In light of all the bluster about a potential war between North Korea and the United States, my latest article was just published in The Huffington Post and assesses this very topic: "Insanity Is North Korea Threatening A War It Would Instantly Lose"
Thanks for reading. - R.O.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/robert-d-onley/insanity-is-north-korea-threatening-a-war-it-would-instantly-lose_a_23223356/
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Saturday, January 17, 2015
The Islamic State's Third Target - An Interview with Joel C. Rosenberg
This week I was honoured to interview New York Times bestselling author Joel C. Rosenberg about his new novel, The Third Target. As a longtime fan and follower of Rosenberg's work, I was intrigued at the opportunity to speak with him again, following my first interview with him back in June 2010 in an article later published in the Jerusalem Post.
Below is my latest interview with Rosenberg, published today in the Times of Israel. Read it here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-islamic-states-third-target/
The Islamic State's Third Target
By: Robert D. Onley - Times of Israel - January 17, 2015
Below is my latest interview with Rosenberg, published today in the Times of Israel. Read it here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-islamic-states-third-target/
The Islamic State's Third Target
By: Robert D. Onley - Times of Israel - January 17, 2015
With reports indicating that Islamic State militants are managing to gain territory in Iraq and Syria in spite of US and coalition air strikes, the world is witnessing a nightmare scenario unfold across the Middle East: what if the Islamic State simply cannot be stopped?
In New York Times bestselling author Joel C. Rosenberg’s latest novel, The Third Target, this troubling question is examined in serious, careful detail. Known for eerily prescient political thrillers whose plots accurately predicted hijacked airliners attacking the United States, the Iraq War, and the death of Yasser Arafat (among other major geopolitical events), Rosenberg and his books rocketed in popularity over the last fifteen years.
The Third Target
After writing extensively about radical Islam in both fiction and nonfiction, from Sunni jihadists with AK’s to Shia theocrats pursuing nuclear weapons, last year Rosenberg set out to examine whether a terror threat existed that he was not yet aware of, but ought to be.
Helping his investigative efforts, Rosenberg is a former advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu with an extensive network of friends and officials whom he tapped to explore the question above. In researching The Third Target, Rosenberg met with two former heads of the CIA, R. James Woolsey and Porter Goss, and the former head of the Mossad, Danny Yatom, among many other intelligence officials. Months before the Islamic State, or ISIL, burst onto the international scene, the answers Rosenberg heard separately from these intelligence chiefs were both unanimous and chilling.
“They each were concerned that Al-Qaeda in Iraq was morphing into something new, something more dangerous,” Rosenberg says. In early 2014, while President Obama went on the record claiming that ISIL was merely a “jayvee team” and hardly worth worrying about, Rosenberg stated, “These officials warned me that what kept them up at night was the rise of this Al-Qaeda offshoot, ISIL, and the reality that an Islamist-led overthrow of Jordan was a genuine worst-case scenario and a possibility.”
Rosenberg meeting with Jordan’s Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour in Amman as part of the research for “The Third Target.”
These foreboding comments prompted Rosenberg to dig further. After more meetings in Washington, he traveled to Jordan, meeting with Jordan’s Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour, Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, and Interior Minister Hussein Al-Majali to discuss regional threats. Mentioning potential plot ideas, including a chemical attack and the risk of an overthrow, Al-Majali responded to Rosenberg, “the King has appointed me to make sure the scenario that you are writing about will never happen in our country. But it is a plausible scenario, and that is the problem.”
“What if ISIL tries to set into motion attacks on a number of targets – and what if one of those targets was Jordan, Israel, or the United States?”
After digesting countless intensive interviews with Western and Middle Eastern officials, Rosenberg sat down to write The Third Target, which, soon after the first draft was finished and in light of ISIL’s rapid rise across the Middle East, had its release date pushed up by three months. Published early on January 6th of this year, The Third Target imagines a scenario in which ISIL captures a cache of chemical weapons in Syria, and threatens to deploy them against an unknown city. Rosenberg says,“The question I wanted to ask in this book was, what if ISIL tries to set into motion attacks on a number of targets – and what if one of those targets was Jordan, Israel, or the United States?”
