Modern Israel, and Old Promises

 Israel has the right to exist as a nation. Let's just get that one off the table right away. Israel, or more accurately the descendants of Jacob, whom according to the Bible the Lord named "Israel", finally became a reality for the Jewish people in 1949 after a guerilla war for independence with the British Empire. Initially restricted to a tiny strip of land sandwiched between Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and its old friend/nemesis Egypt, Israel has slowly gained in territory after consecutive successful wars with their neighbors.

According to the Bible, the Lord promised Abraham (Abram at the time):

    " On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: To your descendants I have given this     land, from the river of Egypt to the great River Euphrates." (Book of Genesis)

In other words, this:

Now many people refer to this Israel as an evil "Zionist" conspiracy to consume much of the Easter Mediterranean. However, that's not the truth. It's not a conspiracy at all when it has been laid out in the Bible for Christians to follow. There are a few problems with the concept though. 

The very first problem that immediately comes to one's attention is the sheer vastness of the Biblical Israel. It would include areas of the Middle East that are currently populated by between 40-50 million people, and those people have been there for thousands of years in most cases. Prior to 1939 Jewish communities were thriving in Europe, although often persecuted to one degree or another. After World War Two, and the horror of the Holocaust, there were six million less Jewish people in the world which could have helped populate a "Biblical Israel". Today, modern Israel has a population of  8.7 million people, of which 21% are Arab and another 5% are "other". On the face of things, Hitler's massacre of the Jews of Europe tended to undermine the fulfilling of  the Lord's promise to Abraham. Perhaps that was part of the purpose, but who can truly understand a hatred that deep. 

Another problem, and one that haunts Israel through out the world is the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians, and to a lesser extent its neighbors. Again, returning to the Bible, the Lord tells Moses that before taking the Jewish people out of Egypt he must gather up all the gold and silver from amongst the Jewish people and turn it over to the Pharos in order to ease the sting of his loss - in a sense compensation. It didn't work as the Pharos chased them down shortly afterward, but Moses had done his part. So even though Moses had vanquished the Pharos, and the Exodus was happening as a matter of fact, an ethical attempt to remove the "sting" was still necessary.

Unfortunately, modern Israel has simply lost this lesson in humbleness. In fact, it can be easily argued that the government of Israel has attacked with arrogance and impunity whomever it deems as a "threat to its security". Of course it is not alone in crying wolf. "National security", "terrorism", etc are phrases that are bounced around now by many governments seeking to restrict freedoms and impose their will upon other nations. The problem for the Israeli government is that it has always claimed the high ground. It also claims to have the "most moral" army in the world. Despite the boasts, the Israeli army has been absolutely brutal in dealing with dissent from the Palestinians and others. While on the one hand it has become far more wise in its dealings with Iran insofar as it strikes critical components of their nuclear regime while avoiding an Iraq-like  conventional bombing of Iranian facilities,  it blows its own feet off by "knee capping" hundreds of Palestinians who are simply protesting, albeit angrily.

In its dealing with the protesting Palestinians and even Israeli Arabs, the Israeli government has lost all sight of  proportion, moderation and wisdom. It has committed multiple crimes against humanity during the Palestinian uprisings. It has in effect broken its covenant with the Lord:

            Thou shalt not kill;

            Thou shalt love thy neighbor;

            Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, 

            or anything that is your neighbors.

Now, inside Israel itself, the Orthodox Jewish people are in near full revolt of the non-Orthodox Jews. Issues such as compulsory military service or observance of the Sabbath, for example have sparked deep anger. Even the idea that Israel is a nation-state has provoked joint protests with Palestinians and Orthodox Jews walking side by side against conventional Israel. In other words, the Orthodox Jewish community appears to believe that modern Israel is breaking its covenant with the Lord as well.

