Why Foreign Fighters are Joining ISIL

It has been a few months since any updates here, and so on this occasion I'm pleased to share my first feature article for The Huffington Post, titled: "Why Foreign Fighters are Joining ISIL". The article explores the underlying ideology of ISIL, examining the eschatological (study of the "End Times") roots of the conflict in Iraq and Syria today.
Enjoy. - R.O.

Why Foreign Fighters are Joining ISIL (Part 1 of 3)
The Huffington Post
By: Robert D. Onley - October 8, 2014

Part 1 in a 3 part series.

The beheading of American journalist James Foley by a British ISIL foreign fighter marked the first of several instances in which militant radical Islam appeared to defeat all precepts of Western civilization.

At the same moment, a revived "Islamic Caliphate" emerged as both a nascent "State" and a veritable threat to the free world. Even the president of the United States seemed caught off guard by ISIL's celebration of death, which is so counter-cultural and contrary to all that humanity has achieved and continues to achieve. Both Western governments and media outlets have been slow to acknowledge theabsolute threat posed by ISIL's belief system.

While minority Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Turkomen and Jews across the Middle East are physically hunted by ISIL fighters, it is mosques across the Western world which appear complicit in churning out radicalized foreign fighters. These fighters reject all notions of a pluralist, free Western life, in favor of the most regressive philosophy on earth. But much blame can also be laid at the feet of the West's modern lifeblood: the Internet. Witness this terrifying example of a Canadian who self-radicalized, joined ISIL and now threatens terrorist attacks on New York City.

At such a troubled time as this, appreciating the core theology of ISIL is a necessity for Western policymakers, military planners, and media personnel, who are now scrambling for means to collectively defeat this most barbaric enemy after the bombing stops.

Understanding Islamic Eschatology
When global progress, both social and technological, is greater than ever, how is it possible that ISIL is growing around the world? What exactly are young Canadians,Brits, Scots, Frenchmen and Germans being taught in their Western mosques and online before being convinced to fly off to carry out jihad abroad?

The nebulous answers to these questions are found in a religious term which the secular Western mind and media might scoff at: eschatology -- that is, the branch of Islamic theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind. In other words, The Islamic End Times.

To understand why ISIL has so rapidly advanced -- both in its military and through its ideology - any serious observer of global affairs must explore the Islamic beliefs and statements about the "end of the world". This knowledge will facilitate a discerning perspective on the grave realities represented by the return of the"Islamic Caliphate" in Syria and Iraq, and will reveal the intellectual threat posed to the world by the ISIL ideology and its growing cadre of sympathetic followers globally.

Islamic Prophecies

On June 29, 2014, when Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi declared the creation of the "Islamic State", identifying himself as "Caliph Ibrahim," he was issuing a rallying cry to all Muslims, stating that the Qur'an's prophesied "Day of Resurrection", orYawm al-Qiyāmah will soon be upon humanity.

The gravity of the creation of ISIL is captured in the title of Caliph Ibrahim's manifesto: The Promise of Allah. Akin in spirit to the Charter of Hamas in its explicit hatred of Christians, Jews and non-Muslims, The Promise of Allah proclaims to the world:

Here the flag of the Islamic State, the flag of tawhīd (monotheism), rises and flutters... The Muslims are honored. The kuffār (infidels) are disgraced. Ahlus Sunnah (the Sunnis) are masters and are esteemed. The people of bid'ah (heresy) are humiliated. The hudūd (Sharia penalties) are implemented -- the hudūd of Allah -- all of them. The frontlines are defended. Crosses and graves are demolished... There only remained one matter, a wājib kifā'ī (collective obligation) that the ummah sins by abandoning. It is a forgotten obligation... It is the khilāfah (caliphate). It is the khilāfah -- the abandoned obligation of the era.

By speaking the "Islamic State" into existence, the Caliph asserted that the world's most powerful terrorist force believes that humanity, in 2014, will imminently face Allah's prophesied Judgment Day, Yawm ad-Dīn. Belief in Judgment Day is one of the six articles of faith in Islam, which underscores the theological importance of the revival of the Islamic Caliphate to the global ummah (Islamic community).

The appeal of the Caliph's simple end times narrative forms the foundation of an Islamist movement which is driving men to commit unthinkable acts of murder, genocide and suicide attacks against strangers with different religious beliefs. The Promise of Allah describes this disturbing, violent modus operandi in systematic detail, fuelling the expansion of the "Islamic State":

...We took it forcibly at the point of a blade.
We brought it back conquered and compelled.
We established it in defiance of many.
And the people's necks were violently struck,
With bombings, explosions, and destruction,
And soldiers that do not see hardship as being difficult,
And lions that are thirsty in battle,
Having greedily drunk the blood of kufr [infidel].
Our khilāfah has indeed returned with certainty
And likewise our state, becoming a firm structure.
And the breasts of the believers have been healed,
While the hearts of kufr have been filled with terror.

Through social media, internet forums and well produced promotional videos, ISIL's agenda is being broadcast to the world without hesitation. While Western powers recognize the terrorist threat posed by ISIL, aside from the United States and a few close allies, many Western European leaders remained convicted to avoid military action initially, lest they stir up unrest within their local Muslim communities.

But this is no problem for ISIL's growth. ISIL foreign fighters have already heeded the Caliph's call in The Promise of Allah that all Muslims must:

"disbelieve in democracy, secularism, nationalism, as well as all the other garbage and ideas from the West, and rush to your religion and creed, then by Allah, you will own the earth, and the east and west will submit to you."

What exactly are the implications of Muslims heeding this call? Part 2 of this series will examine this critical question.