As if the plot was ripped from the headlines and bringing the pages of The Third Target alive, Jordan’s King Abdullah recently stated publicly on CBS News that the battle against ISIL, is, in effect, “our generation’s Third World War.” But in order to stop ISIL and thwart any attempt to attack Jordan, Rosenberg believes that President Obama and the leaders of NATO must view ISIL as “such a significant threat to national security” that the US takes “decisive military action, with no more half measures.”
Rosenberg cites a long-list of realistic military actions that the US is not currently conducting to help destroy ISIL, including not allowing U.S. Special Forces on the ground to provide precise targeting for air strikes, and not permitting 24/7, 7-day a week airlifts of supplies to Kurdish troops fighting in northern Iraq, “even though the Kurds are the most aggressive fighters and the most immediately endangered by ISIL.”
Critiquing the Obama Administration, Rosenberg pulls no punches, saying of Obama’s half-hearted campaign against ISIL that, “This is not working. This is not decisive action. This is foreign policy by press release.” Arguably Obama’s failure to act decisively also lends credibility to the terrifying potential for the ISIL-led chemical weapons attack that is envisioned in The Third Target.
“Obama is also missing the greatest strategic alliance against radical Islam in history.”
But beyond the US not showing up in Paris to show solidarity following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Rosenberg notes that, “Obama is also missing the greatest strategic alliance against radical Islam in history.” Rosenberg believes three men emerging who are the “Winston Churchill’s of our time, and none of them are in London, Paris or Washington. They are all in the Middle East.”
Rosenberg lists Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, and Egypt’s President el-Sisi, as the only global leaders who truly see the existential threat posed to them and to their people by two different, but equally radical Islamic forces: the Shia radicals in Iran, and the Sunni radicals of ISIL. “President el-Sisi and King Abdullah have no qualms calling this a battle against radical Islam,” Rosenberg pointed out, “while President Obama and his Press Secretary refuse to use the term ‘radical Islam’ for fear of being ‘offensive.’” The difference in mentality could not be more stark.
Not only is Jordan committed to fighting radical Islam militarily, Rosenberg says King Abdullah II and his team are also committed to deconstructing radical Islam theologically, stating, “I sat with the King’s men, who explained how they are rallying support among hundreds of Islamic scholars all across the Middle East and the world to explain their version of moderate Islam, and to deconstruct what they call takfiri Islam, which is what the radicals believe.”
“President el-Sisi told the imams that they “must revolutionize and reform modern Islam”, with Rosenberg adding, “Sisi did so at a real risk to his own life in Egypt.”
Rosenberg further cited Egyptian President el-Sisi’s recent speech to Muslim clerics on New Years Day, where el-Sisi told the imams that they “must revolutionize and reform modern Islam,” with Rosenberg adding, “Sisi did so at a real risk to his own life in Egypt.” Netanyahu similarly has spoken out against the threat of radical Islam on numerous occasions. All the while, Rosenberg says, “These are allies at risk, and Obama simply won’t help these men win the battle.”
As ISIL marches, the regular stream of their grotesque snuff films continues to inundate the mainstream news. On the surface, the incomprehensibly evil actions of ISIL seem to be the product of mass delusional hysteria – violence for the sake of violence. But Rosenberg hints at a deeper motive for ISIL and their ilk, one grounded in a strict interpretation of the Quran and hadiths.
“Both the radical Sunnis and Shias have an eschatology – or End Times belief system – that talks about establishing the Islamic Kingdom or Caliphate: the radical Shias are waiting for their Messiah while they build nuclear weapons, before picking an apocalyptic fight with the West or another nation in the region,” Rosenberg explains.
“ISIL…[is] building the Caliphate now, desperately trying to usher in End of Days by killing and enslaving those caught up in their apocalyptic, genocidal vision.”
However Rosenberg contrasts this belief with those of radical Sunnis, such as ISIL, who he says have decided not to wait: they are building the Caliphate now, “desperately trying to usher in End of Days by killing and enslaving those caught up in their apocalyptic, genocidal vision. I spoke to one Pastor in Iraq, who said to me: ‘Joel, this is demonic. When ISIL chops off someone’s head, this is not just terrorizing – these are blood sacrifices to the Islamic State’s ‘God’.’ These are the genocidal conditions emerging in Iraq and Syria.”