I suppose in the end we are just simple people,  and it isn't our place to judge a covenant made thousands of years before us between the Lord and Abraham. We can only guess and observe at whether it has been broken and what ramifications may come from that - if any. That being said, whether you agree or disagree with the approach Israel takes, we must not bring ourselves to the point of heaping hatred against them. Israel, or the "descendants of  Jacob", have a place of prominence with the Lord. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant. If you don't believe me ask Nimrod...

On the Edge of World War III

It's ironic, in a way, that my country of Canada is today celebrating a bloody victory over Germany during World War I at Vimy Ridge, meanwhile the current world desperately races to repeat a similar but worse slaughter. Sad and ironic.

The United States, hand-in-hand with Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia had planned to take over Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon to erase Iranian influence in the region. Saudi Arabia's job was to take out the Iranian allied Houthi in Yemen. The American and Israelis left the job of Syria to Islamic militants. Lebanon hasn't happened yet, but that will likely be left to the Israelis. That was the plan. Once that was finished the goal no doubt was to turn the sights on Iran itself. All this had the benefit of not just an American dominated and controlled Middle East, but also a relegated and isolated Russia, which in turn would isolate China. A grand strategy if you will.

However, as they say, a plan only lasts as long as its first contact with the enemy. Saudi Arabia, with American assistance, was able to oust the Houthi government in Yemen, but has been unable to proceed much past that. The traditional Houthi lands of Yemen remain in Houthi control and the Saudis are bogged down in a hopeless quagmire. The Sunni Islamic State was unable to capture Iraq as Iran intervened just as they were at the gates of Bagdad. A Sunni victory in Iraq would have brought that country into US control, rather than the current state of Iraq as a Shia friendly government to Iran. As the Islamic State retreated out of Iraq, Russia intervened in Syria. Again, the Islamic State was right at the doorsteps - this time in Damascus. As it became clear to the Americans, that ISIS could not take Iraq, they jumped on the band wagon to destroy ISIS so they could stay in the game.

So much for Plan A, the Americans turned to plan B. Plan B calls for a direct American invasion of Syria, in conjunction with Turkey and Israel (perhaps even with the Saudis). While the partition of Syria seems to be the goal at the moment, it may well be a ruse. The US has been shipping equipment and men to Lebanon and Jordan on the quiet. However, as an example, that quiet was shaken yesterday as 20 US tanks and infantry had to intervene at the Syrian/Jordan border to rescue their new allied militia, which had become encircled by ISIS. In other words, the US has assembled significant forces in Jordan. Earlier this week there were reports of US ships delivering equipment and men to Lebanon. Furthermore, it's common knowledge that the US has moved most of the 82nd Airborne into the Syrian theatre, as well as special forces nd artillery units. This buildup is being complimented by two new US air bases in Eastern Syria. All in all, the US are preparing to take all of Syria - not just a simple partition of it.

On the Russian border, US and allied forces have been mobilizing from one end to the other. A move that serves the purpose of tying Russian forces down on their own border, thereby limiting their flexibility to respond to such conflicts as Syria, and establishing a force to attack Russia with. In other words, the West is attempting to pin Russia down while it manoeuvers to destroy its influence and power in the Middle East. If Russia sits back in a defensive posture, and allows the US to impose its will on the Middle East, then Russia will be next. It's only a matter of time.

As worrisome as all this is, the US is also acting against China. A US carrier task force, also referred to as a "strike force" is enroute to the waters off  North Korea. US President Trump has stated that if China will not reign in North Korea, well, then the Americans will. It seems that Trump is making good on his threat. We can expect a strike on North Korea's nuclear program, including arms, but also on the massive artillery forces poised to level Seoul, capital of South Korea. It has been estimated that the North could level Seoul with conventional artillery in hours - if not less. That ability has always been the North's greatest guarantee of non-intervention by the US. However, with a strike looming, it makes sense that the US would also be planning a massive bombing campaign of those artillery forces north of Seoul.

