"Obama's Gamble with Iran's Theocratic Regime" published by the Gatestone Institute

Pleased to share my latest article which was published today by the Gatestone Institute, a New York-based think tank. I am honoured to be published by the Gatestone Institute for the first time, alongside many distinguished writers, thinkers and political leaders.

The Iran deal represents a disconcerting transaction between the West and the radical Shi'a Islamist regime in Tehran. Please read and share widely. Special thank you to Nina Rosenwald for her assistance on the final draft. - R.O.

-----------

"Obama's Gamble with Iran's Theocratic Regime"
Gatestone Institute - July 28, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6237/obama-iran-gamble

• Obama's Iran deal is a direct manifestation of the President's fundamentally misguided worldview, one that wishes away danger and then believes in the wishes.

• Even more concerning is that the Iran deal may directly conflict with U.S. obligations as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Iran deal may be unconstitutional, violate international law and feature commitments that President Obama could not otherwise lawfully make. By seeking approval of the deal under the UN Security Council, Obama has bound the U.S. under international law without Senate consent.

• The gravest consequence of Obama's Iran deal is that the world bestowed ideological legitimacy on the Islamic Republic's radical theocracy, and in so doing has consigned the people of Iran to near permanent rule under the iron fist of Shi'a Islamism.

• A total reversal of the Iranian regime's behavior should have been, and still can be, a precondition for the removal of any sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program. An end to Iran's financial and material support for terrorist forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas must be demanded, along with the return of the four American hostages Iran is holding.

• There is still time for a better deal that can be had.

As President Obama and Secretary Kerry dominated the airwaves with rounds of media interviews to defend the Iran deal last week, German Vice Chancellor and Economic Minister Sigmar Gabriel flew straight to Tehran for the first of what are certain to be countless meetings by P5+1 leaders to capitalize on new business opportunities in Iran.

In Europe, it seems, there is no debate to be had over the Iran deal; rather, it is a fait accompli.

But in the United States, the domestic debate is heating up, fueled by a Presidential primary campaign and increasingly justified bipartisan anxiety over the bill.

Independent of these political realities, however, the immediacy and tenacity of the White House's defense of the Iran deal (which now has its own @TheIranDeal Twitter account, no less), betrays an acute unspoken discomfort by many Democrats with the practical flaws and global security dangers that the deal presents.

Obama's Iran deal is a direct manifestation of the President's fundamentally misguided worldview, one that wishes away danger and then believes in the wishes.

Haunted by his electorally-motivated premature withdrawal from Iraq in 2011; his refusal in 2013 to confront Syria's Bashar Assad when he used chemical weapons on his own people; his betrayal by Russia's Vladimir Putin to whom he had offered a reset button, and his impotence in failing to respond to the aggressive expansionist moves of Russia, ISIS, Iran and China, the President and Democrat Party, in signing the Iran deal, seem to be trying to absolve the United States of its role at the forefront of the global fight against Islamic radicalism and other threats.

Citing the failed EU-led negotiations with Iran in 2005, which resulted in Iran's massive expansion of centrifuge production, defenders of the deal, such as Fareed Zakaria, have painted a bleak and zero-sum counterfactual argument. It is claimed that the result of Congress's opposition will be an international community that forges ahead on renewed trade relations with Iran, while leaving the United States outside the prevailing global reconciliation and supposed love-in with the Islamic Republic.

There are several serious problems with this defense, and similarly with the White House's blitzkrieg public relations campaign to fend off detractors of the Iran deal, with Secretary of State John Kerry commanding the preemptive, and often totally inaccurate, strikes against Congress. In consideration of the colossal failure represented by the North Korea nuclear precedent, let us consider the issues unique to Iran.

Foremost, opponents of the Iran deal are not universally suggesting the Iran deal be killed outright or immediately resort to "war." This is simply disingenuous. Instead, the opponents' fundamental premise is that a better deal was left on the table, and thus remains available. The very fact that the Iranian regime was at the negotiating table was indeed a sign of Iran's weakness; any timelines for the P5+1 to "close" the deal were artificial constraints that surely erased further achievable concessions.

Second, much ink has already been spilled about the technical weaknesses of the Iran deal. Namely: that Iran's vast nuclear infrastructure remains in place; that the most important restrictions expire in 10 years (a mere blip for humanity); that Iran's uncivilized domestic and regional behavior was a naughty unmentionable; and finally, that the deal undoubtedly initiated a regional nuclear arms race while supercharging the Iranian regime's finances.

Third, the gravest consequence of Obama's Iran deal, and the most damning of its continued defense, is that the world bestowed ideological legitimacy on the Islamic Republic's radical theocracy, and in so doing has consigned the people of Iran to near permanent rule under the iron fist of Twelver Shi'a Islamism.

This capitulation occurred precisely at a time when the West and the broader Middle East are facing off against the Islamic State -- a terrorist force which, when stripped of its social media allure, is ultimately a Sunni-branded spin-off of the extremist Shi'a Islamism that has ruled in Iran since 1979.

The Iranians may be convenient allies as enemies of our enemies today, but not for one second have Iran's rulers suggested their ultimate intent is anything other than the all too familiar "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" propaganda seen for the past 36 years. In what is objectively and wholly a strange deadly obsession, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, has been rousing crowds with calls for the destruction of two nation-states both during and after nuclear negotiations.

In spite of this public malice, defenders of the deal suggest that "the [Obama] administration is making a calculated bet that Iran will be constrained by international pressure." Why exactly then is Khamenei making clear the opposite?



President Obama's willingness to concede Iran's new-found normalized membership in the community of nations on the basis of this nuclear deal is an affront to the liberal, free, democratic principles that have stood against the forces of tyranny throughout American history.

It is also an affront the American political system and to the members of both parties who are now being cornered by the President into supporting, or not supporting, such an intrinsically dangerous and needlessly flawed bargain with an avowed enemy.

Even more concerning is that the Iran deal may directly conflict with U.S. obligations as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As a number of critics have pointed out, the Iran deal may be unconstitutional, violate international law and feature commitments that President Obama could not otherwise lawfully make.

By seeking approval of the deal under the UN Security Council, President Obama has bound the United States under international law without Senate consent.

If the United States is to remain the vanguard of human liberty, President Obama must distinguish between the vain pursuit of his legacy, and the civilized world's deepest need at this consequential hour for the American President to defend comprehensively the fundamental principles that underpin the modern order. Unless his desired legacy is actually to destroy it.