Report: Israel bombs Syrian air defense base at Latakia

Did Israel just bomb a Syrian air defense base near the port city of Latakia? If so, this bombing would mark the first known Israeli strike inside Syria since last March, and if true, signifies Israel's unflinching resolve to defend itself against the Iranian Shi'ite axis. This attack could also represent a pre-emptive defensive strike on Hizbullah's long-range missile capability, one which would likely be utilized in an Iranian reprisal for any Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.  - R.O.
--------------
Reports: Syrian air base destroyed in missile attack from sea - Jerusalem Post
By YASSER OKBI  - LAST UPDATED: 10/31/2013 12:59
Unclear who is behind the attack on base located in stronghold of Assad's Alawites, but Syrian, Lebanese media accuse Israel; Channel 2 reports attack's target were S-125 surface-to-air missiles.

A Syrian air defense base near the port city of Latakia was completely destroyed on Thursday morning in a missile attack from the sea, Arab media reported.

According to reports emanating from the rebels seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad, a large explosion occurred near the army base in Latakia on Wednesday night. Witness posted on Twitter that the explosion happened near coastal city Jableh, 30 kilometers south of Latakia, a stronghold of Assad's Alawites.

It is unclear who is behind the explosion or its purpose. There were no reports of casualties.

Members of the Syrian and Lebanese media have charged that Israel is behind the attack. Israel's defense establishment has not responded to the report.

Channel 2 News reported that the attack's target was a S-125 surface-to-air missiles battery.

Satellite images of the area obtained by Channel 2 show the Russian-made Neva missiles, as well as a SA-3 missile battery, that also includes a command center with a radar to track the missiles' targets and broadcasting anthenas to track the missiles as they are launched. The missiles have a range of 35km. and a 70k. warhead.

Lebanese media also reported that six Israel Air Force planes flew over Ayta ash Shab, Bint Jbeil and Marjayoun in southern Lebanon overnight. Such reports are common in the Lebanese media.

Last week, Kuwait newspaper Al-Jarida reported that IAF warplanes destroyed a shipment of missiles that were to be delivered to Hezbollah near the Lebanese-Syrian frontier.

The paper’s story, which quotes a senior Israeli official, has not been confirmed by any other news source. It was also unclear whether the attack took place on Lebanese or Syrian soil.

Israel has reportedly launched at least three attacks against convoys that were said to be delivering arms to the south Lebanon-based Shi’ite organization.

JPost.com staff contributed to this report.

Report: US strike on Syria to be 'significantly larger than expected'

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-US-strike-on-Syria-to-be-significantly-larger-than-expected-325389

Jerusalem Post - September 6, 2013

ABC News: US is planning an aerial strike in addition to a salvo of Tomahawk missiles from Navy destroyers; New York Times: Obama ordered expansion of list of targets following reports Assad moved troops, equipment.

Despite statements from both US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that a US-led strike on Syria would be a "limited and tailored" military attack, ABC News reported on Thursday that the strike planned by Obama's national security team is "significantly larger" than most have anticipated.

According to ABC News, in additional to a salvo of 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from four Navy destroyers stationed in the eastern Mediterranean, the US is also planning an aerial campaign that is expected to last two days.

This campaign potentially includes an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs from US-based B-2 stealth bombers that carry satellite-guided bombs, B-52 bombers, that can carry air-launched cruise missiles and Qatar-based B-1s that carry long-range, air-to-surface missiles, both ABC News and The New York Times reported.

"This military strike will do more damage to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's forces in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in two years," a national security official told ABC News.

Meanwhile, Obama has directed the Pentagon to expand the list of potential targets in Syria following reports Assad's forces have moved troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons in anticipation of the US-led strike against them, the Times reported on Thursday.

In order to degrade Assad's ability to use chemical weapons, the list of 50 or so major sites has to be expected, officials told the Times.

Targets include military units that have stored and prepared the chemical weapons, as well as headquarters who ordered the attacks and units who carried them out. Other targets include rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, the Times quotes military officials as saying.

US military chief of staff Martin Dempsey said targets would also include equipment used to protect the chemicals - air defenses, long-range missiles and rockets.

The attack would not target the chemical stockpiles in fear that doing so could cause catastrophe.

Price tag

In Washington, US lawmakers questioned the possible price tag of a military operation in Syria.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told Congress on Wednesday the military operation is expected to cost "tens of millions" of dollars, according to AFP.

This estimate is based on the assumption the military intervention in Syria would only last a few days.

A single Tomahawk missile costs $1.5 million, while keeping some ships in the area would cost millions more, Navy chief Admiral Jonathan Greenert said on Thursday, but those numbers are "not extraordinary at this point."

In addition to the four destroyers the US Navy currently has stationed in the Mediterranean, aircraft carrier Nimitz and accompanying warships are ready at the Red Sea in case they are needed.

The carrier strike group costs up to $40 million a week if the aircraft on board are engaged in combat-related flights, while routine operations cost $25 million a week, Greenert said.

US Govt's Assessment of Assad's Chemical Weapons Attack

Here's the damning U.S. government report on Assad's chemical weapons attack on August 21, in full. The report contains all of the declassified intelligence collected about the attack.

The questions now are: how forceful will Obama's response be? What targets will the U.S. hit and why? Obama has already stated today that his response will be "a narrow act." What exactly does that mean? Why is Obama tipping his hand? So that Assad's wife can continue swimming in the presidential pool?

I believe there is an overwhelming need for the U.S. to decimate the capabilities of the Syrian Air Force. It is time to shut down Assad's air power. I say this not because I believe the U.S. should pick sides in this civil war, but instead, because it is time to level the playing field. If Syria's civil war is truly a popular uprising, then a levelled playing field should reveal the true extent of the support for the (disparate) rebel opposition groups. Otherwise Assad will continue bombing the rebels into oblivion, and the bloodshed will continue unabated.

This is a horrific scenario in which the West is rightfully reticent to get involved. But the reality is that Assad has just committed an unthinkable atrocity, in a region fraught with men willing commit atrocities on a daily basis. The precedent that the UK's Parliament just set -- of sitting out of the action when the U.S. and France are ready to attack Syria -- is simply untenable and cowardly. The West has a moral duty and imperative to act and react when a nation crosses all international mores and norms, such as through the use of WMD's.

