Israel Skating on Thin Ice

As we all know, criticizing the State of Israel is considered a dangerous practise. In fact, just today, the State of North Carolina made it a criminal offence to do so. So there you go. That being said, another qualifier is needed. The author has no issue with the Jewish religion or Jewish people in general. Firstly, it would an act of prejudice to lump all people of a group or religion together and cast them in the same light merely because they share a religion. Only the most racist and bigoted (Nazis as an example) would do so. I have friends who are Jewish. They don't live in Israel, so they aren't Israeli, but they are Jewish. This article is about the government of Israel, not about all the people in Israel, or about Jewish people in general.

The Israeli government and the Israeli military are, in a phrase, acting above the law. The "law" being those written and unwritten rules that separate humans from untamed beasts in the wild. During the last few months, in particular, Israel has committed mass violations of International Law: All UN Charters and their respective clauses guaranteeing the rights of refugees, civilians, and the basic rights of people; the Geneva Convention regarding targeted attacks on medical staff and civilians; and the statutes restraining State action banning crimes against humanity, and genocide. Simply put, Israel is now an outlaw state in the family of nations.

That being said, Israel has been getting away with these crimes against humanity because it has, over many decades, carefully influenced people in positions of power all over the world to "see things" from Israel's perspective, when in reality its actions against the Palestinians in particular ought to transcend even the most "influenced people's" bias. The slaughter of nearly 60 people in one day, and the maiming of 1200 more on that same day, was an act that will live in infamy.

The Israeli government's characterization of these victims as "terrorists" is both disgraceful and dangerous. It is disgraceful because it intimates those of any age, who throw themselves at a fence in protest (they had no weapons to use) can be classified as terrorists and summarily executed. It is dangerous for the same reason. Consider the precedent the State of Israel is setting for the rest of the world. Is it now okay for the nations of the world to set up machine guns and snipers at protest and mow down unarmed people? Even if those people are spurred on by another group which may have a darker intent? The answer is as obvious as the massacre that Israel executed against the Palestinian people - no, it's not acceptable.

The brutal massacre of unarmed civilians relates in some ways to the Israeli air strikes being conducted in Syria by the same source - the Israeli Army. The common threads are they both: break international law; they're done in the name of Israel's security; and Israel couldn't care less what the international community thinks. In a word, Israel has gone rogue. It now sits outside the family of nations. Certainly is totally supported by the United States government, although I venture not amongst a majority of the American people. It's also supported by Saudi Arabia, which just happens to be the biggest violator of individual human rights in the world, and, like Israel, is conducting an unsanctioned war against one of the poorest countries in the world - Yemen. Those are the countries Israel has locked up, and clearly Israel feels those are the countries it needs to lock up for support.

However, where is the rest of the world? Certainly Turkey, who has a blemished record on human rights all its own, has taken decisive, and in my opinion leadership worthy action against Israel by immediately recalling its ambassador to Israel, and sending Israel's' ambassador to Turkey packing. Turkey may be many things, but when it comes to defending the rights of peoples less able to defend themselves, especially Palestinians, Turkey can be counted on to be there. The European Union, to its credit, stood against the Americans at the UN and demanded an independent investigation. The Palestinian Authority itself took the strongest move, and the most effective move, by filing a complaint with the International Court of the Hague against Israel today. The Palestinian government only joined the International Court in 2015, and had been persuaded by the US not to file charges on previous occasions, however this time is different. This time the US has lost its influence with the Palestinians, and now Israel faces the prospect of an international war crimes trial - in my opinion well over due.

We simply cannot tolerate Israel, or any other country, committing wanton murder upon unarmed civilians as they protest. It is unacceptable to every value we hold as civilized people living in the 21rst century. In many ways it is incredible that a people so violated, and so persecuted by the Nazi regime of Germany would in turn persecute another in such a violent and indiscriminate way. It boggles the mind. One of the key lessons of the evil that was Nazi Germany surely is that barbarism against people, particularly identifiable (or unidentifiable) groups can never be allowed to happen again. The Palestinians are in every way deserving of this protection now. The Israeli people should know better. It is after all the primary responsibility of the Israeli people to confront their own government when it acts in such a brutal fashion. The international community must, and will, act as well, but surely the Israeli people won't stand for such inhumane treatment of a people already scattered to the four winds - it was not long ago the Jewish people were scattered to those same winds without a home of their own.