China, meanwhile, can not simply stand by idly while this happens. It has been targeted by the US itself for its claims in the South China Sea. All this must be in the US calculations. It's safe to say that if the Americans conduct the assault on North Korea that is expected, they will also in effect be going to war with China. Engaging China militarily also means engaging China economically, and the US has no hope of winning that one. It is very probable that China will release the "Chinese nuke", which is dumping all its American debt and currency on the market at once, thereby crashing the world economy. Even a simple strike on North Korea, that results in the North leveling Seoul, would more than likely be enough to crash the world's stock exchanges and currency markets.

I wonder if the Western world, with our fat cat life styles and Walmart mentalities, can fathom the result of an international financial collapse? The reality is most people will not even commit their minds for a moment to consider it. Ditto for the massive destruction caused by a conventional or nuclear war. Yet, we sit right on the precipice of it all. Watching as if somehow it wasn't our responsibility to think or speak of it, or against it. A great gaggle of sheep herded to the slaughterhouse doors, but taking comfort that there are other sheep before us, closer to the executioner's axe, and therefore we're okay for the moment. It can't happen to us. We're safe and sheltered from it all. It's really a damning commentary on us all to be frank. With all our education, technology and civilization we can't muster a better way than hoping the executioner gets tired before the sheep in front of us turns into us.

The Middle East on Fire

The Middle East is a complicated place in some ways, but it is understandable. It's firstly about religion. Secondly, it's about power. Then it's about money. In that order. Often I hear people discuss the Middle East as if it was "all about oil", but that is very naive and simplistic. Then I hear people say "well they've been killing themselves since history began". Well, that may be true somewhat, but so have people in the rest of the world. Also, oil has only been a factor for 100 years. What about the rest of history?

The key to understanding the Middle East is realizing everything in the Middle East is anchored in religion. In the Arab sense that means either Shia or Sunni branches of Islam. From the same beginnings, but divided in history, and at war ever since. Throughout most of recent history, western powers of one kind or another have attempted to impose order on these divisions by imposing "countries" on them, with strong dictatorships to keep those two branches in some sort of working order. The cruelty necessary to do so was never at question, only the result. Order no matter what. That became increasingly necessary after oil was discovered.

The "deal" if you will was blown apart by George W. Bush in Desert Storm II when he invaded and conquered Iraq. Essentially, he let the genie out of the bottle. When his father forced Hussien out of Kuwait, he stopped the invasion before toppling Hussien. As an ex-director of the CIA, Bush senior knew that Hussien was all that held Iraq together, and giving the people there democracy was akin to lighting the house on fire. His son chose differently.

What happened in Iraq was as predictable as the sun rising and setting. The majority Shia won the elections. The minority Sunni, who had controlled Iraq via Hussien, turned on the Americans causing them 4000 plus deaths. The Shia hated the US even more than the Sunnis and happily watched and assisted as the US became embroiled. It wasn't until the US decided to buy off the Sunnis, literally, by paying insurgents a salary via "awakening" councils, that the heat went off them in Iraq. But, it never went out between the Sunnis and Shia. In fact, it opened the door for Shia Iran next door to gain vast influence in Iraq that it never had before.

The US invasion also had the affect of driving Iran (Shia) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni) into the fore front. Since that time, the two have been engaged in a not so covert war to dominate the region for their religious branch. Not for oil, but rather for the bragging rights that their half of the Muslim religion was righteous, and prevailed over the other... as was destined. Both countries have massively armed themselves. One fed by the US (Saudi) and the other by its own industry and Russia (Shia). Iran supported groups in the region that supported the Shia like Hezbollah, etc. Saudi supported the other side. Same goes for every "country" in the Middle East. I use quotations on country, because countries are a mainly European/Western imposition on the area. The Middle East is better described as Tribes. That is their nature, their history, and their loyalty - even today.