The impending U.S. attack on Syria (however limited it might be) is designed to convey one message: the use of WMD's is wholly, completely and eternally unacceptable, and will always be universally condemned by the West. Importantly, this is a crucial message that will be heard loud and clear in Tehran. You can be sure that the Iranians are watching and waiting with wide eyes to see whether or not the West has the backbone and resolve to stop reckless regimes from using WMD's (as Iran has promised to use on Israel, numerous times).

As Iran races to complete its nuclear weapons program, the world is witnessing the opening acts of what will eventually become a broader war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria makes certain that the Iranian regime will not hesitate to do the same. Hence the need for the West to punish Assad. However, Russia's intransigence and blind support of Assad, even in the face of nearly incontrovertible evidence of Assad's chemical attack, also sends a signal to Israel that Russia will similarly stand behind Iran until the very end. These are complex times.

Should the day ever come when Israel feels it must act to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, unilaterally, Russia's unwavering support of Iran is indeed a brutal reality that the entire world will have to face. We are certainly in for some fireworks. Bring your gas mask.

Settling Israel's Ancient West Bank Roots

Here's my latest article for the Times of Israel based on my first-hand report from a pro-settlement political event that I attended in the West Bank in July: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israels-right-to-re-settle/

Enjoy.

-R.O.
--------

Settling Israel's Ancient West Bank Roots
By: Robert D. Onley - August 22, 2013
Times of Israel

The uproar emitted by the Palestinian Authority and the international community after Israel approved new housing blocks in East Jerusalem - on the eve of renewed peace talks - caused many people to seriously question the logic of the State of Israel.

However the casually and widely accepted proposition that any Israeli construction in the West Bank is somehow indisputably wrong is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of present realities and Israel’s ancient history.

One only has to travel about 45 minutes outside of Jerusalem to have this conclusion become abruptly clear. In mid-July I had the privilege of attending the opening of a new cultural center and synagogue on the historic hilltop in Ancient Shiloh, an area deemed 'occupied' by the international community.

Located in the Ephraim hill-country in the Samarian countryside, the village of Ancient Shiloh was the religious capital of Israel for 300 years before Jerusalem and the existence of the first Temple. Ancient Shiloh was also home to the first tabernacle, Judaism’s earliest holy site, and at one point held the Ark of the Covenant. Both iconic Jewish artifacts pre-date the existence of Islam by over a millennium, and yet the reflexively anti-Israel proletariat in Europe and in the West summarily dismiss the centrality of these artifacts to Jewish identity.

Consider a basic comparative example to appreciate Israel’s alleged defiance of international law when building in Shiloh: in the same way that the ummat al-Islamiyah rightfully upholds the sanctity of the site at the Dome of the Rock, the Jewish people justifiably lay claim to the historic significance of geographic locations such as Ancient Shiloh, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and numerous other areas integral to the Jewish faith.

The Ancient Shiloh area was re-settled in 1978 and officially recognized by the Israeli government a year later. Just like the local Muslim populations in East Jerusalem near the Dome of the Rock, a Jewish population too has gradually grown up around Ancient Shiloh.

In the last few years, efforts by various pro-settlement groups were undertaken to establish a permanent structure to commemorate ancient Israel’s ties to the land at Ancient Shiloh. Embodying this effort is the multi-purpose synagogue and cultural building that opened there in July. The building features a sweeping panoramic view and a super-widescreen theatre displaying a top-notch reenactment film which uses the natural Samarian hillside as a real-life backdrop for the film.

Commemorating the opening of this unique facility attracted the who’s who of Israel's political settlement movement, including politicians Naftali Bennett, leader of The Jewish Home party, and Moshe Feiglin, leader of Jewish Leadership faction of the Likud party and the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. Their respective political identities and electoral success are based on an unshakeable belief in the historicity and veracity of the Jewish lineage in the land of Israel, including, of course, at places such as Ancient Shiloh.

However, the existence of a factual Jewish lineage does not matter to those whose understanding of Jewish history extends strictly to June 10, 1967, when the borders between the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan were transformed by the Six Day War and Israel’s subsequent occupation of formerly Jordanian land. To many observers, Israel’s decision then to capture additional Jordanian territory still constitutes “theft” of Palestinian land, today.

All of which is problematic because the European Union’s recent decision to boycott Israeli investments in the West Bank is also predicated on this flawed logic. The E.U.’s logic disregards any actual or potential historic Jewish connection to any of the land in the West Bank.

Further, with its latest directive, the E.U. instead dismisses ancient Jewish history as irrelevant, and alternately is implicitly accepting the totality of the P.A.’s assertion of sovereignty over all of “Palestine”. Meanwhile repeated Israeli governments have sacrificed Israeli territory in the pursuit of peace, only to receive rockets and relentless intransigence in return.

Unanswered by the P.A., is that if the 1967 borders are essential to peace for both the P.A. and the E.U., why then were these borders not acceptable in 1967 immediately prior to the Six Day War? Tracing this reasoning further back in history: why were the 1948 borders not acceptable for the creation of a Palestinian state? Legally and objectively, at both points in history – May 1948 and June 1967 – Israel was not “occupying” a square inch of territory in the “West Bank”.

The P.A.’s inability to address these simple yet challenging questions, and the resultant 65 years of bloodshed between Israel and the various Palestinian entities that have expressed vitriolic hatred toward the Jewish people, together raise alarming concern about the fundamental ideological underpinnings of the current and future Palestinian government.

Further, the P.A.’s silence in the face of legitimate objective inquiry exposes its radical agenda, reliance on historic revisionism and perpetual strategic hypocrisy. More than anything, this silence effectively legitimizes Israel’s construction activity, particularly in areas of ironclad historic prominence to Judaism.

At the Ancient Shiloh event, Naftali Bennett, a member of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s governing coalition, made explicitly clear his response to the paradox above, stating:

“The world says that these ‘settlements’ are terrorizing the Palestinian people. I say that not building on this land is terrorism against the Jewish State.”

Bennett’s new party won 12 seats in the 2013 national elections, and he is widely considered an up-and-coming political leader. With peace negotiations now underway, Bennett’s ideological ambition and rising popularity are worth bearing consideration in the context of Israel’s future.