In writing The Third Target, Rosenberg hopes to bring readers into the ‘living room’ of the savage, barbaric mindset of ISIL, to help people see how urgent the threat is, and explore why we must act decisively to crush it, “When I started to write this book, I was thinking that the threat was 4 to 5 years away. It moved much faster than I expected.”
Underscoring the intensity of Joel Rosenberg as an author and advocate, and emphasizing his passion when speaking out about these issues, Rosenberg and his family recently made Aliyah to Israel after living their entire lives in the United States. As an evangelical Christian with a Jewish father, Rosenberg says that he wants to use his novels “to inform people in the West, generally, and Christians in particular, that now is the time to stand with Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and all people of good will who will fight against radical Islam.”
He says that he is honoured to stand with Israel in this fight, and notes that in due time his sons will be drafted to serve to protect Israel, “I believe that there is a great movement of Christians around the world who love Israel, who are standing with the Jewish People, and that my role and contribution to Israeli society is trying to educate and mobilize that Christian support for Israel, especially at this time, when the battle against radical Islam is so urgent.” The Third Target is his latest salvo in that fight.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
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"
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.
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,
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
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. |
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
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Fortress Israel: Interview with Mark Regev, international spokesman for Prime Minister of Israel
By: Robert D. Onley, J.D.
July 2013
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
© The World Assessor, 2013
By: Robert D. Onley - robert@robertonley.com
Monday, June 17, 2013
The Future of Global Diplomacy
Here is my latest op-ed, "The Future of Global Diplomacy", published today by the Canadian International Council at the opening of the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland. I discuss the Y8 and Y20 Summits which also open this week and next, which bring together the leading graduate and young professional minds from around the world, for a week-long series of negotiations amongst the global youth. Check it out below. - R.O.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Future of Global Diplomacy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Future of Global Diplomacy
Robert Onley | June 17, 2013
The leaders of the G8 are convening in Northern Ireland for the 39th G8 Summit. The backdrop for this two-day meeting of the globe’s preeminent economic powers is a world facing multiple global crises, all of which demand that summit participants engage in constructive dialogue that leads to measurable progress. Despite that need, the annual G8 Summits are known more for eliciting empty political promises and saddling host cities with exorbitant costs.
In 2013, this geopolitical lip service simply will not cut it, as the world leaders of tomorrow are demanding results.
The baby boomer generation presidents and prime ministers at the G8 Summit are facing increasingly frustrated populations. With economic instability entrenching in the West, a still teetering world financial order, and escalating tensions in the Middle East, an entire generation of young people is growing up without opportunity, and with few prospects for change. But persistent unemployment, declining standards in health care and education, and environmental degradation are also driving growing numbers of young people to demand sophisticated and coordinated global action.
From this mess, two significant questions arise: are the boomer generation leaders simply incapable of consensus-driven international cooperation, one that sets aside national interests for the collective good of humanity? And if this is the case, are tomorrow’s Facebook generation leaders damned to inherit the quagmire of their political predecessors?
These are the serious, credible questions that today’s brightest 20-something leaders have asked themselves, and which they have actively set out to answer together through their own international diplomacy at the 2013 Y8 and Y20 Summits being held in London, UK (June 24-28) and St. Petersburg, Russia (June 18-20), respectively.
These are not mere “Model U.N.” simulations: the Y8 and Y20 Summits are the world’s premier youth assemblies, bringing together graduate students and young professionals from across the G20 for a week of intensive negotiations, dialogue, and bargaining. Whether or not any of the delegates at the Y8 and Y20 Summits end up in a prominent political office, these young minds have already created space for meaningful change, via the creation of a global network that has the potential to fundamentally reshape the dynamics of international diplomacy and global governance for decades to come.
Unlike their boomer political forebears, the leaders of the Facebook generation are “digital natives”, accustomed to instantaneous communication, and constant updates on the personal, political, and career decisions of their peers. Every day, they exploit social networks to grow and sustain an online community comprised of the most engaged and committed student leaders from across the G20. These new generation leaders are utilizing all available tools and innovations to exchange ideas, think critically and solve problems together, well before entering into positions of power. The Youth Summits are simply the annual physical manifestation of the dynamic online relationships among future leaders.
