Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Why Israel had to attack ...


Israel has never won the propaganda war of world opinion. With recent operations in the Gaza Strip, they will continue to be looked down upon as aggressors despite actions taking place based on obvious truce violations by their sworn enemy, Hamas. We think it has never actually tried to explain itself to the global body and has walked the line of its existance alone. It has done so in the name of defending its people, culture and basic right to exist (even at 1967 borders) after coming close to planned extinction. In recent years (perhaps since Oslo accords) Israel has attempted to approach peace with its Palestinian neighbors a gun and stick. It offers compromise while standing ready to fight back attempts to exterminate it. In the slug fest of Middle East politics, it seems that both sides can see no other way. Israel has no choice. Its very existence is on the line.

Israel has never been given the green light from world opinion to defend itself. The lack of any Security Council resolutions (against Palestinians etc) alone shows this to be true. Israel feels they are alone and now, it shows again, with action in Gaza that this is true. Despite pulling out from Gaza and leaving the land entirely, it has received neither praise nor compromise. They were only met with scorn as Hamas took over from an inept PA and moved rocket installations to the new frontlines.

Hamas ended the truce by not symbolically offering the Israelis an opportunity of interaction when Israel's settlers and Army left Gaza. We realize it is more than that, but when you consider your land is not "occupied anymore" perhaps it was worth more than shouting "your enemy lost the war" and use it as a cry for recruits. It's diabolical to think that Hamas propagandists believe that the world believes this. This is to pray on the disenfranchised.

Now as they are being pounded into the ground they long for, they cry foul. Why? To claim victory? Will they stand on the bodies of their dead people and destroyed buildings like Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and claim victory? They certainly will, while their people starve.

History’s wars show victory for those that concede defeat and pick up the plough. In the eyes of Hamas, only the extermination of the Jews will do, yet they throw their women and children into the fire with no mercy in the name of Jihad. We hope they see through the violence and plague that has fallen upon them. The violence is an eye for an eye. The plague is their failed leadership. Israel has no moral obligation to restrain from defending its people despite the ferocity of their attacks.

Where are the Arab peacemakers?

Scientocracy must rise.





Sunday, December 28, 2008

Hamas and Israel at the brink...

As the second day of what HAMAS has called the third Intifadah begins, what is the next step in the Arab world? The Arab league is meeting in an emergency session in Egypt, Hezbollah has stated that they will show restraint (restraint in the face of the worst aggression between the two sides in 60 years?!), and Iran has called for the "Arab street" to rise up. As of this post, nothing has happened ...

**** The U.N. Security Council ended a four-hour emergency meeting early Sunday with a call for an immediate halt of hostilities and a re-opening of border crossings to allow humanitarian supplies to reach Palestinians in Gaza.

***The Palestinian envoy said if Israel does not cease attacks within 48 hours, Arab delegations will demand stronger action from the Security Council.

*** Day 2 Syria breaks off "indirect talks" with Israel. (UPDATE)

Confusing? Yes. Why such a tepid response? 48 hours? Sounds like Israel has been given an out ... Does the world believe that Israel is justified in their assault after endless rocke bombardments? Looks like it to us. Confusing? Yes.

Will Hamas fall? The PA hopes so as they are a clear loser in this battle.



Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Hamas jihadists launch salvos of rockets and morters at Israel

It's hard to say with certainty who is responsible for the truce breaking down (started on June 19, 2008) but if daily rocket fire since October is any indication, Hamas never thought it would work. The quick disintigration of the truce shows that Hamas has made a tactical decision to escalate violence to bring Israel to the table. Olmert has not bowed during the truce time frame as had been supposed by Arab negotiators based on his indictment and continues to run the government with confidence (for better or worse).

The Izzedine Al Qassam brigades have stated "that they have fired in retaliation" for an assassination of their operatives. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/24/israel.rockets/index.html). This might be true but since the rocket fire has been going on for some time now, the question is "Is this just propaganda?” Almost 100 rockets have fallen on Israel. Seems like it.

At its start, Hamas had won international claim by brokering the truce and the PA (and Israel) had to acknowledge that a government existed in Gaza (sort of). But the fact is Hamas never reigned in other militant groups (Islamic Jihad & Al Aqsa Martyers Brigades) as it had to by preventing cross-border attacks on Israel. Do they have control? Did they try or just make an arangement with the small factions by saying and not doing? Now they claim (threaten) "thousands of Israelis" are within their rocket range. So it is clear they have been rearming and preparing their forces as had been stated by Israel.