What is done is done now. The dead are buried. The thousands of wounded, from the last few weeks of protest, lie at home or in hospitals contemplating life ahead as amputees or orphans, or what have you. The Israeli Prime Minister stands defiantly in the face of the civilized world, his chin firmly in the wind (a lot like former Italian dictator Mussolini), as the Israeli Army continues to "operate freely" in the air space and on the ground in sovereign countries like Syria and Lebanon. Something has very much changed though this week. Israel's slaughter of the Palestinians has cost Israel any moral authority or high ground it thought it may have had. It is now under scrutiny. It may find itself as a war criminal in the Hague. It may find itself boycotted, or even sanctioned. Certainly its reputation will be down there with the Apartheid government of South Africa, or the murderous Croats, Serbs and Muslims from the former state of Yugoslavia who killed each other as if they were animals and not humans. This is the ground Israel now sits on. Perhaps not ground. Perhaps ice. Thin ice.  










  

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.  

Ukraine - the US is at fault

The evidence is in, and there is no question the United States government sponsored the coup that led to the ousting of Ukraine's elected President. No doubt he was unpopular Western Ukraine, where the seat of government is, and where most people did not vote for him in the previous two national elections. All that is true. However, in the "modern world order" we don't sponsor coups of elected governments. We even find it meddlesome when "unelected" dictators are overthrown by US sponsored coups. We know by history that once the dictator is overthrown, the threads of that society fall apart like shattered glass. A few current examples are  Iraq and Libya - there are others.

The point is, in the "modern world order" the US should not be destabilizing and overthrowing democratically elected governments - yet it is. On the one hand, the US claims to be the moral high ground  that all should emulate and is the "police force" to ensure it happens, and on the other hand it violates the moral high ground whenever its "national interest" is threatened. I put national interest in quotations as it doesn't have a strict definition. It's just whatever suits the US at the given moment in time. That one thing is the fatal character flaw of US policy - "we are just and right" when it works for us". The problem with that notion is that every moderately powered country could take the same position. The lesson the US has apparently not come to grips with is that the rules apply to it as well - perhaps more so. If you claim to be a world leader then you have to lead, and leadership is by example not convenience.

As the Sochi Olympics in Russia began, a nationalistic moment of pride for Russians as it is for every home country, trouble came to the surface in Ukraine. Not surprising I suppose considering the Saudi foreign minister's comments to Putin that if Russia gave Saudi its way in Syria, well then Saudi would make sure Russia had no problems with terrorists during the Olympics. All that did was infuriate Putin, which you could understand - essentially terrorist blackmail. And, while the terrorist situation remained well in hand during the Olympics, the Ukrainian "uprising" exploded from smoldering discontent to a demand the government join the EU. Ironically, even after agreeing to sign the agreement to establish economic relations of a sort with the EU, the Ukrainian president was still overthrown.

It was all quite clearly organized, funded, and even armed by "western entities". The US, instead of condemning the overthrow of an elected President, simply applauded along as "the people spoke". Yet, in a near identical situation erupting in Egypt, where the army slaughtered thousands of protesters in a matter a of week, the US refused to call the matter a coup - which would have cut off arms money. That's the kind of pragmatic vision that costs you the high ground and leadership. The same thing happened in Libya when NATO air forces went from a UN sanctioned mandate of a "no fly zone" to become the "rebels" air force and destroying the Libyan armed forces on the ground. Another breach of trust. Another abuse of power. Another loss of integrity.

