repatriating these refugees to have dissolved over time.


The United States State Department had originally agreed with the Israeli demand to have the Palestinians give Israel recognition as being the home for the Jewish People but that changed after the recent meeting between Chairman Abbas and President Obama where Chairman Abbas refused the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the home for the Jewish People. To be completely accurate, Chairman Abbas not only refused to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish People, he also refused the two other demands which were presented as necessary compromises the Palestinians would need to make to reciprocate the actions Israel had already agreed to make which were, abandon the Palestinian refugees’ right of return and commit to the peace bringing a final end to the conflict. Chairman Abbas has also refused to compromise on numerous other demands which include but are not limited to the complete removal of every Jew from the lands which will be surrendered to form the Palestinian state, compensation for every last Palestinian refugee including those who return to live within Israel as well as those living elsewhere, automatic and immediate citizenship for those refugees returning to live in Israel, complete removal of all IDF forces from all lands that will make up the Palestinian state, complete return to the 1967 lines with any exchange swaps of land completely dependent on Palestinian approval, Palestinian capital to be in East Jerusalem including all of the Old City, the Temple Mount, the Western Wall and the Kotel all of which Palestinian leaders have sworn will return to being denied access and made beyond reach for Jews for all time just as they were when they were under Jordanian control. So, why has the State Department, one may assume that their statement along with that of Secretary of State Kerry also represents a recent change of mind by President Obama, has now chosen to back the Palestinian demand thus directly opposing the Israeli insistence. One idea that would explain such a reversal is that it is much easier and more likely to gain worldwide support to agree with the Palestinians and demand Israeli surrender on any given point than it would be to continue backing the Israeli side and attempt to have the Palestinians actually make any sacrifice in order to gain a homeland; a homeland they could have received in 1948 had they simply agreed with the stipulations of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 which suggested that the lands between the Jordanian border and the Mediterranean Sea be divided evenly into an Arab state and a Jewish state and suggested the boundaries for the two entities. As a General Assembly Resolution, the document never had the rule of law or any enforceability and was simply a recommendation. The Arab League refused to accept United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 as doing so would have meant accepting Israel as a Jewish state, something that the Arab powers have yet to accept to this day. Their refusal and the Zionist acceptance is why Israel came into being and there was no Palestinian state.


The latest rumors circulating state that the United States is considering offering Israel the release and return of Israeli Johnathan Pollard, who is serving the twenty-ninth year of a life sentence for spying, if Israel would be willing to continue the negotiations beyond their agreed upon ending date in April. What makes this offer so unusual and unexplainable is that Israel has already committed to continue the negotiations provided the Palestinians are also willing. Israel has not demanded any special consideration though the release of Johnathan Pollard has been an Israeli request for many years now but has been repeatedly denied, though President Clinton had intimated he would release him as part of an agreement concerning negotiations only to then refuse and virtually laugh in Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s face implying he was a sucker to have believed that the United States would release Pollard. The sole stipulation from Israel for extending the negotiations is that there are no additional concessions placed on Israel or the Palestinians. The belief is the one-hundred-four terror prisoners Israel will have already released as their concession to bring Chairman Abbas and the Palestinians to the negotiation should be sufficient. So, why then is the Obama Administration now offering to release Pollard as a possible enticement to bring Israel to continue the negotiations? The reason has to do with the meeting between President Obama and Chairman Abbas. When the question was breached about extending the negotiations past their April end date, Chairman Abbas reportedly will only agree to extend talks if Israel allows a “right of return” for all five-million Palestinian Arab refugees, free additional terrorist leaders including Marwan Barghouti among them, and Israel must withdraw from Judea and Samaria. It is obvious that the motivation behind Chairman Abbas making these maximalist demands is to bring the negotiations to an end as continuing them would cause Abbas to lose face and possibly face overwhelming opposition from the leadership of Fatah, the Palestinian Authority and the PLO as well as provide Hamas with more arguments to use in any future elections to paint Abbas as being too lenient concerning Israel and the Jews. So, Abbas is making maximalist demands knowing that there is no possibility that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu can agree to allow a “right of return” for all five-million Palestinian Arab refugees, free additional terrorist leaders including Marwan Barghouti among them, and have Israel must withdraw from Judea and Samaria without losing his coalition and thus face new elections while the Obama Administration is offering to release Israeli spy Johnathan Pollard if Israel will agree to continue the negotiations, something the Israelis have already agreed to continue if possible. What is up with this obviously weird set of circumstances?