This year marks the 7th anniversary of the Youth (“Y”) Summits, which are formally sponsored by the presidents and prime ministers of the actual G8 and G20. The 2013 Y8 Summit in London has been organized by the UK-based International Diplomatic Engagement Association (The IDEA), a global network composed of ascending young leaders from all different cultural backgrounds. The 2013 Y20 Summit in Russia is the official G20 youth event, held under the Russian G20 Presidency alongside with G20 Leaders’ Summit.
Critically, young Canadian leaders have been a part of this global youth diplomatic network since its inception in 2006. The IDEA’s Canadian partner is YouthCan for International Dialogue (YFID), a federal non-profit, non-partisan, youth-led think tank responsible for recruiting and selecting Canada’s delegates at the Y8 and Y20. YFID seeks to engage Canadian young leaders in diplomacy and meaningful dialogue at an international level, through access to hands-on global initiatives and diplomacy. YFID targets Canadian undergraduate and graduate students, as well as young professionals from all disciplines, focusing on highly accomplished academic and intellectual leaders with experience in negotiation, debate, and advocacy.
Delegates are selected by YFID for portfolio positions that replicate their real-life national counterparts, be it the Prime Minister, or Ministers of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Environment and Health. In the months and weeks leading up to the Summits, delegates from around the globe utilize social networking tools like Facebook, LinkedIn, Google Docs, and Podio to debate and determine their agenda topics for the actual negotiations. The Y8 and Y20 Summits are unique in that delegates are given the freedom to approach global issues using any theory, opinion, or proposal available. The goal of the Youth Summits is not to mimic each nation’s standing policies, but rather to capture the spirit, ideas, and consensus of the globe’s next generation of leaders.
The catch is that all proposals must be achievable (no utopian idealism allowed), tangible (results-based), and more importantly, must be simultaneously agreed to by the rest of the Y8 or Y20 delegates. While skeptics may assume that the end result of these negotiations is series of far-flung “save-the-world” panaceas, past Youth Summits have shown that the negotiations produce hard-fought, comprehensive, genuine solutions to complex world problems.
The final byproduct of a week-long series of negotiations is the Final Communiqué, which is presented to the national president or prime Minister of the respective G8 and G20 (Read the 2011, 2012 communiqués). However, in many respects, more important than this policy paper is the creation of a lasting social and digital network of aspiring young leaders – one that grows in number and depth with each passing Youth Summit. Many youth delegates, like their real-life counter-parts, return year to year, cementing personal relationships with friends and national rivals alike. Empowering all of this, of course, are online social networks.
In recent years the world witnessed the power of these networks to organize protests, spread political messages, and even help topple governments and national leaders. Today, social media is often idolized as a force equalizer, empowering the “people” vis a vis their elected or non-elected “leaders”.
Less well understood is how online social networks may come to impact decision-making processes at the global level: will they change how individual leaders conceive of and approach problems, and the tools they choose to use to deploy? Social networks have yet to positively change how the boomer generation does business, however, as the Y8 and Y20 Summits demonstrate, the next generation of leadership will be composed of twenty-somethings who recognize the power of online relationships in navigating geopolitics, and collaborate in finding solutions to global crises.
Our current leaders are faltering, but there is no small measure of comfort to be found in the skills, determination, and connections among those who will follow them.
You can follow YFID during the Summits at: @YFIDCanada and Facebook.com/CanadaYFID
 |
| Reuters |
In 2013, this geopolitical lip service simply will not cut it, as the world leaders of tomorrow are demanding results.
The baby boomer generation presidents and prime ministers at the G8 Summit are facing increasingly frustrated populations. With economic instability entrenching in the West, a still teetering world financial order, and escalating tensions in the Middle East, an entire generation of young people is growing up without opportunity, and with few prospects for change. But persistent unemployment, declining standards in health care and education, and environmental degradation are also driving growing numbers of young people to demand sophisticated and coordinated global action.