As could be expected, Russia would not stand idly by and watch the US, and for that matter NATO, come to dominate a country right on its border. That should not be a surprise to the US given its 50 year economic boycott, and attempted invasion and naval blockading of Cuba. In fact, the US banked on it. When Russia intervened with special forces, a naval blockade of Crimea, etc the US protested that Russia would face a "cost" for its actions. The cost was to be escalating sanctions aimed at destabilizing and perhaps  over throwing the Russian government  - certainly at a minimum destroying its economy.

It's important to remember that the Ukraine conflict is not about Ukraine, or the fact it is on the Russian border. That is simply the means to the "end". The "end" is a direct blow to the Sino-Russo economic alliance ( mostly referred to as Eurasia). At some point in time the US had to decide whether it would accept losing its international economic superiority, or fight. There are only two ways to fight. One is an economic war. The other is a real war. Of course, the US could obey the rules of world order and accept the ascension of China, including the Russia-China-BRIC alliance. It's happening anyway. For example, India just signed a deal with Russia to build 12 nuclear reactors, and it cancelled a deal with US ally South Korea for a $1 billion minesweeper contract. The message: if you are with the US you aren't with us, and we have the money. A definitive sigh of things to come.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, four or five ceasefires have come and gone. The Ukrainian government, funded and supplied by the US, has used the ceasefires to advance their lines in the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. They created a massive incursion to the north of Gorlovka south toward Luhansk city and just north of the Donetsk/Krasny Luch defensive line. Not to be outdone, the Novorossyian forces have forced themselves to the eastern outskirts of Mariupol and westward of Alchevsk. Donetsk city has been mercilessly shelled by the Ukraine army, and the Novorossyian forces have taken a shaky control of most of what's left of Donetsk international airport.

There was meant to be peace talks between the two sides today in Minsk. It never happened. Instead, the Ukraine government cutoff power and rail links to Crimea. Also, just days ago, the Ukraine President stated publicly that Ukraine would apply to be part of NATO. All part of a war that isn't meant to end, and that isn't really declared for what it is. In many ways it's starting to resemble the "war of annihilation" the Nazi's waged against the then Soviet Union. Not in the sense of magnitude, yet, but in nature. There is no will on either side in Ukraine to surrender, or even submit to the other's authority. Too many people have been killed and maimed. Too many lives have been burned by the flicker of the flame fueled by hatred.

There is no peaceful end for the Ukraine situation. None. One side or the other will prevail, but Ukraine will not rest unless it retakes Luhansk and Donetsk Republics. The Russians will not allow that to happen. In two days the Russian army is supposed to roll into Donetsk and Luhansk to come between the Novorossyians and Ukrainians as peacekeepers. In reality, they are making themselves targets of opportunity for a Ukrainian government bent on revenge and well supplied by the US to do just that. All of which points toward serious escalation, and perhaps all out war. If that happens, the Russian military will destroy the Ukrainian military within a week. The only question that remains is where does it go from there. As Henry Kissinger explained in an article published today:

"Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is HOW IT ENDS, not how it begins."


What Kissinger, the US government, and many other people are not considering enough is:

"What if it's not left upto the United States to decide how it ends. What if the US loses it all?"

Syria, Pandora's Box and a Game of Chicken

Most readers of this blog know it deals with primarily Newfoundland and Labrador

politics, the odd time national politics, and once in a while international topics. This post involves the latter.

Syria has been weighing heavily on my mind these days. In one way it is just another

implosion of a middle eastern political system - unrelated to the uprisings from the Arab Spring. In another way, it is the most dangerous manifestation of the Spring. Like Tunisia, and Libya it has a colonial past. Like Egypt it is focused more on religious rule than actual freedom.

It seems that western politicians and press consistently make the same, very strategic

mistake when they portray these uprisings as an awakening of a spirit of freedom in the
Arab peoples. In fact, when the Arab people rise up they are seeking a religious resolution not a political solution. There lives center around their religious ideals, not political
ideals. For them the revolution is a means to institute Islamic government, which is
central to their core values. The freedom achieved by the Spring gave them the
opportunity to replace secular governments and replace them with Islamic governments.
In fact, that is happening in every case. Furthermore, not one Islamic government has
been overthrown. So yes, they now have governments that reflect their beliefs, but their
beliefs are not necessarily aimed at peace.