The release of Pollard is being presented to Israel so that when Secretary Kerry, with the full knowledge and backing of President Obama and the State Department, demands that Israel meet the concessions demanded by Chairman Abbas and the Israelis refuse, as obviously they must as granting the concessions demanded by Abbas would leave nothing to negotiate unless Abbas plans on negotiating to reclaim what he always refers to as “all of Palestine from the River to the Sea,” then all of the blame for the negotiations not being extended can be placed on Israel. The news across the globe the next day and continuing for weeks if not months will be that Israel refuses to extend negotiations with Palestinians as Israel not serious about peace. There will be absolutely no mention of the demands made by Abbas which are beyond reason. The only thing that will matter is Israel even refused the release of Johnathan Pollard rather than accept extending the peace process; this proves that Israel is not a serious partner for peace in the Middle East. Then the European Union and many European nations will be pressured by President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and the United States State Department to initiate complete boycotts, sanctions and embargos on Israeli goods, services, academics, financial institutions and anything else that they can think up. The Palestinians will be informed that the United States would completely understand should they react by turning to violent uprising and start a third intifada. Then when the United Nations Security Council is petitioned to grant unilaterally statehood for the Palestinians the United States will argue that they can no longer protect Israel as it had become obvious that it has been Israeli intransigence all along that has blocked peace and their recent refusal to continue negotiations even when offered the release of Johnathan Pollard and the United Nations will establish a Palestinian state implementing the 1949 Armistice Lines, the same lines that the Arab League demanded when hostilities ceased would never be used to implement or denote a border as such would recognize Israeli existence, and then time will tell if they would use force to implement that decision. How immediate after the end of the negotiations would the United Nations establish a Palestinian state; but my best guess at an estimate would be after the coming midterm elections in the United States, though if it would be sooner it would be implemented at the opening ceremonies of the Fall session of the United Nations General Assembly with Chairman Abbas once again returning to the United Nations seeking the destruction of Israel, or at least the initial step, as he has done numerous times previously though he has not dared to petition the Security Council as he has known in the past he faced the United States veto. That may no longer be the case as President Obama, with the able assistance of the State Department, Secretary of State Kerry, and the able advice from Senior Advisor Valerie B. Jarrett, has chosen to side with the Palestinians or at least has chosen to twist the Israelis’ arms as that has proven to be easier than attempting to gain concessions from the intransigent Palestinians. We must remember that Ms. Jarrett once purported in an interview that the United States should use military force to impose a settlement on Israel and that it would be necessary to subsequently defend the Palestinians from the Israelis.