As opponents of the Iran deal have noted, there is still time for a better deal that can be had.

To start, a total reversal of the Iranian regime's behavior should have been, and still can be, a precondition for the removal of any sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program. Congress can lobby for this change, and should maintain American sanctions and applicable provisions in the U.S. Treasury Department's SWIFT terrorist tracking finance program.

Next, while Iran's regional malignancy may run deep in the regime's veins (through the many twisted arms of Tehran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), an end to Iran's financial and material support for terrorist forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas must be demanded, along with the return of the four American hostages Iran is holding.

Third, those who argue that Iran's human rights record was not "on the table" in Geneva have needlessly abdicated the West's moral and intellectual high ground to the forces of barbarism and hate that are now waging war across the region. Respect for international humanitarian norms should never be discarded in such negotiations.

At the end of the day, the deeper questions for Obama and the entire P5+1 are this: By whose standards were negotiations conducted? And whose worldview will rule the 21st century?

In defense of Obama's approach, the deal's supporters point out that the Iranians are a "proud, nationalistic people," which is undoubtedly true, but irrelevant, just as it was for the leadership of Germany's Third Reich.

The Iranian regime, by virtue of its radical religious nature, weak economy and political experiment with theocracy, should have borne the burden of coming to the negotiating table with the most to lose. Instead, President Obama, on behalf of the free world, is allowing this pariah state to guarantee its place among the nations, lavishly rewarded for having violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in all its about-to-be-well-funded lethality.

• Robert D. Onley is a lawyer in Ottawa, Co-Founder of the Young Diplomats of Canada and a "Global Shaper" in the World Economic Forum.
• Follow Robert D. Onley on Twitter

"Anti-Semitism and Jewish destiny" by: Robert S. Wistrich

Anti-Semitism and Jewish destiny

By: Robert S. Wistrich - Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Anti-Semitism-and-Jewish-destiny-403703

Today’s anti-Semitism is a product of a new civic religion that could be termed "Palestinianism."
On Sunday, Robert S. Wistrich – the director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem – emailed the following column to ‘Jerusalem Post’ Editor-in-Chief Steve Linde, asking that it be published in the coming week. Wistrich died suddenly on Tuesday. We dedicate his last column to perpetuating his memory. May his words live on.

There are few topics of more pressing concern today to Jewish communities around the world than the current resurgence of anti-Semitism. Thus, there could have been no more appropriate time for the 5th Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism to meet than last week in Jerusalem. It was a large and impressive gathering of participants from all over the world, initiated by the Foreign Ministry, together with its Diaspora Affairs Department.

In my own remarks to the conference I emphasized the need to free ourselves from certain outdated myths. My first point was that even today, Jews in Israel and the Diaspora are fixated on the dangers of far-right traditional anti-Semitism – whether racist, religious or nationalist. While neo-fascism has not altogether disappeared, it is in most cases a secondary threat.

Second, there is an illusory belief that more Holocaust education and memorialization can serve as an effective antidote to contemporary anti-Semitism. This notion, shared by many governments and well-meaning liberal gentiles, is quite unfounded. On the contrary, today “Holocaust inversion” (the perverse transformation of Jews into Nazis and Muslims into victimized “Jews”) all-too-often becomes a weapon with which to pillory Israel and denigrate the Jewish people. Hence the approach to this entire subject requires considerable rethinking, updating and fine-tuning.

Third, we must recognize much more clearly than before that since 1975 (with the passing of the scandalous UN resolution condemning Zionism as racism) hatred of Israel has increasingly mutated into the chief vector for the “new” anti-Semitism.
By libeling the Jewish state as “racist,” “Nazi,” “apartheid” and founded from its inception on “ethnic cleansing,” its enemies have turned Zionism into a synonym for criminality and a term of pure opprobrium.

Hence, every Jew (or non- Jew) who supports the totally “illegitimate” or immoral “Zionist entity” is thereby complicit in a cosmic evil.

Fourth, today’s anti-Semitism is a product of a new civic religion that could be termed “Palestinianism.”

The official Palestinian narrative seeks to supplant Israel with a judenrein Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. In the case of Hamas, this intent is absolutely explicit. With Fatah, it is partly veiled for tactical reasons.

But when it comes to the Palestinian ideology and the millions around the world who support it, virtually all actions of self-defense by Israel are instantly classified as “genocide,” demonized and treated as part of a sinister Jewish-imperialist conspiracy. Not surprisingly, then, pro-Palestine demonstrations, beginning in the summer of 2014, were often accompanied by ugly chants of “Death to the Jews” and anti-Semitic incidents.

My fifth point is closely related to this reality. Since the turn of the 21st century, anti-Semitism has undergone a process of growing “Islamicization,” linked to the terrorist holy war against Jews and other non-Muslims with its truly lethal consequences.

Yet most debates skirt around the issues of Iran and radical Islam.

However, if we do not confront the prime danger posed by radical Islamist and genocidal anti-Semitism, how can our common struggle hope to succeed? One of the symptoms of this vain policy of appeasement pursued by America and Europe is the almost Pavlovian reflex after every terrorist, anti-Semitic outrage to immediately disconnect it from any link to Islam. Of course, Islamist is not identical with Islam, only a minority of Muslim believers support terrorism, and stigmatization is wrong. Equally, we must empower moderate Muslims wherever we can.

But denial does not work. Levels of anti-Semitism among Muslims clearly remain the highest in the world, and the horrific consequences of jihadi movements like Islamic State for all minorities are impossible to ignore. Nothing can be gained by sweeping this threat under the carpet.

The Islamists are the spearhead of current anti-Semitism, aided and abetted by the moral relativism of all-too-many naive Western liberals.

My sixth observation relates to the need for Israelis and Diaspora Jews to rediscover, redefine and reassess their Jewish identity, core Jewish values and the depth of their own connection to the Land of Israel as well as to their historic heritage. I was privileged to have authored two years ago the exhibition “People, Book, Land – The 3,500-Year Relationship of the Jewish People to the Holy Land” for the bold project initiated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center together with UNESCO. Against all the odds and in the face of predictable opposition, it opened at UNESCO headquarters in Paris in June 2014.

In April 2015, the exhibit was even shown at UN Headquarters in New York, and it will soon come to Israel. This is not merely a historical exercise, for it shows the extraordinary tenacity, cultural vitality, spirituality, and metaphysical as well as physical bonds of Jews and Judaism to the Land of Israel. None of this was intended, it should be emphasized, to negate the historical presence and significance of Christianity and Islam in this land.