The other commonality that keeps rearing its head is the Sunni - Shia blood-letting.

Whether it be the war in Iraq or the Arab Spring, and now Syria, this 1300 year old blood feud has been let out of Pandora's Box. Whether by design or coincidence this hatred has been used by NATO and the Russian bloc ( I include Iran in this one). While the old secular governments were notorius for their rights abuses, so are the Islamic ones. While the old secular dictatorships were controlled by one superpower or another, so are the new Islamic ones. Now, however, the evils unleashed from Pandora's Box are on Israel's door step. That is one primary reason why the Syrian war is dangerous. However, the biggest reason why the Syrian war is dangerous is the game of poke-in-the-chest that has been reignited between the United States and Russia.

Some media have attempted to portray Syria as a proxy war between the US and Iran, or

Iran and Israel, or even between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The truth is Russia controls the
Syrian government. It also controls the Iranian government. It does this with business, but just as importantly by arms sales. It also claims these countries as entities in its "sphere of influence", and therefore crucial to its national interest. The US claims the defence of Israel, and more "moderate" Arab countries as in its national interest. The difference really is geographic. While Syria, and Iran essentially border Russia, the US has no such argument. The old spheres of influence from the cold war days crumbled with the Berlin Wall, and the US has aimed to take advantage. What happens though when Russia decides it must make a stand, and refuses to retreat any further? The answer is Syria.

Frankly, NATO abused the United Nations resolution authorizing a no-fly zone in Libya - a very serious abuse. Instead of keeping Libyan planes and choppers out of the air it became the air force for the rebels. It took sides and determined the outcome. Now the Russians and Chinese no longer trust that option. The only option NATO has is to impose a unilateral no-fly zone. Russia answered that option with the transfer of state-of-the-art S300 anti-aircraft missile systems. It also heavily reinforced its only naval base in Syria. For every move the US makes (Patriot missiles systems in Turkey and Jordan, etc), the Russians counter. There is no backing away from this game of chicken.

Unfortunately for Israel, it is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. It can't directly

intervene as that would provoke Russia, and cause moderate Arab governments to
become neutral or even hostile toward Israel. It doesn't want the Syrian rebels armed as
those arms would most certainly end up in the hands of Hezbollah and other Islamic
extremists. And, despite the anti-missile umbrella, Israel would almost certainly be
targeted with missiles from Hezbollah, Syria, and likely Iran. The one country that has no good options is Israel. Likely, and very ironically, the best case scenario for Israel is a victory by the Syrian government and a return to the status quo.

What is needed in all of this is a sense of place. The US needs to realize its place in the

world is not that of overlord. It needs to reject the single most dangerous doctrine it has
ever adopted - Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine. It needs to adhere to the principles of
international law - even when it may not suit its interest. Obama's arming of the rebels
against another state is considered an act of war under international law, yet it is treated
as if it were nothing more than a policy decision. That is the kind of arrogance that causes instability and tragedy. Frankly, the Syrian government is fighting an armed insurgency according to international law. It is using force. That is legal under international law.

There have been civilian casualties and displaced people as a result. That has been the

case in every war since the beginning of time - ugly as that truth is. The Syrian
government is not fighting unarmed civilians. It is fighting an armed force that got its
arms from somebody, and is often not even Syrian citizens. If a similar situation were to
occur in Canada or the US, you can be sure there would be a similar response.

Were chemical weapons used? Who knows. Maybe they were. However, does it really

make sense that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons to kill between 100-150 people and thereby invite the US to intervene? In a war that's seen tens of thousands die? That simply doesn't make sense on any level.

What the Syrian situation needs is for both superpowers to pull back. Quit upping the

ante. Allow the Syrians to finish it between themselves. It's not a great way to look at it,
but it's a lot less dangerous than a game of chicken between the US and Russia.