Beyond the Cusp


March 21, 2014

To Release or not to Release; the Terror Prisoner Conundrum

Filed under: 1949 Armistice Line,1967 Borders,1967 War,Act of War,Administration,Amalekites,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab Appeasement,Arab League,Arab World,Arabs,Blood Libel,Boko Haram,Borders,Building Freeze,Children Murdered,Civilization,Condemning Israel,Conflict Avoidnce,Divided Jerusalem,Domestic NGOs,Egypt,Egyptian Military,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Europe,European Council,European Governments,European Pressure,European Union,Executive Order,Fatah,Fatah Charter,Forced Solution,Foreign Funding,Foreign NGOs,Gaza,Golan Heights,Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hussani,Hate,History,Holy Sites,IDF,International Politics,Intifada,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Jerusalem,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Home,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Jihad,Jordan,Jordanian Army,Judea,Judean Hills,Kotel,Land for Peace,Mahmoud Abbas,Mediterranean Sea,Middle East,Murder Israelis,Muslim World,Muslims,Netanyahu,Old City,Oslo Accords,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Palestinian Liberation Organization,Palestinian Pressures,Palestinian Security Force,Peace Process,PLO,PLO Charter,Politics,President Obama,Prime Minister,Prisoner Release,Prisoners,Promised Land,Recognize Israel,Response to Terrorism,Right of Return,Samaria,Sanctions (BDS),Saudi Arabian Pressure,Settlements,Sinai,Sinai Peninsula,Six Day War,Statehood,Syria,Syrian Military,Temple Mount,Terror,Terrorist Release,Threat of War,Tzipi Livni,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,United States Pressure,UNSC Res 242,West Bank,Western Wall,World Opinion,World Pressures,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 2:44 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Israel was coerced, pressured and hornswoggled into releasing one-hundred-four terrorist prisoners, most of whom were serving life sentences for multiple murders of Israelis either through their direct actions or as planners who sent numerous homicide-bombers into Israeli central bus stations, shops, malls, restaurants, wedding ceremonies, Bar Mitzvahs, Passover Seders and other places where large numbers could be murdered, simply as a bribe to get Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to agree to sit and talk for nine months without any guarantee of progress towards making an actual peace agreement. Even from the beginning of this round of the peace process there were comments from numerous Palestinian Authority spokespersons even including the actual negotiators who openly stated that they were not negotiating to reach any agreement but were only pretending to actually negotiate in order to attain the freedom for as many terrorists as possible before they would walk away from the table. The other running commentary came mostly from the mouth of Mahmoud Abbas also from the very beginning of the talks demanding that the Israelis also be forced to implement a building freeze despite turning down that choice in favor of the terror prisoners release over any other concessions from Israel. What is of further note is that this time, just as in every previous situation when the United States, the European Union, the United Nations or any other source decided to sponsor another round of peace talks, the only concessions demanded were forced from the Israelis and the Palestinians refused to agree to negotiations unless Israel met certain preconditions. Of real interest is that the Palestinians have never offered or been forced to make a single concession since the initial implementation of the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian Authority have yet to even meet the main demand they agreed to in the original agreement where they had promised to alter their charter by removing the demand to destroy Israel as the state for the Jewish People. To their credit, the Palestinian Authority did agree to appoint a committee to rewrite that section of their charter when the United States sent some monitors to assure that the agreement was fulfilled. They never did form that committee but the American observers left satisfied the demands to change certain parts of their charter would be met. So much for trust but verify. So, where do the current talks sit, one might ask.


The release of the one-hundred-four terrorist prisoners was arranged to be accomplished in four stages throughout the negotiations. Israel has released three sets with the last group to be released near the end of March. Each release has spawned great celebrations by the Palestinian Authority giving the released terrorists a heroes greeting. As a bonus for their terrorist acts the released terrorists were granted positions within the Palestinian Authority where those who committed the greater acts of terror receiving sentences over twenty years being rewarded with higher paying positions while all others receive a lesser amount. Some of the reports have put the salaries as high as $4,000 per month, a salary equal to a rank of general in the Palestinian Security Forces. The salaries are in addition to bonuses given to the released terrorists with some receiving as much as $50,000 while one terrorist, Issa Abed Raboo, will be receiving $60,000 as his bonus. Who says terrorism does not pay? These salaries are even higher than the amounts paid to the terrorists’ families and the terrorists while they were held in Israel. The Palestinian Authority is claimed to be paying as much as $46,000,000 in terrorist salaries to those in Israeli prisons this year alone.