From this mess, two significant questions arise: are the boomer generation leaders simply incapable of consensus-driven international cooperation, one that sets aside national interests for the collective good of humanity? And if this is the case, are tomorrow’s Facebook generation leaders damned to inherit the quagmire of their political predecessors?
These are the serious, credible questions that today’s brightest 20-something leaders have asked themselves, and which they have actively set out to answer together through their own international diplomacy at the 2013 Y8 and Y20 Summits being held in London, UK (June 24-28) and St. Petersburg, Russia (June 18-20), respectively.
These are not mere “Model U.N.” simulations: the Y8 and Y20 Summits are the world’s premier youth assemblies, bringing together graduate students and young professionals from across the G20 for a week of intensive negotiations, dialogue, and bargaining. Whether or not any of the delegates at the Y8 and Y20 Summits end up in a prominent political office, these young minds have already created space for meaningful change, via the creation of a global network that has the potential to fundamentally reshape the dynamics of international diplomacy and global governance for decades to come.
Unlike their boomer political forebears, the leaders of the Facebook generation are “digital natives”, accustomed to instantaneous communication, and constant updates on the personal, political, and career decisions of their peers. Every day, they exploit social networks to grow and sustain an online community comprised of the most engaged and committed student leaders from across the G20. These new generation leaders are utilizing all available tools and innovations to exchange ideas, think critically and solve problems together, well before entering into positions of power. The Youth Summits are simply the annual physical manifestation of the dynamic online relationships among future leaders.
This year marks the 7th anniversary of the Youth (“Y”) Summits, which are formally sponsored by the presidents and prime ministers of the actual G8 and G20. The 2013 Y8 Summit in London has been organized by the UK-based International Diplomatic Engagement Association (The IDEA), a global network composed of ascending young leaders from all different cultural backgrounds. The 2013 Y20 Summit in Russia is the official G20 youth event, held under the Russian G20 Presidency alongside with G20 Leaders’ Summit.
Critically, young Canadian leaders have been a part of this global youth diplomatic network since its inception in 2006. The IDEA’s Canadian partner is YouthCan for International Dialogue (YFID), a federal non-profit, non-partisan, youth-led think tank responsible for recruiting and selecting Canada’s delegates at the Y8 and Y20. YFID seeks to engage Canadian young leaders in diplomacy and meaningful dialogue at an international level, through access to hands-on global initiatives and diplomacy. YFID targets Canadian undergraduate and graduate students, as well as young professionals from all disciplines, focusing on highly accomplished academic and intellectual leaders with experience in negotiation, debate, and advocacy.
Delegates are selected by YFID for portfolio positions that replicate their real-life national counterparts, be it the Prime Minister, or Ministers of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Environment and Health. In the months and weeks leading up to the Summits, delegates from around the globe utilize social networking tools like Facebook, LinkedIn, Google Docs, and Podio to debate and determine their agenda topics for the actual negotiations. The Y8 and Y20 Summits are unique in that delegates are given the freedom to approach global issues using any theory, opinion, or proposal available. The goal of the Youth Summits is not to mimic each nation’s standing policies, but rather to capture the spirit, ideas, and consensus of the globe’s next generation of leaders.
The catch is that all proposals must be achievable (no utopian idealism allowed), tangible (results-based), and more importantly, must be simultaneously agreed to by the rest of the Y8 or Y20 delegates. While skeptics may assume that the end result of these negotiations is series of far-flung “save-the-world” panaceas, past Youth Summits have shown that the negotiations produce hard-fought, comprehensive, genuine solutions to complex world problems.
The final byproduct of a week-long series of negotiations is the Final Communiqué, which is presented to the national president or prime Minister of the respective G8 and G20 (Read the 2011, 2012 communiqués). However, in many respects, more important than this policy paper is the creation of a lasting social and digital network of aspiring young leaders – one that grows in number and depth with each passing Youth Summit. Many youth delegates, like their real-life counter-parts, return year to year, cementing personal relationships with friends and national rivals alike. Empowering all of this, of course, are online social networks.
In recent years the world witnessed the power of these networks to organize protests, spread political messages, and even help topple governments and national leaders. Today, social media is often idolized as a force equalizer, empowering the “people” vis a vis their elected or non-elected “leaders”.