The US added some gas to the fire when it and NATO, by abusing the UN enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in Libya, toppled another dictator and opened the area to religious tribalism. The same can be said for the covert, not at the time overt, US involvement supporting anti-Assad rebels in Syria. Assad equals Shia (Iran) and the rebels including ISIS equal the Sunni (Saudi). What the US has been doing is undoing the system of order and control it either helped or unilaterally imposed on the religious tribes of the Middle East. In other words, it is hauling truckloads of the driest wood you can find, soaking it in petrol, and throwing the flame on top. A rather curious dance of creating the conditions for competing extremism, and then deeming itself to be at war with it.

The latest Middle East "country" to implode on the US is Yemen. Situated at the mouth of the Gulf, Yemen is very geo-politically important. The Houthis have taken power there after overthrowing, you guessed it, the Saudi (Sunni) dictatorship. The Houthis are of the Zaidi branch of, you guessed it, Shia. As I write this post, the United Nations security Council has been called to a meeting to discuss the Houthis takeover of Yemen. Simultaneously, the US has just announced it is sending 4000 plus troops to its base in Kuwait. Whatever happens, you can be sure that either Saudi Arabia, or the US, or both will invade Yemen at any time now. And so it goes.

What is at fault for all the chaos in the Middle East? That depends on how you rationalize it. However, there are some truths that remain so no matter the rationalization. The Middle east is a land of tribes that hold their religion, Shia, Sunni, or Jewish, more dear than any other thing. It is who they are, and it is the source for all they are - including politics. Values there are not based on democracy, or any kind of "free society". For them, in many ways, democracy and freedom are counter to what is expected of them by their religions. Human freedom, if followed to its logical conclusion, would go against the teachings of the Koran, and that is as offensive to them as watching people be decapitated is to us. But, the US and other Western nations never seem to learn that lesson. Our governments continue to try and impose the "white man's burden" on them. Even though it has no chance of ever succeeding. We stir the pot, and then cry foul that the pot never ceases to stop boiling.

Now, though, the US has raised the heat in the Middle East so drastically that the ominous tales of Armageddon come to mind. The bear vs the eagle. The great war in the Middle East that consumes millions. Scary stuff. Very scary stuff. But ask yourself: what is the logical conclusion to the fires burning in Syria, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and now Yemen? It has to all be going somewhere - such is the nature of our human condition. So where? The Shia and the Sunni aren't going to happily toddle off to their particular corners and allow one side or the other to freely reign over them, The US, Russia, China, etc are not about to walk away and leave what they perceive to be their pawns toppled from the board. Where are all of these competing interests leading us? To one big explosion of violence or to one big reconciliation? If the US government wasn't the "power" on earth that they seem to be, I would say we have a chance of creating some sort of respectful co-existence in the Middle East. Whether that be by attrition or agreement. However, if the US remains free to dance in the china shop, well, let's just say people should start reading their Bibles' story of Armageddon. It's a story about lighting the Middle East on fire.  

The War of the Pipelines: Russia vs US

The escalation of the Syrian conflict is about many things, but chemical warfare is not one of them. Primarily, the "proxy war" in Syria is about geo-economic control. Those that have, those that want to keep it, and those that want it. It's pretty much the same game that has played out through out history. The only real difference is the capacity of many sides to end humanity in the process - which makes the responsible use of the game's rules essential.

The Russians have the natural gas monopoly over Europe. They have a strategic and economic advantage they want to keep. It allows them to exercise extreme influence over countries that used to belong to the USSR or the Eastern Bloc - like Poland, the Ukraine and others. It gives them a strong hand in negotiating with other western European countries like Germany in particular. The Americans are in a different situation. Their geo-political interests are in weakening Russia and China's economic strength thereby maintaining their own international influence and control. They regularly "duke it out" in minor conflicts all over the world - most recently in Africa and of long standing the Middle East. Critically, in this international game of chess, they never make it between themselves - until now.