For the past six weeks barely a day goes by without Mahmoud Abbas, one of the Palestinian negotiators or high level Palestinian Authority spokesperson demanding that the Palestinians walk away from the table as soon as Israel releases the final set of terrorists. Some even demand they end their ruse now and stop negotiations immediately. Such calls are always met with a reassuring and calm Abbas claiming the moderate mantle promising that the Palestinians will stay the course until every Palestinian terrorist has been released. Abbas freely states regularly that he is only waiting for the last group to be released unless the United States can force Israel to agree to release more terrorist prisoners including Marwan Barghouti and also implement a building freeze throughout Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, then he claims he will extend the negotiations for as long as the release of the additional terrorist prisoners are being freed. The Palestinians Authority has released numerous statements for their public to consume claiming that they have made a complete mockery and collapsed the idea of Israel imposing a life sentence for murdering Jews by forcing the terrorist releases. All of this does beg the question as to why would the Israelis release the last set of terrorist prisoners knowing that doing so will only result in the Palestinians walking out of the negotiations and there is no possibility of any gains to be made towards a real peace? The sole reason that might make sense is that should Israel withhold the final release, then the Palestinian Authority could leave the negotiations claiming that Israel refuses to take the necessary steps to reach a peace agreement. But is that reason enough?


Well, that is where everything really enters the theater of the absurd. As was hotly argued were comments, more like threats, made by United States Secretary of State Kerry aimed at Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israelis stating, “Failure of the talks will increase Israel’s isolation in the world. The alternative to getting back to the talks is a potential of chaos. I mean, does Israel want a third intifada?” Just this week a European Union delegation urged Israel to release the long term terror prisoners as doing so was essential to continuing the peace process and moving it forward. The head of the European Union delegation Emer Costello was quoted demanding, “We believe that the release of prisoners… is central to the peace process.” He also stated, “I think there is an acceptance on both sides, even with the members of the Knesset that we met (knew the) importance of the prisoner issue.” I would love to have the list of the Ministers of the Knesset with which the European Union met. I have a pretty good idea that almost none were from Likud, Jewish Home or even Tzipi Livni herself as she was quoted from her Facebook page clarifying that, “”In order to advance serious negotiations, we will all need to take decisions and prove we are determined to reach an agreement and real peace. That burden of proof is also on the Palestinians’ shoulders. Accordingly, we will examine the issue of the prisoners, meaning that the key to the cells of the Palestinian prisoners is also to be found in the hands of Abu Mazen (Abbas) and the decisions he will take in the coming days.” So, where does that leave Israel going forward?


The Israeli leadership will need to weigh what the repercussions would be if they refused to release the rest of the terror prisoners without an actual agreement signed and completed with the Palestinian Authority. Prime Minister Netanyahu might add to the offer the release of Marwan Barghouti and a number of other highly prized terrorist masters should an actual and lasting peace with Israel recognized in the agreement as the home for the Jewish People and an end to the claims of Palestinian refugees’ “right of return.” The result of such actions is easily predicted. Mahmoud Abbas backed by a chorus of other Palestinian Authority spokespeople and accompaniment by the United Nations, European Union, various European governments’ heads of state, Secretary of State Kerry and President Obama at a minimum all condemning Israel and expressing their full understanding for the implementation of a third intifada of terror and murder against Israel and demanding that all civilized nations place sanction on Israel immediately. Where this becomes completely ridiculous is that even should Israel release the last group of terrorists and the Palestinian Authority walk away from the talks the very next morning, within a week, ten days at most, I can predict what the world’s news reports and the entire gauntlet of above noted leaders will all be declaring; Israel destroyed any possibility for peace in the Middle East as they refused to release the remaining terrorists they have been holding in their prisons and insist on continuing to build more housing for Jews in the occupied territories. It is necessary that the world’s leaders take measures to implement policies that display their dissatisfaction and anger over Israeli reluctance to make the necessary compromises for peace. Mahmoud Abbas offers the best possibility for peace and the time is right that peace could be accomplished if only Israel would take the necessary steps. Abbas will meanwhile be complaining about how he was ready and willing to continue the negotiations if only Israel would be reasonable and meet their obligations for peace.