We think the beginning of the end is at hand. The world awaits an Obama administration that promises to make Middle East peace a priority. But at what price is peace worth it? Who will take the side of peace? An Arab leader of stature needs to step forward with a bold proposal. A Hudna (temporary peace) proposed by Hamas (in the guise of a 10 year truce) is a farce. Nobody in Israel believes that they will not attack after it is over in 10 years. Yes, that is a possibility and a done deal to many.

What the Palestinians need is a leader that can rally the people behind a 2 state solution, Mahmoud Abbas is not that person nor is Ismail Haniyeh. War is looming and Israel appears to be at the end of their line. Should they attack / invade Gaza? We think not. But they probably will. Martyrs on Arab television across the world is exactly what Hamas wants.

Will the Lion be the new US President Barack Obama?




Wednesday, December 17, 2008

War and Peace? What is a Hudna and why it is thought to be the beginning of the end?

***(This is an ongoing post. We have no illusion that we can speak to this term anymore than anybody else. We are discussing this possibility in context of what it means to the Arabs and what they plan to "actually" do in the event Israel agrees to such a truce.)
Do the Arabs want peace? Have they switched from a people that want Islam as a global religion with tolerance as its central meaning or have they embraced such Nazi ideology as extermination (genocide)and only plan to regroup and strike with 10 years of resources and training?

Is the 2 state solution really being discussed in context of a Hudna (temporary truce)? Or wil this be the end of the line in (or beginning) preparing for final battle? Let's discuss history of such actions. Can you make peace with enemies that are sworn to your destruction or do you just hold a truce and wait for your destiny?

Denis MacEoin of the Middle East Quarterly puts it like this ...

"However, this acquired anti-Semitism creates numerous problems for Arab anti-Zionists. Western anti-Semitism is racist; not even a Jew who had abandoned his faith or converted to Christianity was spared by Hitler's racist doctrine of the Jew as √ľntermensch. Whereas a Jew under Islam had the options of conversion or life as a dhimmi, a Jew in German-occupied Europe had no choice at all. Once Israel was established, Arabs became anti-Semites and called not only for the extermination of Israel but also for the annihilation of all Jews living there. This has made the possibility of a truce even more remote since it has an all-or-nothing quality similar to Hitler's "Final Solution."

and this ...

" ... Should a Muslim victory seem remote, the caliph could declare a truce in the interests of the umma. Rudolph Peters, Islamic law professor at the University of Amsterdam states, "According to some schools of law, a truce must be concluded for a specified period of time, no longer than ten years."[11] Hanafi law, however, permits the Muslims to terminate a truce arbitrarily: The "imam may denounce the armistice whenever the continuation of warfare is more favorable for the Moslems than the continuation of peace," he continues.[12] Such a truce is necessary when the Muslims are weak relative to their enemies. It can also occur when there is fitna within an Islamic state.[13] These truces serve as protection against further violence to enable Muslims to regroup and gather their strength, whereupon they can issue a fresh declaration of jihad. Such a treaty is a hudna, distinct from sulh where the non-Muslim state pays tribute to a more powerful Muslim one, or an ‘ahd, a covenant of security, in which protection for Muslims is reciprocated.[14] ..."

[11] Rudolph Peters, in Esposito, ed., The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Modern Islamic World, vol. 2, p. 371, s.v. "Jihad."
[12] Peters, Islam and Colonialism, p. 35.
[13] Ibid., p. 33.
[14] See Daniel Pipes, "British ‘Covenant of Security' with Islamists Ends," The New York Sun, July 8, 2005.



Monday, December 1, 2008

What if the US wins the Iraq war?

This is a lingering question that recently was spoken about by US President George Bush. That the Iraq government has all but agreed on a tactical pullout of US and Coaliion forces by 2012(!) what does this say to all of the war naysayers? What does the expanded US / NATO efforts in Afghanistan say to Russia? Success? Failure? It's a known fact that nobody wanted us to be there in the first place, but what happens when the US pulls out and Iraq staves off the inevitable Iran hyper influence? Did the US win the war and would the Left agree as such?

As soon as the new front in Afghanistan is expanded, we might be seeing the end of one chaos packed war morph into another...with far worse consequences here and abroad.




Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y appointed Secretary of State


Appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is a shrewed political move by President elect Obama. His transition team certainly vetted the scenerio that has Clinton being out of power and unable to coalition build with Democrats / Republicans / Business during the next 2- 4 years. She will also be barred as a cabinet member to try and pay off her camapign debt. That forces her to think twice about future campaigns if she were to leave her Sec. post.

The White House situation room should be interesting that's for sure.