Less well understood is how online social networks may come to impact decision-making processes at the global level: will they change how individual leaders conceive of and approach problems, and the tools they choose to use to deploy? Social networks have yet to positively change how the boomer generation does business, however, as the Y8 and Y20 Summits demonstrate, the next generation of leadership will be composed of twenty-somethings who recognize the power of online relationships in navigating geopolitics, and collaborate in finding solutions to global crises.
Our current leaders are faltering, but there is no small measure of comfort to be found in the skills, determination, and connections among those who will follow them.
You can follow YFID during the Summits at: @YFIDCanada and Facebook.com/CanadaYFID
Monday, May 20, 2013
Russia's Brinkmanship with US Clashes with Israel's Security
A brief summary of Russia's recent foreign policy moves and how they impact Israel. Does Russia think there won't be consequences for supporting terror states like Iran and Syria? -R.O.
Middle East and Terrorism: Russia's Brinkmanship with US Clashes with Israel's Security
by Yaakov Lappin
"Jerusalem will find Russia's delivery of the S-300 missile system to Syria to be an intolerable development; it is safe to assume that Israel will act to prevent this from happening."
Russia is aggressively squaring off with an indecisive and rather meek West about Syria, and in the process, is also threatening to undermine Israeli efforts to ensure that Iran and Syria do not ship strategic weapons to Hezbollah.
The Syrian civil war has become a dangerous and complex battle of multiple actors and their proxies: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Iran versus the Gulf states, Al-Qaeda versus Hezbollah, and on a global scale, the United States versus Russia.
Moscow is trying to deter a potential US or NATO-led initiative to set up a no-fly zone over areas of Syria, and is seeking to stop Western-led air strikes against chemical weapons sites.
Russia also seems concerned that recent air strikes in Damascus targeting Hezbollah-bound guided Iranian missiles -- strikes attributed by the foreign media to Israel -- will pave the way to such an intervention.
Israel has no interest in getting involved in the Syrian civil war. Rather, it is looking out for the safety of millions of citizens, who already live in the shadow of some 80,000 Hezbollah rockets, and would be threatened further by the transfer of precise, powerful missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
In recent days, Russia unleashed a flurry of moves to establish its support of Syria.
The Russian moves include: Declaring that it will proceed with deliveries of the advanced S-300 air defense system to Assad, mobilizing war ships to the eastern Mediterranean, and selling sophisticated surface-to-sea Yakhont missiles to Assad.
Moscow's recent maneuvers might be more bluster than real -- the S-300 has yet to be delivered, and Russia was in 2010 talked out of selling the formidable air defense system to Iran.
The threat, however, was serious enough for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to make an unscheduled trip last week to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin. The two later held a press conference, repeating their public positions, but it is doubtful that those statements were a complete reflection of their private exchange.
Israel is opposed to Assad receiving the S-300 missile for several reasons: With its sophisticated radars and range of 200 kilometers, the S-300 can hamper Israel Air Force aircraft seeking to monitor Hezbollah in Lebanon. The system can also disrupt future Israeli efforts to intercept the transit of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah through Syria. Finally, Assad can choose to smuggle S-300 batteries to Hezbollah or Iran.
Should the S-300 fall into Iranian hands, the future potential mission of launching a military strike on Iran's developing nuclear program would be more even more complex than it already is. Knowing that the S-300 was in Hezbollah's hands, and could target Israeli aircraft sent to stop it, would only boost the Shi'ite terror organization's confidence to launch cross-border attacks on Israel. For these reasons, Jerusalem will find Russia's delivery of such a system to Syria to be an intolerable development; it is safe to assume that Israel will act to prevent this from happening.
Similarly, the Russian Yakhont missiles already delivered to Syria threaten Israel Navy ships carrying out vital missions in the Mediterranean.
Behind closed-doors, intense diplomacy -- including the sudden visit by CIA Director John Brennan to Israel -- is underway to try and contain these developments, and prevent them from triggering further regional security deterioration.
Yaakov Lappin
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3722/russia-syria-israel
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)