In many respects, Bennett’s vision for Israel’s growth (into the West Bank), emerges from the perception in Israel that the Palestinian government is systemically and intractably divided, riven with venomous jihadi ideologies, and simply incapable of the intellectual maturity required to accept both Jews and the Jewish State on a secular, humanistic, civilizational basis.

That the P.A.’s anti-Semitic political positions are granted hearing in the highest global forums only entrenches Bennett’s belief that Israel must take matters firmly into its own hands, both now and for the foreseeable future.

The reality is that Israel has agreed to come to the negotiating table in 2013 without preconditions. That means: without the basic condition that Israel be accepted as a Jewish State. Is it really any wonder to the international community precisely why Israel continues to build in areas of vital historic importance?

None of this means that Israel has the right to build absolutely anywhere in the West Bank that it deems fit. Nearly all Israelis agree that sensible limits should be placed on construction in areas that will directly impact the ability to create a contiguous Palestinian state - indeed such limits are in Israel's interest when they can lead to definable final status borders.

Yet as the construction at Ancient Shiloh demonstrates, Israel's "settlements" are not necessarily unreasonable or baseless land grabs, but rather are often rooted in ancient, verified history. If only the rest of the world, particularly the E.U. and P.A., would stop to appreciate and construct that conclusion on their own.

Fortress Israel: Interview with Mark Regev, international spokesman for Prime Minister of Israel

By: Robert D. Onley, J.D.

July 2013

(Jerusalem) - With peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority set to begin after years of impasse, the eyes of the world are once again intensely fixated on the Holy Land. Though a degree of optimism is percolating at the prospect of negotiations for a two-state solution, outside of Jerusalem the State of Israel is facing potential armed conflict on nearly every one of its borders.

In such a hostile neighbourhood, it is often difficult to determine the Israeli government's official position on the myriad regional issues affecting the Jewish State. The reality is that hot button topics such as the Syrian civil war, Iran's nuclear weapons program and Hizbullah's involvement in propping up Assad, are all so interconnected that the Israeli government refuses to comment for fear of complicating the situation.

With this perpetually messy Middle Eastern picture in mind, a visit to the Prime Minister's Office in downtown Jerusalem for an interview with Prime Minister Netanyahu's international spokesman, Mark Regev, provides a much needed inside look at Israel's coldly calculated diplomatic positions.

Though the formal announcement of the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinian Authority would be made by U.S. Secretary State John Kerry the day after this interview was conducted, Mr. Regev, Israel's foremost government representative, public face, and official defender of the State of Israel, offered insight on nearly every issue affecting the Jewish State today.

Mark Regev (L), international spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel, with Robert Onley at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem. (July 2013)

Robert Onley: Mark, thank you for this opportunity. My title for this interview is: “Fortress Israel in the Collapsing Middle East.” The big picture is this: when you look on the map, you see all the countries around Israel swallowed up in so much instability, but at the center of them all is Israel: secure, solid, and stable.

Mark Regev: More than that, what you’re seeing now in the region is unprecedented instability, violence, tyranny, extremism, fanaticism, and Israel stands out as a stable, prosperous, free democratic country. For many years people brought a theory, some people, that the reason there’s problems in the Middle East, is because of Israel or because of the Israel-Palestinian issue. Obviously we want peace with the Palestinians, we really want peace, we yearn for peace with the Palestinians. But those theories that the reason -- in that large expanse of land, from Morocco on the Atlantic shore through to Afghanistan -- the reason there’s instability, has got nothing to do with us. You have, unfortunately, a whole series of failed states, failed political systems, failed economies, and I think finally more people are beginning to understand, as Prime Minister Netanyahu said when he spoke at the U.S. Congress in 2012, “Israel’s not what’s wrong about the Middle East, Israel’s what’s right about the Middle East.”’

Robert: Given there are these negative global attitudes and opinions about Israel, and looking at current events with near total instability around the region, what do you feel is your primary responsibility as the Prime Minister’s spokesman?

Mark: We’ve got to, in Israel, first of all, defend our country against those who would seek to harm us, and today that’s first and foremost the Iranian nuclear threat. Though there are other threats closer to our borders, whether it’s the terrible situation in Syria, or Hizbullah or Hamas, so [we must] obviously [seek to] protect our people, that’s the first obligation of any country, to protect our people. Unfortunately there are very real threats out there, they are threats that you cannot ignore. At the same time, you want to see [if] it is possible to achieve peace with your neighbours and always to extend the hand for peace and negotiations and to try to move on, to build a better region for all its inhabitants. Thirdly, while doing that, while acting to defend and protect your people, while trying to achieve a new set of peaceful relations, you’ve got to build your country.

And here it is that Israel has much that we can be proud of, because if you look at Israel’s history, in many ways it’s an amazing success story. Today Israel is relatively prosperous, Israel is strong and secure, we can be proud of our democracy here, there are many things that we can look back and say, 'these have been important achievements'. That doesn’t mean we should be complacent about the challenges we face internally [in Israel] -- we have some serious challenges, but we can, I think, from the experience of the last few decades, look to the future with confidence that we can deal with the challenges that we have.

Robert: In your interviews, often the TV hosts can get pretty combative with you, and you’re very good at adapting to what they’re proposing and giving them an alternative. To what extent do you feel your job is to correct the global narrative about Israel, rather than establish it?

Mark: My job is to be Israel’s voice as best as I can. And the job of journalists is often to ask you difficult questions, and for me, it is a matter of great pride to be able to represent my country and it’s not a job that you take for granted, it’s a job that you feel has importance. I enjoy it. I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t enjoy it.

Robert: Turning to Iran, you mentioned that it’s the greatest threat facing Israel, during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent appearance on CBS he suggested that Israel might be ready to stop Iran. What is Israel’s greatest fear if it feels forced to conduct unilateral air strikes?

Mark: I’m not going to go into operational details, but I can say the following: in the past the Jewish people were defenseless against threats, and we paid a price, a very severe price for being defenseless. Today we have an independent, sovereign state and the ability to defend ourselves, and that’s something that we take very seriously. We also take seriously the threats coming from Iran. Every time an Iranian leader opens his mouth, and because it’s Iran it’s always a ‘him’ and never a ‘her’, because that’s the nature of the Iranian regime, they say, “Israel has to be wiped off the map” or that, “Israel is a cancer that must be removed.”

Israel would be irresponsible not to take those threats seriously. The marriage between that very extreme regime and the world’s most dangerous weapons is something that we have to avoid at all costs. Now Israel would like to see a peaceful solution, but one way or another, we cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. We are very serious about that. Deadly serious.

Robert: Shifting to settlements and the two-state solution in its broadest term. Many Western commentators make the claim that Israel’s settlements are the primary roadblock to peace. If you could set the record straight: what is the truth about Israel’s settlement policy? What is it about the realities of the West Bank that these commentators might be misunderstanding?

Mark: The issue of the settlements has to be resolved in peace talks with the Palestinians. The issue of settlements, along with all the other issues that we have disagreements on, that’s the place [negotiations] where they should be resolved. What’s clearly not true, is those who say that the reason there isn’t peace is because of settlements. The best example of that is Gaza, where Israel took down all of the settlements and evacuated them. Did we get peace in return? On the contrary. In fact, if you want to look back even further, those people who say its all about the settlements, well, before 1967, was there peace? The answer is clear. No.

Prime Minister Netanyahu often says, “Some people have historic memory that goes back to breakfast.” Only someone who really didn’t have any historical knowledge could say that the settlements are the reason there’s no peace. I’d even go further, some people say that the reason there is no peace is because there’s no Palestinian state. But we [Israel] have been ready for a Palestinian state and peace and reconciliation for decades. Back in the 1930’s we were ready for two states for two peoples. [We were ready] when the UN put partition on the table in the late 1940’s. The problem is not the Palestinian state, -- we’re ready for that. The problem is: are our neighbours ready to accept the Jewish State in any borders? Because if they are, we can have peace tomorrow.

Robert: Some of Israel’s strongest supporters are evangelical Christians, particularly from the United States and Canada. Across the Arab region we see Christian minorities being persecuted, alongside many religious minorities. In the West Bank, the Israel Defense Forces [have] bases to protect Jewish and other minorities. One challenge that some people fear in the two-state solution, is how might religious minorities be affected. What is Israel's policy toward the minorities that might end up inside potential Palestinian borders?

Mark: I can say the following. Inside Israel, [the] freedom of religion and the protection of the holy sites of all faiths is an integral part of our politics. In other words, we enshrine freedom of religion in our political system. Now, you are correct, that in other parts of the region that is not the case, and in fact we’ve seen in some places, growing intolerance, growing forces that oppose religious minorities [and] that want to see the Middle East just in one colour. That’s an issue: it’s an issue in the larger Muslim world, [and] it’s an issue in the Arab world. Of course, Israel has and will continue to be a bastion for religious freedom and hope our example can be of influence and an example to other countries in the region. We’re aware of the threats.

You’ve got to remember, we’ve also gone through it ourselves. There were thriving Jewish communities across the greater Middle East, in Iraq, in Syria, in Morocco, in Egypt… today what were once thriving communities [are] today, very, very small numbers of Jews in Arab countries, and they left, in part, also, because of intolerance and persecution.

Robert: The Israeli government will not comment on what’s going on in Egypt, to the broader extent…

Mark: No but Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Israel is saying the following: in relations with Egypt, the central issue is maintaining the peace, we have a peace treaty with Egypt, we want to see that treaty honoured, maintained, and that’s our focus.

Robert: Briefly, could you comment on the relationship with the now ousted Morsi government? What is the difference?

Mark: I don’t want to go into anything that could be perceived as interfering in internal Egyptian affairs, except to say to all Egyptians, that Israel believes that peace has been good for both our countries, that peace has been a cornerstone for stability in our region, and that we have to protect the peace and maintain the peace.

Robert: Turning to Syria, how would you characterize Israel’s relationship with Assad prior to the civil war?

Mark: Assad was, and is, one of the few Arab leaders that was formally in the Iranian orbit. The Syrian Regime under Assad and his father was a bastion of support for Hamas and Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad, the most radical and extreme anti-Israel groups. Assad never was, never has been, someone that we could look on as a stabilizing or moderate influence.

Robert: What would Israel’s position be with respect to potential Western or NATO intervention in Syria?

Mark: We’re being very careful not to give public advice. We think that a public position by Israel would be detrimental. We will respect the decisions made in Washington and other Western capitals. For obvious reasons, we have very special concerns, specifically the large stockpile of weapons that are in Syria, and to ensure that in the framework of a fragmenting Syria, those weapons don’t get into the hands of some very dangerous actors, first and foremost, Hizbullah.

Robert: Speaking of weapons and Syria’s relationship with Russia in particular: how would you describe Israel’s broader relationship with Russia, in the context of what’s happening in Syria and Iran and that issue?

Mark: We have a dialogue with Russia, the Prime Minister recently just met with [Russian President] Putin in Russia, and the Russians are aware of our concerns.

Robert: One issue that’s not on the front burner at all, is Israel’s recent discovery of enormous natural gas reserves in the Mediterranean. Does Israel foresee potential conflict over these reserves?

Mark: No. There’s no reason to have conflict over the reserves. It’s interesting, because for the first 65 years of our independence, we were sure that we were a country that was not blessed with the abundant energy supplies that our neighbours had, and the fact that 65 years after our independence we’ve discovered large energy reserves is a miracle. It’s a good thing. 

What’s especially good is that for 65 years we’ve developed a country on the basis that we don’t have natural energy reserves, and so we had to invest in our people, in our education, we had to be competitive, we had to be good without natural energy reserves. Now today we’ve got natural energy reserves and so that’s like the icing on the cake. Who would’ve thought ten or twenty years ago that Israel would be becoming an exporter of energy? That’s the reality, and that’s important for Israel.

You’ve got to remember that the Israeli taxpayer has burdens that no other taxpayer on this planet has, a defence burden that cannot be ignored, and energy exports will make us have the ability to earn revenues that will allow Israel to do things for our people that they deserve, whether its reduced taxation, more money for social services, increasing funding for education and so forth, it’s a good thing. And it could also be a vehicle for regional cooperation.

Robert: Do you foresee that these revenues could be part of some sort of peace agreement with the Palestinians?

Mark: We’re open to have gas cooperation with different countries in the region.

Robert: In the bigger picture, after the recent [Israeli military] operation in the Gaza Strip, and seven years ago now the war with Hizbullah in the north, plus instability in Syria: does the prospect of a multi-front war function into decision making in Israel?

Mark: Obviously, we’ve been attacked by Hizbullah in the north, Hamas in the south, and we are aware that they could do both at the same time. It’s the job of our defence establishment to prepare for worst case scenarios, they would be irresponsible if they didn’t make such preparations, and it’s the job of other people to work for the best case scenarios, which is, can we have peace and stability and work with our neighbours more effectively? 

That’s our challenge: to prepare for the worst, and to work for the best. That’s why we’re 100% behind the recent American effort to try to get the peace process back on track with the Palestinians, we hope the Palestinians will be ready to talk peace. We’re aware of the threats out there, whether its Hamas or Hizbullah, and we have to make sure that we can deal with those threats if need be.

Robert: Canada has been one of Israel’s most vocal supporters in recent years, what does that mean for Israel in the world today and for Israel going forward?

Mark: Canada has always been a good friend of Israel and today more so than ever. Prime Minister Netanyahu considers Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, not only a good friend of Israel, but a good personal friend. There’s no doubt that Canada has taken a moral leadership [position] that we appreciate and [that] we think is an example for others. Sometimes you go to an international forum and there’s the standard anti-Israel resolution, not balanced, supported by the Arab countries and some of their automatic allies, [and] Canada will stand up and say, "This is wrong and we refuse to support it". In Canada you see moral leadership, standing up for the truth, and Israel appreciates it greatly.

(Special thanks to Mark Regev, David Baker, Jacob Waks and John Hansen for facilitating the interview.)

© The World Assessor, 2013
By: Robert D. Onley - robert@robertonley.com

Morsi, army ready for showdown in 'final hours' in Egypt

This has bad news written all over it. Take a read of just a few select quotes:

Egypt's army commander and Islamist President Mohamed Morsi each pledged his life to defy the other as the hour approached on Wednesday that will trigger a military takeover that was prompted by mass demonstrations.

...Morsi refused to give up his elected office. Morsi said, "The price ... is my life." 

...Liberal opposition leaders, who have vowed not to negotiate with Morsi since the ultimatum was issued, immediately denounced his refusal to go as a declaration of "civil war".

Egypt is entering very tenuous times. Is the world ready for two civil wars on Israel's border? - R.O.
----------------------------------------------------

Morsi, army ready for showdown in 'final hours' - JPost

By REUTERS
07/03/2013 07:23

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi defies army, US pressure to bow to protests as clock ticks on army ultimatum for his resignation; army commander issues bellicose statement, says he is ready to die.


A girl with the colours of the Egyptian flag and the word "leave" painted on her face Photo: REUTERS

CAIRO - Egypt's army commander and Islamist President Mohamed Morsi each pledged his life to defy the other as the hour approached on Wednesday that will trigger a military takeover that was prompted by mass demonstrations.

The military chiefs issued a call to battle in a statement headlined "The Final Hours". They said they were willing to shed blood against "terrorists and fools" after Morsi refused to give up his elected office. Morsi said, "The price ... is my life."

As a mass of revelers on Cairo's Tahrir Square feted the army for saving the revolutionary democracy won there two years ago, supporters of the president's Muslim Brotherhood denounced a "military coup". Some clashed with security forces at Cairo University, where 16 people died and about 200 were wounded.

Military sources told Reuters the army had drafted a plan to sideline Morsi and suspend the constitution after a 5 p.m. (1500 GMT) deadline passes. Coordinated with political leaders, an interim council would rule pending new elections. The sources would not say what was planned for an uncooperative president.

Facing the expiry of a 48-hour ultimatum set by the head of the armed forces that he should agree a power-sharing deal with his rivals, Morsi broadcast a defiant, if somewhat rambling, address to the nation to defend his "legitimacy" - a word he used repeatedly in the course of 45 minutes.

Liberal opposition leaders, who have vowed not to negotiate with Morsi since the ultimatum was issued, immediately denounced his refusal to go as a declaration of "civil war". The youth movement that organized the mass protests urged the Republican Guard to arrest Morsi immediately and present him for trial.

Three hours after his midnight television appearance, the military high command responded with a post on its Facebook page. The post said they, too, were willing to lay down their lives to defend their position - one which they described as defending the Egyptian people from "terrorists, radicals and fools".

A military source said the message came from General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the armed forces commander appointed by Morsi last year, who issued the ultimatum to politicians on Monday.

It was posted on the official Facebook page of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, or SCAF. It entered history books as Egypt's ruling institution after the army pushed aside Hosni Mubarak in the Arab Spring uprising of early 2011.

"It is an honor for us to die rather than that anyone should terrorise or threaten the Egyptian people," it said. "We swear to God, we will sacrifice even our blood for Egypt and its people to defend them against any terrorist, radical or fool.

"Long live Egypt and its people."

PROTESTS

The army has taken its cue from the millions who rallied on Sunday to call for Morsi's resignation as he completed a year in office. It appears to have only enhanced the high regard in which the military is held by most Egyptians by its action.

But as well as listening to the voice of protesters, the army also appears to have had its own concerns about the way Morsi was leading the country - notably about his alliances with more radical Islamist groups and recent association with sectarian calls to holy war in Syria.

The opposition say offers by Morsi to include them have been made in bad faith by a leader beholden to a religious movement intent on entrenching its power and Islamic ideas forever. The Brotherhood calls them bad losers who do not grasp democracy.

Sisi, a 2006 graduate of the US Army War College, has insisted he is not seeking power in the long term. Many believe the armed forces - with their extensive economic interests and generous funding - when they say they have no political ambition.

The United States has urged compromise. It has funded the army for decades, since long before the fall of Mubarak in 2011, as a key part of helping secure Washington's ally Israel. Morsi aides have said they believe a coup would need US support.

Washington has also defended the legitimacy of Morsi's election to lead the biggest Arab nation, as part of a strategy of promoting democracy in the Middle East since the Arab Spring.

President Barack Obama told Morsi by telephone that talks with opponents were needed. Morsi said on Twitter that he would not be "dictated to internally or internationally".

A senior European diplomat said world powers would have no choice but to condemn the military removal of an elected head of state, even if the generals have support on the streets.

In his television address, Morsi warned that any deviation from the democratic order approved in a series of votes last year would lead Egypt down a dangerous path.

It was unclear who fired at whom or who started the violence at Cairo University. Muslim Brotherhood supporters angrily held up rifle and shotgun cartridges after scenes of mayhem, shrouded in teargas. State television quoted a health ministry official as saying 16 people died and about 200 were hurt.

That made it by some way the bloodiest incident in several weeks of street fighting. Eight people were killed the previous day during a siege of the Brotherhood's national headquarters and the movement has said it is under attack from hired "thugs" left over from the days of Mubarak's secret police.

MURSI DEFIANT
"The price of preserving legitimacy is my life," Morsi said in an impassioned, repetitive address to the camera. "Legitimacy is the only guarantee to preserve the country."

In a warning aimed as much at his own militant supporters as at the army, he said: "We do not declare jihad (holy war) against each other. We only wage jihad on our enemies."

Urging Egyptians not to heed the siren calls of what he called remnants of the former authoritarian government, the "deep state" and the corrupt, he said: "Don't be fooled. Don't fall into the trap. Don't let them steal your revolution."

Condemning a coup against their first freely elected leader, tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters took to the streets, clashing with opponents in several towns.

But they were dwarfed by anti-government protesters who turned out in the hundreds of thousands across the nation.

"Morsi - Game Over - Out", proclaimed a laser display beamed over Tahrir Square, where people danced with joy, recalling the euphoria and the slogans that greeted the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. The light show counted the hours to 5 p.m.

Despite his fighting talk, time appears to have all but run out for Morsi. Ministers have resigned and aides abandoned him.

Military sources told Reuters that, assuming the politicians fail to end a year of deadlock before the deadline, the generals have their own draft program ready - although it could be fine-tuned in consultation with willing political parties.

Under the road map, the military would install an interim council, composed mainly of civilians from different political groups and experienced technocrats, to run the country until an amended constitution was drafted within months.

That would be followed by a new presidential election, but parliamentary polls would be delayed until strict conditions for selecting candidates were in force, the sources said.

They would not say how the military intended to deal with Morsi if he refused to go quietly. Some of his Islamist supporters have vowed to defend what they see as the legitimate, democratic order, even if it means dying as martyrs. Some have a history of armed struggle against the state.

TROOPS

Troops intervened to break up factional clashes in the city of Alexandria. They were also out on the streets of Suez and Port Said, at either end of the Suez Canal. The waterway is vital to world trade and to Egypt's struggling economy.

Beyond it, the Sinai peninsula has seen militant groups thrive since Mubarak fell, worrying neighboring Israel.

The Brotherhood's political wing called for mass counter- demonstrations to "defend constitutional legitimacy and express their refusal of any coup", raising fears of violence. But the biggest pro-Mursi rally in a Cairo suburb appeared to attract around 100,000 supporters, Reuters journalists said.

Senior Brotherhood leader Mohamed El-Beltagy told the crowd: "We give our lives in sacrifice for this great legitimacy. ... We swear by almighty God to protect the will of these people and to not let it go, even if in doing this we sacrifice our souls."

But the Brotherhood long avoided direct confrontation with the security forces despite its oppression under Mubarak.

For many Egyptians, fixing the economy is key. Unrest since Mubarak fell has decimated tourism and investment and state finances are in poor shape, drained by extensive subsidies for food and fuel and struggling to provide regular supplies.

The Cairo bourse, reopening after a holiday, shot up nearly 5 percent after the army's move.

This week has made Sisi a household name in Egypt, but he remains a man of some mystique. Steve Gerras, a retired colonel in the US Army who was Sisi's faculty adviser at the Army War College, described him to Reuters as a serious student.

Calling him "pious, kind, thoughtful", the behavioral science professor said: "He was a serious guy. He is not a guy who would go to a stand-up comedy show. But at the same time ... his eyes were always very warm. His tone was very warm.

"He was passionate about the future of Egypt."

Baird: Iran has just “2 or 3 months” to change course, diplomatic process “nearing the end.”

These are critical insights into a tense state of affairs. With Syria on the mainstream news media's front burner, the Iranian nuclear crisis has been left to simmer. But with newly elected Iranian President Rouhani set to take office in Iran, the world's focus will soon shift back to Iran's covert nuclear weapons program and all of its perilous implications for global stability. The following comments from Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird are worth reading, as they implicitly represent the perceptions of the Israeli government. The question is whether U.S. President Obama is feeling the same way. - R.O.

Canadian Foreign Minister: Iran has just “2 or 3 months” to change course, diplomatic process “nearing the end.”
- Flash Traffic Blog - June 25, 2013
By: Joel C. Rosenberg

(Jerusalem, Israel) – After having just been in Ottawa meeting with Canadian Members of Parliament to discuss Israel and Middle East issues, I’ve now been in Israel for ten days of meetings and preparations for our upcoming Joshua Fund tour and Epicenter Conference. I was encouraged to read this morning that the Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird was recently in town to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli and Palestinian officials. His comments on the Iran threat were worth noting because he indicated a concrete time frame by which Iran needs to show it has ended its nuclear program or other action — decisive action — needs to be taken. Coming from the most pro-Israel government on the planet, this was encouraging. My hope is that the Foreign Minister was also laying the groundwork for a state visit by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but there was no public report of this.

”Canada’s  foreign minister has warned Iran that it has only two to three months to prove to the West that it seeks a negotiated resolution to the crisis over its rogue nuclear program,” reports the Times of Israel “The diplomatic process is ‘nearing the end,’ John Baird said in an interview with The Times of Israel, though he declined to say what consequences that could bring.”

“He added that the election to the Iranian presidency of Hasan Rouhani, seen by many as a relative moderate, does not justify any further Western patience, since Rouhani, as Iran’s former nuclear negotiator, ‘doesn’t need to have any time to read up on the files,’” reported the Times. “Baird was speaking exclusively to The Times of Israel last week during a visit to Jerusalem, where he represented Canada’s government at Shimon Peres’s Facing Tomorrow presidential conference, and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also went to Jordan during the trip, and held talks in Ramallah with the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other senior PA officials.”

Other key points from the article:

- If incoming president Rouhani “wants me to say something kind or generous, he’s going to have to solicit that by his actions, not by any perceived notion of being a reformer,” Baird said, adding, “These people don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.”

- Asked whether diplomacy had run its course, Baird said, “There’s always a reason to wait another two or three months… If they want to prove the naysayers wrong, they can make meaningful progress with the P5+1. I’m pessimistic on that but I hope to be proven wrong.”

- The diplomatic process, he went on, “is nearing the end, and should have been nearing the end in my judgment. If Iran wants to seek out concrete, meaningful solutions to this, they have the opportunity to demonstrate to the world in the coming weeks that they’ll do that… And you have someone [in Rouhani, a former Iranian nuclear negotiator] who doesn’t need to have any time to read up on the files. This person does not need anytime to be briefed up.”

- And if at the end of two or three months there isn’t some kind of concrete progress? Then, said Baird, “I think fair and reasonable people will have shown that they have taken every reasonable measure, every diplomatic measure, to try to successfully bring this to a conclusion.”

And then comes the time for intervention? “I’ll just leave it at that,” the minister said.

June 25, 2013

Are Israel and Russia on the Same Page?

With reports today that Russia will ship its advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense system to Syria, that and follow-up reports that Israel has threatened to attack Russia's missile shipments to Syria, suddenly Israel's relationship with Russia has come into sharp focus on the international stage. All of which is compounded by leading members of the European Union agreeing to lift their embargo on weapons shipments to the Syrian opposition/rebels. As a result, key questions must be asked:

• What is Russia's long-term objective in propping up the Assad regime, aside from maintaining its naval port at Tartus?
• How would Russia react if Israel indeed attacked shipments of Russian S-300 missiles?
• Is the West incrementally inching toward armed intervention in Syria?
• If Syrian President Assad were assassinated or incapacitated, what role might Iran and Hezbollah play in shaping the regime that replaces or displaces Assad?

Events are rapidly escalating the Syrian crisis. The number of innocent killed is over 80,000, with no end in sight. The major powers are apparently set to significantly increase their armaments to both sides of the civil war. Is this a powder keg about to explode? Sure looks like it. - R.O.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are Israel and Russia on the Same Page?

by Zalman Shoval

Though the U.S. and Russia have agreed to hold a summit in Geneva to try to diplomatically resolve the conflict in Syria and establish an interim Syrian government, it is highly doubtful that Russia and the U.S. are of one mind as to what the diplomatic resolution should be. Israel, as we all know, does not have a clear preference as to which side winds up on top: It is not indifferent to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's atrocities, but it is also aware that the rebels, or at least some of them, may pose no less of a threat.

The Russians have a direct interest in the events in Syria, and the lightning meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this month is proof of that. We don't know exactly what was said behind closed doors in Sochi, but we cannot assume that Putin initiated the meeting (and he did in fact initiate it) just to inform Netanyahu that Russia would not cancel its missile deal with the Syrians due to supposed contractual obligations or commercial reputation considerations. A regime change in Syria would jeopardize the strategic, diplomatic and economic interests of Putin's Russia, much like the interests of the Soviet Union before it.

The S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. (BBC)

The Syrian port of Tartus is the home base of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. Since Moscow wants to preserve its status (at least in its own view) as a regional superpower in the Middle East, it must carefully consider its conduct on the day after Assad's fall -- and Israel apparently plays into Russia's considerations.

It is possible that the Russians will try to forge ties with whomever rises to power in Damascus after Assad, but they are also considering the possibility that Syria will splinter and a small Alawite state will be established in the northeaster part of the country -- where the port of Tartus is situated. The Americans, unlike the Russians, are still hoping for a unified Syria with a democratic leadership that would cooperate with the West, though they are less confident in the likelihood of this actually happening.

In the past, Soviet policy in the Middle East rested mainly on support for the Arabs, including Arab terror organizations, and hostility toward Israel -- both because Stalin viewed Zionism as the most dangerous enemy of communism and because of Israel's relationship with the U.S. in the context of the Cold War. In this regard, things have changed, and thankfully so.

Currently, Russia isn't entirely in love with Assad either. Russia's support for Assad is a default policy. But much like Israel, Russia is worried that if Assad falls, a fundamentalist-Islamist hub will arise in his place. In this regard, Jerusalem and Moscow share a common future interest (even if it is for different reasons). In the meantime, Israel expects Russia to convince Assad that it has no intention of attacking him as long as he prevents the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Israel also wants Russia to make it clear to Assad that if he should violate this expectation, or provoke Israel other ways, there will be a response.

There is currently more than one game being played at the Syrian card table. One player is playing poker while another player is playing bridge. The players and partners are also inconsistent. At this point, it is not yet clear which player is holding the winning card, or even if such a card exists. In any case, Israel has to play its cards close to the chest and refrain from unnecessary chatter. And of course Israel must not forget that specific or temporary interests, as important as they may be, are no substitute for the long-term relationship with the U.S.