To make it possible for his wife to become secretary of state, [Democrat] party officials said, former President Bill Clinton agreed to:
- Disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward.
- Refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference.
- Cease holding CGI meetings overseas.
- Volunteer to step away from day-to-day management of the foundation while his wife is secretary of state.
- Submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel.
- Submit any new sources of income to a similar ethical review.
source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983003/


Monday, November 24, 2008

Syria's options ...

What is on Syria's mind these days? What does team Obama think of the Sunni President Basher Assad? Will Syria be held accountable for the assassination of Rafik Hariri by the Obama administration or will former US President Jimmy Carter and colleagues (ZBIGNIEW BREZINSKI)"move on" and push for "peace"?

Will Syria actually move beyond their outwardly committed aggressive relationship with Iran? Iran is on the run, no matter what they say, as they had played Tiger with the belief that they could ride out sanctions with fiery rhetoric and shrewd nationalism. Oil prices are falling and the Laws of Supply and demand have trumped (for the moment) Nationalism. They must now lean more on their nationalist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Will president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fold or cease public rhetoric? Will the Ayatollahs remove him? Will students and reformers take over as Obama ascends to the US Presidency and shows that US diplomacy, through negotiations, may work?



Thursday, September 4, 2008

Bush and Putin fire off last shots ...


Russia tests long-range 'stealth' nuclear missile as Putin accuses U.S. of causing Georgia conflict Last updated at 11:57am on 29.08.08

Paola Totaro in London | August 29, 2008 - 7:54Ahttp://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/putin-blames-us-for-georgian-war/2008/08/29/1219516698684.html


Simon Tisdall The Guardian, Tuesday July 11 2006

Thursday, August 14, 2008

War in Georgia grinding down. Let the real battle begin.

POST: notes-updated 082208

Now that it appears that Russia is pulling out from Georgia, it has stood firm on relinquishing it's hold on the new countries of Abkhazia and S.Ossessia. Maybe these people do want to leave from Georgia. Certainly recent history shows a lot of tension. So what happens?

Negotiations with Iran and the IAEA and a recent Military agreement with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. It appears like the Russians are attempting to change the balance of power.

Does this look like an opening salvo to peace negotiations or possibly a foreshadowing of a new wider, deadlier, conflict with 2 super powers at the helm (again)? Has it already widened to far?

Where does (D) Barack Obama and (R) John McCain stand on this issue? Why are they not pursuing this as a major issue in their campaign? While the US wallows in economic brinksmanship, the Middle east heats up.

Russia has opened up a sustained and blanket all out propaganda campaign utilizing Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, President Dmitriy Medvedev, and Senior Russian military commanders. This is an orchestrated event. They are confident that nothing can come of this.

Russia has very publicly firmed up it's stance on where it wants to be perceived on the world military stage. Russia underlined its right to a “preventive” nuclear strike this week. They have signed on to the Bush Doctrine.

Russia: Choose us or choose Georgia.

Top Brass Defends Russia’s Right to Preemptive Strike
Anna Arutunyan
Moscow News
August 13. 2008

pending 082108 ...

Friday, August 8, 2008

POST: Campaign 2008.
Russia military action in S. Ossetia and Georgia - UPDATE: 081508

Measuring response from the Barack Obama Presidential campaign as it relates to US / Russian Policy.

In response to the following statement:
(posted at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/candidates.georgia/index.html#cnnSTCText)

"We cannot shoot from the hip," Susan Rice, Obama's senior foreign policy adviser told MSNBC on Tuesday. "We cannot act on the basis of ideology or preconceived notions. When this crisis began, Sen. Barack Obama, the administration ... and all of our NATO allies took a measured and reasoned approach because we were dealing with the facts as we knew them."

The only thing that can be verified here is that Sen. Obama oddly agrees with George Bush on a foreign policy matter (note: Using NATO as cover). Otherwise, this is not true and shows a lack of understanding, on the spot, of a potentially far reaching crisis. (note: campaign shift response.)

(note: The US has been mediating between the countries for the past 2 years. The Israelie (Private Contractor) Military advisor's were ordered to leave the country in April of 2008. These advisor's have been quoted in the popular press saying that the Georgians they encountered expected this current action.

(note: *** Sen. John McCain)


also see:
U.S.: Tracking Russia-Georgia war frustrating
White House concedes understanding of crisis hindered by lack of resources

Monday, July 28, 2008

NEWS: Will the US hit Iran? Is Putin using the Beijing Olympics as cover?

Is NATO's credibility at stake? Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has appelaed for US aid in the name of Democracy. Putin and Bush are at the Olympics and Bush has been briefed by Putin. What did they discuss?

Will the US hit Iran as a response and look to use the games and this action as cover?

Will Russia's "Invasion" of Georgia be the spark that lit the Global powder Keg ?