But it sets the record straight.

My final reflection flows from this experience. I believe that in an age of Jewish empowerment, living in a sovereign and democratic Israeli state, we can and must first clarify for ourselves our vocation, raison d’être, moral priorities, and the deeper meaning of our near-miraculous return to the historic homeland.

This is the other side of the coin in our essential and relentless fight against anti-Semitism. As we celebrate Jerusalem Day let us be worthy of the scriptural promise that “the Torah will come forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

Here, in the beating heart of the Jewish nation, where its body and soul come together in the City of Peace, we must be true to the national and universal vision of our biblical prophets. Anti-Semitism, the long shadow which has for so long accompanied our bi-millennial Diasporic tribulations, and nearly 70 years of renewed statehood, is neither “eternal” nor must it prevent Jews from fulfilling their ultimate destiny to one day become a “light unto the nations.”

Robert S. Wistrich

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Anti-Semitism-and-Jewish-destiny-403703

The Iran deal: Anatomy of a disaster

Top notch analysis. My broader concern is that by engaging in negotiations that accept, at that outset, that the current Iranian government is a viable long-term entity which represents the will of its people, we are legitimating one of the most extreme, theocratic regimes on earth. Think North Korea, but supercharged by a supremacist, Millennial, eschatological interpretation of the Qur'an, and you have the current sitting government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran should be more isolated than ever for its support for terrorism, illicit nuclear weapons development, and unceasing anti-Western rhetoric, but today its leaders stand empowered by the tacit recognition we have given their End of Days regime through these negotiations. Charles Krauthammer sums up these concerns nicely below. - R.O.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iran deal: Anatomy of a disaster
By: Charles Krauthammer - Washington Post - April 9, 2015 

“Negotiations . . . to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability . . . ”

— Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, the Wall Street Journal, April 8

It was but a year and a half ago that Barack Obama endorsed the objective of abolition when he said that Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility, its plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor and its advanced centrifuges were all unnecessary for a civilian nuclear program. The logic was clear: Since Iran was claiming to be pursuing an exclusively civilian program, these would have to go.

Yet under the deal Obama is now trying to sell, not one of these is to be dismantled. Indeed, Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure is kept intact, just frozen or repurposed for the length of the deal (about a decade). Thus Fordow’s centrifuges will keep spinning. They will now be fedxenon, zinc and germanium instead of uranium. But that means they remain ready at any time to revert from the world’s most heavily (indeed comically) fortified medical isotope facility to a bomb-making factory.

In an agreement that he called "a long time coming," President Obama announced that the U.S., Iran and other countries have reached a historic framework to curb Iran's nuclear program. (AP)

And upon the expiration of the deal, conceded Obama Monday on NPR, Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear bomb will be “almost down to zero,” i.e., it will be able to produce nuclear weapons at will and without delay.

And then there’s cheating. Not to worry, says Obama. We have guarantees of compliance: “unprecedented inspections” and “snapback” sanctions.

The inspection promises are a farce. We haven’t even held the Iranians to their current obligation to come clean with the International Atomic Energy Agency on their previous nuclear activities. The IAEA charges Iran with stonewalling on 11 of 12 issues.

As veteran nuclear expert David Albright points out, that makes future verification impossible — how can you determine what’s been illegally changed or added if you have no baseline? Worse, there’s been no mention of the only verification regime with real teeth — at-will, unannounced visits to any facility, declared or undeclared. The joint European-Iranian statement spoke only of “enhanced access through agreed procedures,” which doesn’t remotely suggest anywhere/anytime inspections. And on Thursday, Iran’s supreme leader ruled out any “extraordinary supervision measures.”

The IAEA hasn’t been allowed to see the Parchin weaponization facility in 10 years. And the massive Fordow complex was disclosed not by the IAEA but by Iranian dissidents.

Yet even if violations are found, what then? First, they have to be certified by the IAEA. Which then reports to the United Nations, where Iran has the right to challenge the charge. Which then has to be considered, argued and adjudicated. Which then presumably goes to the Security Council where China, Russia and sundry anti-Western countries will act as Iran’s lawyers. Which all would take months — after which there is no guarantee that China and Russia will ratify the finding anyway.

As for the “snapback” sanctions — our last remaining bit of pressure — they are equally fantastic. There’s no way sanctions will be re-imposed once they have been lifted. It took a decade to weave China, Russia and the Europeans into the current sanctions infrastructure. Once gone, it doesn’t snap back. None will pull their companies out of a thriving, post-sanctions Iran. As Kissinger and Shultz point out, we will be fought every step of the way, leaving the United States, not Iran, isolated.

Obama imagines that this deal will bring Iran in from the cold, tempering its territorial ambitions and ideological radicalism. But this defies logic: With sanctions lifted, its economy booming and tens of billions injected into its treasury, why would Iran curb rather than expand its relentless drive for regional dominance?

An overriding objective of these negotiations, as Obama has said, is to prevent the inevitable proliferation — Egypt, Turkey, the Gulf states — that would occur if Iran went nuclear. Yet the prospective agreement is so clearly a pathway to an Iranian bomb that the Saudis are signaling thatthe deal itself would impel them to go nuclear.

You set out to prevent proliferation and you trigger it. You set out to prevent an Iranian nuclear capability and you legitimize it. You set out to constrain the world’s greatest exporter of terror threatening every one of our allies in the Middle East and you’re on the verge of making it the region’s economic and military hegemon.

What is the alternative, asks the president? He’s repeatedly answered the question himself: No deal is better than a bad deal.

Krauthammer: "No peace in our time" - The Washington Post

Every once and a while, a writer completely nails a complex topic - succinctly, boldly, and accurately. This is one of those articles, on Israel and the Middle East, no less. Must read. - R.O.

"No peace in our time"

By: Charles Krauthammer - The Washington Post

March 20, 2015 

Of all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.

I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state — with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted — only to be rudely rejected.

This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 — three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the past 15 years. Every one rejected.

The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership — from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas — has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.

Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. For example, the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement yielded more than four decades of near-total quiet on the border because the Assad dictatorships so decreed.

That authoritarian order is gone, overthrown by the Arab Spring. Syria is wracked by a multi-sided civil war that has killed 200,000 people and that has al-Qaeda allies, Hezbollah fighters, government troops and eventhe occasional Iranian general prowling the Israeli border. Who inherits? No one knows.