The claim we have heard from President Obama is that everybody knows what the formula is for peace and that is the 1967 Lines (actually the 1949 Armistice Lines) with mutually agreed land swaps (if permitted by the Palestinians) with the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem (cutting the Israelis and all Jews from accessing the Kotel (Western Wall) and Temple Mount (the holiest place on Earth for Jews) and all of the Old City (the historical capital since King David declared Jerusalem as his capital in the tenth century BCE) and some consideration for the Palestinian refugees. Nobody seems to have any difficulty with this solution and think it reasonable. All one need do is remember back to just after the Six Day War when Israel has routed three Arab Armies which had massed on her border and waged war forcing Israel into a defensive war. The actual start to the war was forced by both Egyptian and Syrian troops massed on Israel’s northern and southern borders and all shipping through the Red Sea blockaded by Egypt which was casus belli thus the actual start to the state of war. Within hours of hostilities starting between Syria and Egypt against Israel and upon hearing the Egyptian and Syrian reports of their great and glorious ongoing victory and ignoring pleadings from Israel not to believe the lies, Jordan chose not to believe the Israelis and joined in what they expected would be the destruction of Israel. History recorded a nearly unimaginable victory with Israel routing the Egyptian armies, pushing back the Syrian armies and defeating the Jordanian army. Israel, when hostilities stopped at the insistence of the United Nations, Russia, United States, much of Europe and numerous Arab nations (funny how whenever Israel’s enemies are gaining on the field of battle there is silence but if Israel has the advantage the world screams STOP!) Israel held the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, Judea, Samaria, and all of Jerusalem (the West Bank). The agreement hammered out was United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/ 242) passed on November 22, 1967 was very carefully crafted with great pains to use exact wording such that Israel was to return some, but not necessarily all or even near to all) the gained territories from her defensive war that had been imposed upon Israel. Technically, under International Law, since Israel was the victim of three aggressor nations, Israel did have the right to keep every inch of the lands she had gained. Of course, as has been proven repeatedly, when it comes to Israel the laws, international and otherwise, seem to never quite apply as they would with any other nation. Still, Israel was required to return parts of the land and retain those lands Israel determined were required to provide for safe and secure borders. Most of the world at that time presumed that Israel would likely return most of the Sinai Peninsula and retain the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza. So, what exactly was that solution that everybody knows is the necessary result of the negotiation between the Palestinians and Israel? When the United Nations passed their resolution there was no mention or even the inkling of an idea of a Palestinian people, let alone a nation of Palestine, there was Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Sure, there was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which was formed in 1964, three full years before there was any “occupied lands”; I prefer, like many, to call them disputed lands. What was the purpose of the PLO? Their charter called for the eradication of Israel and the liberation of all the lands from the Jordanian border to the Mediterranean Sea, and that Jordanian border included half of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria (West Bank). The PLO, and thus the so-called Palestinians, made absolutely no claims on Judea, Samaria or East Jerusalem and had stated that once they had liberated all of Israel they planned on joining it to Jordan, the actual and original Palestinian State. My how the world has twisted and contorted everything in the years since November 22, 1967. Those were simpler times when people spoke of such things as right and wrong and sometimes I wonder, when did everything run off the rails and become so twisted and the values we held disappear without even a trace of what we once held so dearly.