The region encompassing Syria, Iraq, and Turkey has historically been the land bridge between West and the East. That makes it strategically important to control, or at least deny to the other side. Qatar has a giant reserve of natural gas (at least 30 trillion cubic feet) that it wants to export by pipeline to Europe. The Saudi's want to do the same. In 2009 President Assad of Syria refused to sign a pipeline agreement to build a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey. Turkey's established goal is to be the centre of all pipelines between Europe and the Saudi area. Assad's established goal is the same for Syria. Assad is in control of Syria. Russia is in control of Assad. Russia doesn't want to lose control of the European gas market. It's using Assad to make sure any such proposal remains just that - a proposal. Instead, Assad signed onto an Iran, Iraq, Syria pipeline proposal. Iran is a minor natural gas producer and imports most of its gas from Russia. Such a pipeline then tends to be a regional pipeline that doesn't threaten Russia's position in Europe.

However, using that old slogan, it is not in the "national interests" of the US, or its Saudi allies, or even its Israeli allies, to allow this to happen. It’s also not in the interests of Russia, or its Iranian allies, or its Syrian allies to allow the Saudi-US challenge to be successful.

In fact it is so crucial to both the US, and some of its European and middle-eastern allies that an insurgency was propagated on Syria - to replace Assad's government. Here, so far, it has been Saudi Arabia vs. Iran as each camp’s local powers use their pawns to duke it out. Iran using its Shia alliances including the Alawites of Syria, Hezbollah of Lebanon, and Iranian forces. Saudi using its Sunni allies in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and even Lebanon. In addition, Saudi has brought in Al-Qaeda forces and even Chechens that it finances. To underscore that point, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan met with President Putin. He used a carrot/stick approach with him. On the one hand he was willing to offer Russia $15 billion in military contracts, and a new partnership in natural gas exports. On the other hand he made it clear that the "new Syrian" government would be under Saudi control and he controlled the Chechens meaning he could create peace for the Russian Olympics – or presumably the reverse. Putin was naturally infuriated by the stick approach, and the challenge to Russian influence and control in Syria and the European market. He turned it down.

Now we are left with the inevitable result of this poke in the chest game - war or humiliation. There is no more middle ground. One superpower or the other is going to lose and the result will effect the world. Already we have seen the US bring massive naval and air assets into the region. Today it was reported the US Sixth Fleet carrier task force is moving in to join the five to six ships already there, not including subs. Britain and France also have large air and naval presences there. Now we learn Russia is sending 12 ships into the region to join the fleet already there, and today a spy ship was added to the number. That does not include the air assets of Saudi or Israel, nor does it include the ballistic missile forces of Iran or Syria.

The US build makes a mockery of the US position that they are simply going to launch 100-200 cruise missiles into Syria. Their missile frigates already in place could manage that. No, it appears the US is going in to take control of the situation by destroying Syria's air defence forces, bombing Syrian military units, imposing a no-fly zone, and changing the regime just like Libya. No question. Nowhere near the force built up is required for a limited strike. In the last several months the US has also placed Patriot anti-missile batteries surrounding Syria in Jordan, Israel, and Turkey. The mission, obviously pre-planned, is to control Syrian airspace and destroy the regime militarily. As the Saudi prince said, Saudi Arabia will control the new government in Syria, and it looks as though the Saudi armed and funded militants on the ground in Syria are meant to be that force.

All this may just make most in the West roll their eyes and say "oh the US is thumping out another dictator, and who cares?" This time is different though. This time Russia sees its vital interests not just being threatened, but actually in danger of being destroyed. That us why Russia's navy are stepping in, and that is why things have never been more dangerous. The proxy war has had its mask removed; the players are now facing each other in a fight that could be disastrous for the world. Neither is prepared to back down for the same reason - national interest. It's fashionable to say religions cause wars, but in reality it is "national interests" as defined by those that define. In this case the national interests are pipelines and control. The suffering of the Syrian people has absolutely nothing to do with it.