In the last four years, Egypt has had two revolutions and three radically different regimes. Yemen went from pro-American to Iranian client so quickly the United States had to evacuate its embassy in a panic. Libya has gone from Moammar Gaddafi’s crazy authoritarianism to jihadi-dominated civil war. On Wednesday, Tunisia, the one relative success of the Arab Spring, suffered a major terror attack that the prime minister said “targets the stability of the country.”

From Mali to Iraq, everything is in flux. Amid this mayhem, by what magic would the West Bank, riven by a bitter Fatah-Hamas rivalry, be an island of stability? What would give any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement even a modicum of durability?

There was a time when Arafat commanded the Palestinian movement the way Gaddafi commanded Libya. Abbas commands no one. Why do you think he is in the 11th year of a four-year term, having refused to hold elections for the last five years? Because he’s afraid he would lose to Hamas.

With or without elections, the West Bank could fall to Hamas overnight. At which point fire rains down on Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire Israeli urban heartland — just as it rains down on southern Israel from Gaza when it suits Hamas, which has turned that first Palestinian state into a terrorist fire base.

Any Arab-Israeli peace settlement would require Israel to make dangerous and inherently irreversible territorial concessions on the West Bank in return for promises and guarantees. Under current conditions, these would be written on sand.

Israel is ringed by jihadi terrorists in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic State and Iranian proxies in Syria, and a friendly but highly fragile Jordan. Israelis have no idea who ends up running any of these places. Will the Islamic State advance to an Israeli border? Will Iranian Revolutionary Guards appear on the Golan Heights? No one knows.

Well, say the critics. Israel could be given outside guarantees. Guarantees? Like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which the United States, Britain and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s “territorial integrity”? Like the red line in Syria? Like the unanimous U.N. resolutions declaring illegal any Iranian enrichment of uranium — now effectively rendered null?

Peace awaits three things. Eventual Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state. A Palestinian leader willing to sign a deal based on that premise. A modicum of regional stability that allows Israel to risk the potentially fatal withdrawals such a deal would entail.

I believe such a day will come. But there is zero chance it comes now or even soon. That’s essentially what Netanyahu said Thursday in explaining — and softening — his no-Palestinian-state statement.

In the interim, I understand the crushing disappointment of the Obama administration and its media poodles at the spectacular success of the foreign leader they loathe more than any other on the planet. The consequent seething and sputtering are understandable, if unseemly. Blaming Netanyahu for banishing peace, however, is mindless.

Why Foreign Fighters are Joining ISIL (Part 3 of 3)

I invite you to read the conclusion of my three-part series on "Why Foreign Fighters are Joining ISIL", published today by The Huffington Post. Be sure to read Part 1 and read Part 2 first. - R.O.
==========================================================
Why Foreign Fighters are Joining ISIL (Part 3 of 3)
The Huffington Post
By: Robert D. Onley - October 16, 2014

Part 3 of 3 in a series. Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Defeating ISIL and its ideology
For peaceful democratic societies, the challenge is this: how do you stop a destructive force like ISIL, one which cherishes death? How do you convince the globe's Islamic radicals, and ISIL in particular, that life -- for its fighters, supporters, and its persecuted victims -- is in fact far better than death? Or is the only choice for Western and civilized societies one that grants these deranged men their wish, through laser-guided swift deaths which kill as many ISIL fighters as possible? As civilized nations which value the preservation of life, reaching this conclusion is as disturbing as recognizing the stark reality that it is in fact the only option.

Once more in fulfilling its role as the vanguard of global liberty, the United States has led air strikes against ISIL fighters in Iraq and Syria in support of advancing Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers. In spite of President Obama's reticence in doing so, the United States government understands that the only way to stop the physical military advance of ISIL fighters is to use military force in kind. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is one of the few American leaders to public comment on ISIL's End Times goals, when he acknowledged that:

"[The Islamic State] is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision which will eventually have to be defeated."

Hagel further added that ISIL is:

"...beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of ... military prowess... [that] is beyond anything we've seen."

As world leaders express their horror at ISIL's tactics, unrelenting oppression and brutality toward religious minorities, few leaders or media commentators have assessed why it is that such an evil group can recruit so many new soldiers -- and foreign fighters -- to begin with. Thus the need for a public discussion about Islamic End Times beliefs has never been greater.

Wake up to ISIL's End Times beliefs now
In attempting to understand this global enemy, Western leaders would be wise to consider the role that their governments must play in halting ISIL's End Times goals and in preventing the long-term survival of an "Islamic State."

ISIL fighters are under no illusion about what their ultimate objective is: to usher in the Islamic "End Times". Thus Western leaders and military planners must be equally convicted about their goals. President Obama's overdue assertion that ISIL "will be defeated" was a welcome show of Western resolve. ISIL territory cannot become a national safe haven for terrorists, and moreover the West cannot permit the theological notion that Caliph Ibrahim has in some way fulfilled the Qur'an's prophecies concerning the Islamic End Times. Indeed there is no doubt that the entire global Islamic community is watching to see whether ISIL will be defeated in Syria and Iraq.

It is ISIL's End Times beliefs and the urgency of their battlefield success which has inspired the growth of the terrorist organization. Unless stopped now, the terror group only has the potential to grow larger, fiercer, and more determined in achieving Allah's Judgment Day vision. Western foreign policy commentators must break out of their comfort zones and begin to speak publicly about the genuinely religious nature of the ISIL threat and against the beliefs which drive the movement.

Simply claiming that ISIL's acts are "un-Islamic" does nothing to respond to the deeply prophetic Islamic agenda that ISIL espouses. ISIL is an enemy clearly communicating its aims, blatantly using the Qur'an as its guiding doctrine. Rather than gloss over this fact, the foreign policy world needs its brightest lights to expose this doctrine and overpower its distorted message in response.

Providing proper analysis and with due regard for the sincere religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not seek to create a revived Islamic Caliphate under the repressive purview of Sharia law, it is possible to initiate global dialogue about the reality of ISIL's End Times goal, with candor, clarity and objectivity. Millions of lives are at stake in a battle that has already claimed countless innocent human beings. After the call from the UN for a humanitarian aid mission in Iraq, the international community has admitted that what was perhaps at first a domestic Iraqi counter-terror operation is now a global religious freedom and a human rights crisis which threatens to envelop more people and draw in ever more militant forces.