Beyond the Cusp


March 1, 2014

A Tale of Two Potential Conflicts

Filed under: 1949 Armistice Line,1967 Borders,Act of War,Administration,Amalekites,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab Appeasement,Arab League,Arab World,Arabs,Armed Services,Ayatollah,Ayatollah Khamenei,Ayatollahs,Blood Libel,Borders,Chuck Hagel,Civil War,Civilization,Condemning Israel,Conflict Avoidnce,Covert Actions,Ditherer in Chief,Divided Jerusalem,Domestic NGOs,Europe,European Governments,European Pressure,European Union,Executive Order,Fatah,Foreign Funding,Foreign NGOs,Former Soviet Republic,General Assembly,Government,Green Line,Hamas,Hassan Rowhani,Hate,Hezballah,History,Holy Sites,International Politics,Iran,Iranian Pressure,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Jerusalem,Jerusalem Day,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Home,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,John Kerry,Judea,Judean Hills,Kiev,Mahmoud Abbas,Middle East,Military,Military Intervention,Military Option,Mohammad Javad Zarif,Muslim World,Muslims,Netanyahu,Nuclear Program,Nuclear Weapons,Old City,Oppression,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Palestinian Pressures,Partition Plan,Peace Process,Permanenet Members,Pogroms,Politics,President Obama,President Vladimir Putin,Russia,Russian Pressure,Sanctions,Secretary of Defense,Secretary of State,Security Council,Soviet Union,Taqiyya,Temple Mount,Terror,Threat of War,Ukraine,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,United States Pressure,Veto Power,Waqf,War,Western World,World,World Opinion,World Pressures,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 4:07 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Of all the potential flashpoints existing in the world, we would like to compare and contrast two separate potential conflicts; the possible intervention in the political unrest in the Ukraine by Russia and the possibility that Israel might intervene to attempt to address and mute the several threats across numerous fronts including Hezballah, Hamas and their sponsor Iran. Where any Israeli action against the growing threats made out of Iran would also require that Israel to take into consideration how they would address the additional arms that Iran has direct influence and could turn loose to attack Israel utilizing the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of rockets and missiles ranging through the gamut from Katyusha and Grad rockets to Scud, Fajr and Zelzal-2s. The questions in each case run the full range from what would be the reactions of the United Nations to reactions from the major powers and other significant groups and entities.


Starting with the possibility of a Russian intervention in the Ukraine, what are the various scenarios and resultant ramifications. It is very possible that the Russians will be able to claim that their intervention is in response to requests from the people of the Ukraine who saw the overthrow of the government as a direct threat to their interests and safety. Such a request could easily be made by the majority Russian citizens living in the eastern and southern provinces of the Ukraine who have made clear their preference for the Ukraine to align with Russia over aligning with the European Union. There are reports that the Russians have placed a large force on their border with the Ukraine including fighter and other aircraft wings which would be necessary to assist with any military intervention. United States President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Defense Hagel have all made statements warning the Russians that the United States Administration is opposed and demands that they not enter or otherwise interfere with the political process currently occurring in the Ukraine. The odds that Russian President Putin will heed such a warning and have it influence his decisions are basically nil. Much of this has to do with the complete lack of the United States to back earlier warnings given to Syria when American President Obama announced his red-line and serious consequences on Syrian President al-Assad against his deploying chemical weapons. The complete ineffectiveness of the American threat of serious consequences resulting in dithering and equivocation by President Obama leading to inaction and a stalemate which was almost painful to witness and was thankfully brought to a definitive end when President Putin intervened proposing the confiscation and destruction of al-Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal granting President Obama a way to climb down from the embarrassment of being caught on his own petard.


Should the Russians intervene in the Ukraine the world is most likely to sit on their hands and not offer even the mildest rebuke. The truth is that the Russians, especially under President Putin’s leadership, are sufficiently feared and retain sufficient threat to cause any sane and reasoned person or nation to carefully consider if the Ukraine is really worth their potentially confronting the Russians and challenging President Putin. Furthermore, as the Russians are one of the permanent nations on the Security Council and possess a full right of vetoing any actions or proposals presented for consideration by that body, there is absolutely no possibility to condemn any Russian actions in the Security Council. The possibility of Russia being rebuked by the General Assembly is one of the most laughable proposals anybody could ever make. The General Assembly often appears like it exists for denouncing the United States, Israel and even the European nations while forgiving any transgressions by the entirety of the non-free and third world nations. The end result of a Russian intervention in the Ukraine would likely be very similar to the results decades ago when the Soviet Union rolled tanks and troops into the rebellious republic of Czechoslovakia on August 21, 1968, bringing the reforms and attempt to move out from under the Soviet thumb by Czechoslovakia with nary a significantly effective complaint from the entire world. Putting it succinctly, Russia could walk into the Ukraine and annex the entire nation reestablishing Russian control of the entirety of the Ukraine and outside of any demonstrations by Ukrainians there would be little effective protest. The resistance by any Ukrainians would be short lived and ended with whatever brutality was deemed necessary as that is the Putin way.