Update- Putin: "War has started" between Russia and Georgia
by Sanjay Jha

Georgia Key to Democracy Building in Caucasus

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Syria and Iran have a plan ...

Why such Peace moves from Assad as Olmert is being drummed out of politics forever? Assad has said publicly that he is aware of the charges against the Prime Minister and would wait out the Bush administration (Assad would never hand Bush a deal let alone stand with him in the Rose Garden!). Why not stop the process now all together? Are they afraid of Bibi and war? A preemptive strike by the US / Israel against Iran? (which would not allow them to get the Golan Heights back anytime soon). Or is Syria pushing for a deal because they really want it as a "strategic" firing point for the next conflict and feel they can not control Israel and/or Iran? Or is this how it's being staged, for now, by Iran and Syria's common hatred for the US?
----What did Syria promise Iran? Iran had a few days of harsh criticism for Syria. Why no more? Is this a Trojan Horse?

--- Syria and Turkey and Israel end their trilateral secret negotiations.
Says Turkish Diplomat" We have done all that we can and it is now time for the
two sides to meet"

update: Turkey has since hosted new trilateral secret negotiations.

update - Syrian Diplomats: "We will wait until Bush leaves office for a final peace deal (not Olmert)."

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Notes: Middle East Report 042708

Working. updated.

In yet another twist of Middle East Diplomacy, recent and very public peace overtures by Syria(Demanding public discussion with American mediators present)are on the table. President Assad has stated overtly that he will demand a document of Peace from Israel:
"Syria is demanding that Israel commit in writing to a withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for peace, Syrian President Bashar Assad told Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, according to the Qatari newspaper Al-Watan." http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978301.html

This figures in with recent public expressions of peace with Israel.

Are the Syrians suddenly eager to get peace talks back on track as a way to derail the establishment of the tribunal?

"The tribunal was established despite all the obstacles it faced," he said. "It might be moving slowly, but we are sure that justice will prevail at the end."

[ On Lebanese-Syrian relations, Jumblatt said that the March 14 Forces have managed to lay down the nature of such relations, even if only theoretically and not practically. ]

Does the recent Democrat primaries have anything to do with this response in combination of the above?

What does Syria know that if real peace does come, extremist elements will see this as more of a Sunni decision? Has Syria been listening to or watching Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan? We even put Saudi Arabia in this discussion for the first time (amongst Arab Countries that have signed peace treaties).

Attacks Syria for discussing peace with the US and Israel. http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/226298
Is this a ruse? Is there a fracture in the most recent warm relations with Syria? What happens when an American President is elected that wants communication to start / continue? Is this an attempt to stay the hardliner and exact concessions in negotiations? Whatever this means, Syria and Iran will now be in a position to step out of the shadows or further in. When their will be peace to avert war, there is no lasting peace.

Does Iran believe that Syria will bolt to its more natural allies and play both sides ? For now?

Saudi Arabia:
What happened to the Saudi plan for a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab states? Have the other states adapted the 1967 borders context as brought up by Saudi Arabia and are still establishing a verbal and cultural national group think? Even if Israel pulled back to the Pre 1967 borders, gave up East Jerusalem, pulled all settlements, do you think the Arab and Muslim populations would suddenly not hate Jews? (see: Hezbollah, HAMAS, Jihadists) Would Israel, as the perceived losers, feel as if their history is written yet again with another "tragedy?" How can Saudi Arabia really help the Jews (Israel)? Are they possibly the next Country to broker a peace deal (Jordan being the last)? Why can they not make a cultural overture?

Back in the seat again (did they ever actually leave?), they are the clear brokers when it comes to HAMAS in Gaza no matter what. Despite Egypt's recent clamp down on the Muslim Brotherhood (during recent elections - what ever happened to those allegations?), the Gaza Sinai border propaganda attempt(Egyptian president says Palestinians allowed in on his orders after gunmen destroy border wall. Article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1200572523339)
The Egyptians are again closing the border in response to the Blockade of Gaza.

If Hezbollah is provided the ability to hold on to their weapons and army, determine War for the Lebanese, and provide Political hijinx at will, even with the handing over of the Shebba Farms, there will be no peace.

(On June 18, 2000, the United Nations affirmed that Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, in accordance with Resolution 425.[4] ) Hezbollah has been holding the country hostage as a Syrian proxy for years, now it does so with democratic politics.

What do they want? What if BiBi is elected? Has this turned into a Holy War for the State by way of fear and defeat in recent wars? Have the HAMAS rocket attacks withered the resolve of the Israelie people into a defensive posture? Do they know this? Strategies such as targeted assassinations, informers, raids, incursions, and other responses have stemmed the tide, not won the war. What next?

ongoing ...