With the civil war festering in Syria claiming 200,000 lives, the two-month conflict between Israel and Hamas still smoldering, worsening strife in Libya and Pakistan, and ISIL's rampage across Iraq and Syria, the world is steadily marching toward an Islamist-driven End Times nightmare with global ramifications.

Stop for a moment to consider the intellectual weight of ISIL's extreme belief system: potentially hundreds of thousands of otherwise normal men have become "foreign fighters" who are convinced that a martyr's death in the cause of Allah offers a ticket to Jannah (Islamic heaven), a ticket upon which they are granted permission by their God to perpetrate the most grotesque violence imaginable in order to expedite the Qur'an's prophesied "End Time". President Obama rightly condemned this horror when he stated at the UN General Assembly that "no God condones this terror."

But not since Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf failed at establishing the Third Reich has the earth witnessed the murderous power of a single doctrine to unite tens of thousands of men toward executing terrifying plans of ideological and territorial conquest. It is imperative that the West understands the ideological threat posed by ISIL's End Times theology and knows how to stop both its fighters and the radicalized foreigners ready to join them. Otherwise these will indeed be the End Times for far too many people to come.
-------

Testing the Canada-Israel alliance

Here's my latest op-ed for the Times of Israel, titled: "Testing the Canada-Israel alliance". Enjoy. - R.O.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/testing-the-canada-israel-alliance/

----------------------------------------------------
"Testing the Canada-Israel alliance"

By: Robert D. Onley - 20 January 2014

The inaugural visit of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to Israel represents a significant moment for an Israeli government that is in vital need of dependable friends and reliable moral allies. Much has already been said about Prime Minister Harper’s unequivocal and unparalleled support of Israel since being elected in 2006.

Indeed because the governments of Canada and Israel see eye-to-eye on nearly every geopolitical issue facing the Jewish State, an important question must be asked about the long-term nature of this bilateral relationship, as the Canada-Israel alliance could soon be tested in both word and deed.

Though the United States remains Israel’s unquestioned military ally, many observers note the increasing willingness of the Obama Administration to publicly object to all of Israel’s policies – on the Palestinian peace process, on settlement construction, and most notably on the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The latter is most troubling when coupled with the obvious intent of the United States to codify a questionable “final nuclear deal” with the Iranian government later this year and thus absolve the U.S. of any potential military response toward the issue.

Of course it is unsurprising that after two long wars in the Middle East, the United States is ready to step off the stage. Nonetheless the timing could not be worse, as Iran appears to be using present negotiations to buy time for the development of its Persian Bomb.

For example the delay between the announcement of the P5+1′s “interim deal” with Iran on November 24, 2013 in Geneva, and the final text of what then became the “preliminary deal” actually enacted on January 17, 2014, emphasizes Iran’s disconcerting abuse of process.

Accordingly under the Harper government, Canada has stated that it is “deeply skeptical” about the deal, which will hopefully see Iran scale back its nuclear work in exchange for the West easing multiple layers of sanctions which were painstakingly agreed upon by the largely disunited U.N. Security Council.

Canada shares Israel’s primal fear about whether or not the Iranian government can be trusted to live up to the terms of the deal. But aside from echoing Netanyahu’s pessimism about the trustworthiness of the radical theocratic regime in Tehran, it would appear that Canada can contribute little toward stopping Iran’s covert march toward nuclear weapons.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) seen with his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper during a welcoming ceremony for Harper at Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem January 19, 2014.

To be sure, there is likely cooperation between Canada and Israel on the espionage and sabotage of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, just as there is with many Western powers.

However in the context of Canada and Israel’s growing alliance, consideration must be given to what might transpire between the nations if diplomacy with Iran ultimately fails. In such a scenario – one that has undoubtedly been war-gamed – Canada’s steadfast moral support of Israel, and Harper’s fundamental belief in Israel’s unique position within the Middle East, will be tested in the flesh.

If there is any government on earth that based on its public statements alone appears willing to ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon, it is Canada; not France, not the U.K., not Italy and not Germany. None of these Western nations even come close to Canada in levying consistent condemnation of Iran’s rhetoric and in pronouncing warnings about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Moreover if there is one government on earth that would publicly and defiantly endorse an Israeli decision to conduct unilateral military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, again it is Canada. This would be no small measure for a “middle power” like Canada, closely allied with the United States but fiercely carving its own identifiable policy in the Middle East apart from its natural Western allies.

The Netanyahu government’s recent criticism of the European Union‘s “hypocrisy” toward Israel bears out Canada’s policy independence on the myriad issues affecting Israel.

Canada’s nearly solitary voice of moral support for Israel is also reflected in comments made by Rafael Barak, Israel’s ambassador to Canada. Speaking to the Canadian media recently, Barak stated,

“We see Iran as a serious threat. Canadians have the same view. I feel that other countries have the same view, but the difference is that Canada is expressing their ideas in public.”

The biggest question for this alliance in early 2014 is whether the Harper government would back up its public expressions with tangible action, either to facilitate effective military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, or perhaps more reasonably to help protect the Jewish homeland against Iranian counter-strikes through cooperative defensive military manoeuvres.

The Canadian Forces gained invaluable counter-terrorism experience in over ten years of fighting in Afghanistan (where it bore a disproportionate number of combat losses compared to its ISAF partners) and is adept at assisting in disaster relief operations: might Israel call upon Canadian help if Iran unleashes Hezbollah against the Jewish State? Such a seemingly hyperbolic scenario cannot simply be ignored.

If Netanyahu is in fact preparing for unilateral military action against Iran, as is perennially reported, it is reasonable to suggest that amid all the other nations, Canada alone might be asked for even the smallest contribution on or after that fateful day. This suggestion is particularly probative if the Obama Administration refuses to give Netanyahu a “green light” for the mission. Harper may in fact be the only friend Netanyahu will have to call for help.

These are topics rarely explored in light of Canada’s relatively small military capacity, as some would immediately dismiss out of hand the idea of Canada providing military assistance to Israel.

Perhaps the Harper government would rather not publicly breach such a discussion for fear of unnerving its domestic audience, and this much is understandable. Nonetheless Canada’s unwavering moral alliance with Israel since 2006 clearly provokes legitimate inquiry in the event that Israel’s “D-Day” with Iran arrives.

There is no question that both Israel, Canada and the world desires a peaceful resolution to the stand-off with Iran over its illicit nuclear weapons program. Diplomacy, as it is occurring today, should indeed be given a chance. The unfortunate reality is that time is not on the side of those who seek to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

As Canada’s lonely stand with Israel makes clear, neither country operates in the realm of diplomatic wishful thinking. Rather, the Canada-Israel alliance recognizes the ruthless reality of the hate-filled, anti-Semitic dystopia that Israel’s enemies, like the Iranian regime, never cease to concoct and broadcast right next door. As Harper visits Netanyahu in Israel this week, this reality is surely on their agenda.

Read more: Testing the Canada-Israel Alliance | Robert David Onley | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/testing-the-canada-israel-alliance/#ixzz2quL0Fkt0
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Tags: Harper visits Israel, Canadian visit to Israel, Prime Minister visits Israel, Canadian delegation trip to Israel, Harper meets Netanyahu, Harper in Israel, Harper in Jerusalem, Prime Minister in Israel

Freedom Fighter: One Man's Fight for One Free World

I have just completed reading Freedom Fighter: One Man's Fight for One Free World by Rev. Majed El Shafie, and must commend this book to you to read as well.

I met Majed in Toronto earlier this year, at an event organized by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) organization, on the topic of religious freedom. His talk sparked an interest in me to further investigate the issue of religious freedom around the world, and decided to read his book as a starting point. I'm glad I did.

Freedom Fighter takes readers on Majed's journey from being persecuted for converting to Christianity from Islam while living in Egypt, to where he is now, acting and speaking up on behalf of persecuted individuals around the world through his non-profit organization One Free World International. (Www.onefreeworldinternational.org)

Focusing primarily on Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the book details disturbing accounts of religious persecution and murder of people of all faiths. In light of recent terror attacks around the world which specifically targeted Christians and non-Muslims, as seen in Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Iraq, the intense and sobering content of the book is highly relevant and worthy of careful review.

Majed is a gifted writer, providing strong, clear arguments for his policy proposals. Critically he has crafted his book in an accessible and logical manner. On issues that often seem to only affect people "over there", somewhere in the Middle East, Majed has managed to bring the violent problem of religious persecution right home to the reader.

Anyone interested in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the issues of religious persecution and religious freedom would do well to pick up Freedom Fighter.

R.O.

After Kenya, no more turning the other cheek to those who hate us

Profound, overdue unspoken truths for our post-modern, politically correct naive chattering class. It is time to confront radical Islamism for what it is: a crime against humanity. - R.O.

After Kenya, no more turning the other cheek to those who hate us
The Telegraph - Sept. 23, 2013
By: Allison Pearson

Where is the Muslim condemnation of the Nairobi massacre by maniacs in the name of their religion?

Picture the scene if you can bear to. A bustling shopping precinct where a group of men, women and children are surrounded by armed men. As one of the terrorists moves among them, he demands that the person quailing in front of him names the mother of Jesus or recites the Lord’s Prayer. “Our Father which art in Heaven,” says one woman. She is spared. Her neighbour, a Muslim boy, racks his brain for any line of the Bible, anything he has heard in school or on TV. But it’s too late. The boy is shot through the head; put to death for not being Christian.

Imagine the uproar if that ethnic and religious cleansing had taken place this week. Picture the hollering human-rights activists, the emergency session at the United Nations, the promise of action against the perpetrators who had singled out non-Christians for execution.

Yet this is a hellish mirror image of what took place in the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi. Islamic fundamentalists murdered scores of innocent shoppers for failing to name the mother of the Prophet Mohammed or recite from the Koran – sufficient proof that they were despised “kafirs” or unbelievers.

Radio presenter Saadia Ahmed said she saw people say something in Arabic “and the gunmen let them go. A colleague of mine said he was Muslim and they let him go as well.” But she added: “I saw a lot of children and elderly people being shot dead. I don’t understand why you would shoot a five-year-old child.”

Roughly the same reason you would stroll down a street in Woolwich and behead a young squaddie wearing a Help for Heroes T-shirt – which is to say, no reason at all, unless blind ideological hatred counts as a reason.

“You’re a very bad man. Let us leave,” four-year-old Elliott Prior shouted at the gunman in Westgate mall who had just shot his mother, Amber, in the leg. The startled jihadist gave Elliott and his six-year-old sister, Amelie, a Mars bar and allowed mother and children to go after urging Amber to convert to Islam. As if.

There is a photograph of Elliott and Amelie standing next to a dead body, still clutching their unopened Mars bar. The children’s eyes are brimming with what they have seen, and can never un-see. Amid the carnage and inhumanity, an off-duty SAS man went back 12 times into the mall and was said to have personally rescued a hundred people. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil.

We have grown squeamish about using the word evil. We feel it’s a little black and white, a bit too judgmental for modern tastes; but what other description will do for the slaughter of Australian architect Ross Langdon and his partner, Elif Yavuz, a vaccine researcher? The couple was shopping for clothes for their first baby, who was due in a fortnight. The two humanitarians died with their arms around each other and the child they would never meet.

All of this may sound as if it’s taking place at a safe distance. In fact, it’s perilously close and could be coming to a mall near you. There are reports that British-born Somalians were among the gunmen and that Samantha Lewthwaite, aka the White Widow, was leading the attack.

Lewthwaite, who is already wanted for terrorist offences in Kenya, was married to Germaine Lindsay, the July 7 London bomber. She said her husband’s mind had been “poisoned by radicals”. A nervous Britain, bending over backwards to soothe Muslim fears in the wake of the attacks, actually gave Samantha Lewthwaite police protection before she did a runner on a false passport. All the while, it was us who needed protecting from her.

Because the killing of Christians and other “kafirs” took place in a shopping mall and because some of the victims were white, the Nairobi story has dominated the headlines. Another massacre in Pakistan on Sunday barely registered. Some 350 worshippers at All Saints in Peshawar were laying on a free lunch for the needy when two suicide bombers killed 80 people. The attack is part of a savage pattern of assaults on Christians, from Iraq to Egypt.

Why the embarrassed silence when it comes to Islamist persecution of Christians? In Pakistan, a bishop called John Joseph committed suicide in protest at the execution of a Christian man on “blasphemy” charges introduced by fundamentalists. In Germany this week, a Green Party MP of Turkish origin received death threats after urging her Muslim sisters to take off their headscarves and live like Germans.

Here in the UK, we tolerate the increasingly intolerant. It was revealed a few days ago that non-Muslim members of staff at the Al-Madinah School in Derbyshire had to sign contracts agreeing to wear the hijab and make girls sit at the back of the class while boys sat at the front.

Jesus wept. And so should we, quite frankly. Mohammed Shafiq, head of the Muslim Ramadan Foundation, condemned calls to ban the burka, but where is his denunciation of the Nairobi massacre? Where are the voices from Britain’s Somali community condemning the murder of innocents by maniacs acting in the name of their religion?

As a former Sunday schoolteacher, I sort of get the point of turning the other cheek. But, really, enough is enough. Time for a crackdown on fundamentalism in all its poisonous guises. Time to stop appeasing those who hate us and our way of life. Time, in fact, for the clear-eyed moral judgment of a four-year-old child.

“You’re a very bad man,” said Elliott Prior to the jihadist. And he was, and they are.

Time to Define Islamism as a Crime Against Humanity

"Time to Define Islamism as a Crime Against Humanity" - Jerusalem Post
By: Seth J. Frantzman
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Terra-Incognita-Its-time-to-define-Islamism-as-a-crime-against-humanity-326888

The attacks at Nairobi, Kenya’s Westgate shopping mall follow a familiar pattern to other attacks that occurred in the last few days: in Pakistan, where 81 were killed in the bombing of a church, and in Nigeria where 159 people were slaughtered by Islamists near Maiduguri.

The media and political reactions also follow a neatly crafted script we have all become accustomed to.

First Islamist terrorists attack civilians, attempting to sort out the Muslims from the non-Muslims so as to kill only one group. There are the condemnations of “senseless acts of violence” and appeals for “calm and unity.” Then all is forgotten.Those terrorists captured alive will be put on trial and perhaps executed. And life goes back to normal with the refrain, “terrorism will not prevail.”

The problem is that this script misses a central facet of Islamist terrorism: We must stop treating it as a simple isolated crime; even the word “terrorism” has begun to downplay its actual horror; rather it must be defined as a worldwide crime against humanity.

When the al-Shabaab attack began in Kenya, witnesses related that Muslims were permitted to leave. “They came and said: ‘If you are Muslim, stand up. We’ve come to rescue you,’” Elijah Lamau told the BBC.The Muslims put their hands up and walked past the gunmen. “One man with a Christian first name but a Muslim-sounding surname managed to escape the attackers by putting his thumb over his first name on his ID.

However an Indian man standing next to him who was asked for the name of the Prophet Muhammad’s mother was shot dead when he was unable to answer.”Similarly, in 2004, 17 al-Qaida terrorists attacked the Oasis compound housing oilcompany employees in Khobar, Saudi Arabia.Upon entering the compound, the terrorists waylaid the first Arab looking man they saw and said: “Are you Muslim or Christian? We don’t want to kill Muslims.Show us where the Americans and Westerners live.”

The killers then came upon a US citizen from Iraq named Abu Hashem. He later told reporters that the attackers were polite; “They gave me a lecture on Islam and said they were defending their country and ridding it of infidels.” “Don’t be afraid,” they told him, “we won’t kill Muslims, even if you are an American.”The murderers then proceeded to hunt down non-Muslims from the US, South Africa, Sri Lanka, India, the Philippines, Egypt and Sweden.

After a 24-hour siege, 22 of the residents were murdered and many others wounded. In another instance, on November 27, 2008, in the midst of the Mumbai terror attacks, the perpetrators received a call from their Pakistan-based masters, asking, “How many hostages do you have?” The terrorist responded that they had killed a Belgian hostage but had others.“I hope there is no Muslim among them.”“No, none,” replied the killer.

Later the Pakistani handlers called the terrorists at the Oberoi Trident Hotel and spoke to those located on the 10th floor. The intercepted conversation goes as follows: “Kill all the hostages, except the two Muslims, keep your phone switched on so we can hear the gunfire.”They reply, “We have three foreigners, including women from Singapore and China.”Then the terrorist can be heard telling the hostages to line up, asking the two Muslims to stand to one side. Gunfire reverberates, followed by cheering from the terrorists.

It is interesting how quickly reports of these attacks downplay the guilt of the attackers and filter references to the focus on non-Muslims and the allowing some Muslims to escape the carnage. In November 2009 Fareed Zakaria at CNN did a special on the Mumbai transcripts. Zakaria claims the men were sent from Pakistan with “instructions simply to kill.”

After playing one clip in which any reference to letting Muslims live is absent, he notes that “they were told to go to Mumbai and kill as many people as they could.” Actually they were told to go to Mumbai to kill non-Muslims.

Zakaria emphasizes that the terrorists were poverty-stricken children. “These are peasant boys,” he says. To his credit, he does play a transcript from the terrorist attack at Nariman house, where the Chabad center was targeted. The CNN host mentions the “animus against Jews” but then claims, “in the ’60s and ’70s most Indian Muslims would not even know where Palestine was.” He compares the actions of the terrorists to “brainwashing... it’s sort of the Manchurian Candidate writ large.”

Later in the program the presenter again attempts to emphasize how young the terrorists were “these are peasant boys... these kids seem like teenagers... it [their action] seems almost mercenary.”Note how often Zakaria stresses that these were “boys” – he calls them “boys” twice, “kids” twice and “teenagers” once. The only terrorist captured alive, Ajmal Kasab, was 21 at the time of the attacks.The oldest attacker, Nasir Abu Umar, was 28, while the youngest was 20.

Why the conscious effort to redefine these men as children? Why the conscious decision not to include the part of the transcript including the instructions not to kill Muslims, and to paint the attack as indiscriminate? The real story was that these men set out to kill as many non-Muslims as possible.

The media seeks to hide this facet to foster the narrative of “unity,” yet presenting Muslims and non-Muslims as the victims of terror obscures the genocidal nature of the crime.

When the radical, right wing Golden Dawn party gained popularity last year, the media highlighted the “antiimmigrant violence” it was involved in.There was no downplaying the members as “peasant boys” or obscuring of who the violence was directed at.

These three examples – Mumbai, Khobar and Nairobi – are only the tip of the iceberg. From southern Thailand, to Mindanao in the Philippines, to Syria and beyond, the Islamist or jihadist mentality leads to the mass killing of either non- Muslims, or sometimes to the sectarian slaughter of Muslims, usually Shi’ites.Hundreds of Shi’ites are massacred every year in Pakistan by the Taliban, for instance.

In many cases the terrorists separate Shi’ites from non-Shi’ites, usually identifying them by their first names. For instance, on August 17, 2012, it was reported that “gunmen wearing army uniforms checked the identification cards of the passengers, lined up the Shi’ite passengers on the roadside, tied their hands and then opened fire on them.”

Sound familiar? Many over the years have identified Islamism as “Islamo-fascism” and argued that it champions a form of genocide. But it has not sunk in. We don’t prosecute terrorists as war criminals committing crimes against humanity. Instead, we often obfuscate the nature of terrorist attacks, pretending that terrorists are “misguided youth” who “set out to kill as many as possible.”

The genocidal nature of this type of terror is downplayed. The New York Times described the Nairobi perpetrators as “Shabaab militant attackers.” Really? When they killed 78-year-old Ghanian poet Kofi Awooner and Kenyan radio host Ruhila Adatia-Sood, was that part of a “military” operation? The scenes of piles of dead women sprawled on the floor of the mall; is that “militant?”

In a Times article on the anniversary of the Ku Klux Klan bombing of a church in 1963 the perpetrators are not called “militants.” Yet the objectives and methods of the KKK were no different than the Shabaab or Taliban: the killing of specific groups. No one pretends the KKK “set out to kill indiscriminately.”

The KKK is estimated to have killed 4,743 people between 1882 and 1968. The number of primarily sectariantargeted killings in Iraq in 2012 was 4,574.That’s just Iraq.Adding up the number of victims from attacks patterned along the lines of the one carried out in Kenya, or the ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims in places such as Egypt and Northern Nigeria, would bring the number up to tens of thousands in the past decade – millions in the past century.

This is a “soft” genocide, embodied by the firebombing of a church in Egypt or the shooting of Alawite truck drivers in Syria.It is time to stop hiding what connects Mumbai to Westgate and Khobar. It is a worldwide campaign of ethnic cleansing and murder, and the world community must define this as a crime against humanity and not just as “terrorism."

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.

How US Actions are Seen in the Middle East

Top notch, albeit unfortunately true, commentary. Worthy read. - R.O.

How US Actions are Seen in the Middle East - Gatestone Institute
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3965/syria-us-actions

Did Vladimir Putin Bait a Trap for the United States in Damascus?

Utterly fascinating proposition. A must read.
 
Did Vladimir Putin Bait a Trap for the United States in Damascus? - Tablet Magazine
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/143492/samuels-syria-vladimir-putin

"By showing that Obama’s America is unable and unwilling to keep its promises, Putin has widened the leadership void in the Middle East—as a prelude to filling it himself. By helping to clear Iran’s path to a bomb, Putin positions himself as Iran’s most powerful ally—while paradoxically gaining greater leverage with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States, who would much rather negotiate with Russia than with Iran, their sworn enemy."
 
Is Putin really that crafty? Hard to say. But I wouldn't put it past the Russian president. Putin has shown his willingness to stick it to Obama on numerous occasions. - R.O.

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.

Ontario Throws a Bucket of Cold Water on Iran

By Avi Benlolo
President and CEO, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre   
August 2, 2013
 
This week marked an important turning point in Ontario's awareness of determined and well-funded efforts to undermine the values and conceptual underpinnings of Canadian society by groups hoping to import a toxic and foreign ideology to our nation.
 
Nowhere was this effort more evident than the staging of the 'Al Quds Day' rally, held for the past two years on the grounds of Queen's Park. Al Quds Day was proclaimed on the last Friday of the month of Ramadan in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran to spread the demonization of western values of freedom and democracy around the world.
 
In past rallies, participants carried Hezbollah flags, flaunted pictures of despotic Iranian leaders and promoted anti-Semitism by referring to Israel as a "cancer." Chants of "Death to Israel and Death to America" are typical features of Al Quds celebrations. Irans's new "moderate" president-elect, Hasan Rouhani, today re-iterated the same genocidal phrases as his predecessor when he noted, "the Zionist regime has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed."
 
Hundreds of protesters had planned to gather this Saturday on the grounds of the Ontario legislature, the heart of our provincial democracy, to support a regime that stones women to death, hangs homosexuals, funds the ongoing slaughter of thousands of Syrian civilians and exports terror around the world. From failed terror plots in such disparate locations as Azerbaijan, Thailand and Cyprus, to tragically successful bombings which killed and maimed scores of innocent people in countries including Bulgaria and Argentina, Iran is working to further its influence and ideology through terror. Chillingly, it is gaining support for these goals through Al Quds Day rallies, now held annually around the globe.
 
It is not only Jewish communities and Israelis - threatened repeatedly with annihilation by Iran, who are alarmed by the subversion of our democracy and the staging of this annual pro-Shariah rally. A large percentage of the ex-patriot Persian community, - men and women who escaped the atrocities of the Iranian government and now find themselves battling the same hatred and intolerance they sought to escape, are similarly troubled.
 
I have always believed it is morally wrong to sanction a rally in support of a demagogue and an ideology that is diametrically at odds with the basic Canadian values of freedom and democracy. Ontario is a free society, and its citizens have a right to march, to speak, and to protest freely. However, supporters of a genocidal regime which aims to fundamentally reshape western democracies by exporting the values of Shariah law should not and do not have to receive the blessing of the state to exercise this right. The fundamental values cherished by all Canadians must not be discarded so cavalierly with the acquiescence of our government and the permission of our laws.
 
Ironically, it is this very same right to freedom of speech which is denied to millions of Iranian men and women persecuted by their own government; it is the right to think and speak freely which led so many Iranians to come to Canada, and the fear of losing these precious rights through the negligent support of this rally, and all it stands for, which causes such great alarm.
 
In the words of Marina Nemat, an Iranian-Canadian author who has written and spoken extensively about her imprisonment and torture in Iran's Evin prison by the Khomeini regime at the age of 16, "Freedom is like water in the palms of your hands; take your eyes off it, even for a little while, and it drips through your fingers, leaving nothing but thirst."
 
And so it was a welcome surprise to learn that Ontario's Sergeant-at-Arms has refused permission for organizers to hold the Al Quds day rally tomorrow. It seems discussions I had last year with the Sergeant-at-Arms, as well as meetings he held with other leaders in both the Jewish and Iranian communities, have forced government officials to pay attention to this treasonous event happening in their own front yard.
 
As the Iranian foreign ministry condemns the fledgling peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, and alarm grows in Washington about the increasing influence of Iran in Latin American countries such as Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, I am proud to see that our government, and the individuals elected to protect the fundamental and indispensable principles upon which our province and our nation are based, finally have their eyes on a truly essential matter.
  
CLICK HERE to read FSWC's letter to the Ontario Speaker of the House re the Al Quds Day Rally

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