In the other situation, the cacophony of denunciations and demands for the world to completely condemn Israel would be deafening and seemingly universal. There would be a race between the different nations to bring condemnations of Israel before the General Assembly and the Security Council would be in emergency session before the sun set and possibly before the jets returned from a strike on Iran. There would be claims upon claims quoting International Law as requiring the condemnation of Israel for their wanton assault on another United Nations member nation. The justification which Israel could offer would never be given the slightest consideration in the rush to condemnation. But is such condemnation appropriate or would Israel have a right and justifiable reasoning behind such an attack that would be backed by International Law? Surprisingly to most, the answer is a definitive yes. The Iranian leadership including Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, numerous Imams, many of the Ministers from the Iranian Parliament and numerous other members of the leadership both political and religious have publically called repeatedly for the annihilation of Israel. There have been large assemblies of Iranians, often weekly on Friday after services where the Imam likely gave a sermon demonizing Israel and calling for Jihad to reclaim Islamic lands, who chanted in unison repeating the chant often spoken from the podium by a high government or religious official calling out, “Death to Israel” as well as religious chants proclaiming the supremacy of Allah and their dedication to serve Allah often by actions to destroy the Jewish State. Speeches given by leading government leaders at parades and other events which almost always include martial demonstrations such as parading missiles on launchers in parades these leaders claim that the military strength displayed will soon be loosed on Israel destroying the Zionist Entity. These provocations, if they can be believed as actual statements of intent and the probability of their being a true forecast of actions exists, then Israel would have sufficient cause to attack Iran to destroy the Iranian ability to make war upon Israel under International Law. That is the crux of the argument behind the threats to strike the Iranian nuclear sites and the same arguments would also hold for an Israeli strike on Iranian military targets.


Where Israel would face a series of severe threats would be from the terror forces which are available to carry out any Iranian calls for attacks on Israel. These include minimally Hezballah and Hamas and could also include terror forces in the areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority, Judea and Samaria, also called the West Bank. This very likely was one of the subjects which was discussed when Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas visited Tehran, Iran recently. Such would most definitely have come up if Chairman Abbas was requesting any funding or other assistance from the Iranians, something which is very likely as Abbas appears to be incapable of visiting anywhere and not begging for funding. Where Israel would be hard-pressed in making an argument for attacking the Palestinian Authority areas, they would easily be able to make a convincing argument concerning both Hezballah and Hamas as both have left no doubt that their intent is the destruction of Israel and the genocidal slaughter of every Jew, often referred to as Zionists, residing in Israel no matter their political persuasions. The reality of any Israeli attack is that you would be able to count the number of nations that would actively support the Israelis would likely be countable on your two hands. Bless United States, the Czech Republic, Panama, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and especially Canada (with a salute to Prime Minister Harper). These were the only nations which found the nerve and good conscience to vote against recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a non-member state. Israel would face a boycott from the European Union and the Arab League would be red-faced in angry denouncements. Israel might not even be able to count on having the United States defend them with their veto in the Security Council. It might even be prudent for Israel to resign their membership in the United Nations which for the vast majority of its recent history has been the place Israel could go to be denigrated and denounced for her audacity to exist. The differences between a Russian military intervention in the Ukraine and Israel acting in her own self-interest and defense would be diametrically opposite in act and reasoning. Some things are only remarkable in their obvious predictability as in their lack of moral conscience and convictions.


Beyond the Cusp


Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at

%d bloggers like this: