John Kerry Agrees With Arik Sharon Regarding Israel's Survival

The existential problem that almost every Israeli prime minister, from Levi Eshkol in 1967 to Bibi Netanyahu today, understood and tried, each in their way to remedy, is rapidly reaching a critical stage. The problem - holding on to most of the West Bank will inevitably lead to a "one-state" result.  

 

At the recent prestigious 2015 Saban Forum US Secretary of State John Kerry said that a one-state solution would endanger Israel's security

 

Lamenting that "the level of distrust between them has never been more profound", Kerry urged leaders on both sides to return to the negotiating table.

 

And while he demanded that the Palestinian leadership must do more to prevent and combat anti-Israel violence, he was also careful to warn Israeli leaders not to advocate or allow the Palestinian Authority to disintegrate. If that were to happen, Kerry said, Israel would be forced to assume all governance in the West Bank and potentially accept a one-state solution that would compromise Israel's future as a democratic, Jewish state.

 

Without a two-state solution, Kerry said "Israel would be forced into an unsustainable position of perpetual occupation that would be rejected not least by the Palestinian but by most, if not all, of the international community. The one-state solution is no solution at all for a secure, Jewish, democratic Israel...it is simply not a viable option".

 

Put simply, a one-state-for-two-people means giving the Palestinians citizenship and equal rights. Within one or two election cycles they will have a majority in the Knesset and could democratically vote to change the country's name to "Palestine", change the national anthem to "Biladi, Biladi" and switch flags.

 

Since 1967, despite the initial emotional giddiness evoked by the capture from Jordan of the traditional Jewish heritage locations of Hebron, Bethlehem, Shechem, Samaria, Jericho, Shiloh, etc. during the Six Day War, every Israeli government understood this danger to the Jewish status of Israel and tried to give them back to Jordan, in exchange for peace, according to UN Security Council resolution 242. Jordan made peace with Israel but refused to take back the West Bank.

 

Successive Israeli governments have also restricted the establishment of Jewish communities to "consensus" areas totaling about 7% of the territory, which will permanently remain in Israel as part of any future arrangement. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, no new government- authorized Israeli communities ("settlements") have been built in the West Bank. All new construction has been limited to Oslo compliant expansion within the established parameters of pre-Oslo communities.

 

I don't always agree with the Secretary of State, but this time John Kerry got it right. He understands what then Prime Minister Arik Sharon did In September 2001, when he stated for the first time that Palestinians should have the right to establish their own land west of the Jordan River.

 

In 2003, Sharon endorsed the US, EU and Russia sponsored "Road Map for Peace", and announced his commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state in the future.

 

In 2005 he unilaterally and controversially withdrew from the Gaza Strip, while maintaining control of its coastline and airspace. He also started to plan a similar withdrawal with land swaps, from the West Bank.

 

While his plan was welcomed by more than 80% of Israeli voters as a solution to the "demographic bomb" of a one-state solution, it was greeted with strong opposition from within his own Likud party and other right wing Israelis, based on national security, military, and religious grounds.

 

On November 21, 2005, Sharon resigned as head of Likud, and formed a new centrist party called Kadima ("Forward"), with essentially one main policy plank: unilateral withdrawal from about 93% of the West Bank - with or without an agreement. This way Israel defines the borders and the security arrangements. He had already evacuated two West Bank settlements during the Gaza withdrawal.

 

Top politicians from both the left and the right supported Sharon's policy and joined Kadima, including Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert, Tzippi Livne, Shaul Mofaz and others.

 

Sharon's stroke in December 2005 changed everything, and though Kadima, led by Ehud Olmert, won a plurality of seats and formed the government after the following elections, the withdrawal never happened.

 

Numerous negotiations have been held, under American leadership between Israeli prime ministers and both Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen, but both Palestinian leaders absolutely refused to accept even Israel's most generous offers. They, like John Kerry and Bibi Netanyahu, know that there will never be a "negotiated" two-state resolution as long as:

1. The Palestinians continue to garner international sympathy and money via the "knife and car Intifada"
2. Their corrupt and ineffective money stealing leadership continues to take no responsibility because "Israel is 'occupying' the West Bank".
3. Their leadership incites them to "liberate" Palestine with knives and axes.

There is a growing consensus among Middle East experts and pundits that the only way to force them to finalize a negotiated two-state agreement is for Bibi to fulfill the promise of a permanent, democratic, powerful, Jewish-majority homeland in Israel.

 

He can do it by unilaterally, and on Israel's terms, withdrawing from most of the West Bank, with the IDF, and only the IDF, in charge of security...forever!

 

It will be gut-wrenching and painful, with a scar that will last for generations. But I prefer the pain, the scar and probably the occasional terrorism and war, if it avoids the one-state democratic destruction of Israel.

Understanding the Syrian Civil War

The Syrian civil war, now raging for over four years, is once again in the headlines after a Turkish F16 shot down a Russian SU24 that allegedly penetrated Turkish airspace during a bombing run against Sunni rebels in Syria.

From the queries I’m getting it’s clear that even people who follow the Middle East are finding it hard to make heads or tails about what the war is about, who is fighting whom…and to what end, which countries are supporting which combatants, and why are manned and unmanned American, Russian, French, Jordanian, Saudi, Emirati, Turkish and Israeli combat aircraft flying attack missions in Syria…all at the same time!

So to get things straight, here is my updated “Syrian War Lexicon”:

Syria:

• A country that never really existed throughout history.
• Gained independence from France 1941.
•  Doomed from the outset to be a failed “nation state” since its artificially drawn borders included people of different and hostile ethnic and religious backgrounds:

Sunnis (Arabs, Kurds) – 72%

Alawites (Shiites) – 12%

Christians – 10%

Druze – 6%

• France imposed democratic rule, under the Sunni majority, that ended in a coup in March 1949, followed by several more coups.
•  A 1966 coup removed the Sunni civilian leadership.  Alawite General Hafez al-Assad seized power and became Prime Minister.
• 1971, Assad declared himself President and head of the secular Baathist party.
• Since then, the Baathist party, dominated by members of the Alawite minority and headed by the president, has remained the only political authority in what is a single-party state. Syrian voters can only “approve” the president by referendum, but cannot vote in multi-party elections for the legislature.
• 2002 - Bashar al-Assad became President of Syria when his father died. He and Asma, his British-born Sunni Muslim wife, initially inspired hopes for democratic reforms. They never materialized.
• By 2011, there was a growing bitterness among the marginalized and disenfranchised Sunni majority population against the privileged and affluent Alawite (Shiite) dictatorship.

The Civil War

• Sparked in 2011, after 15 schoolchildren were arrested and tortured for writing anti-government graffiti on a wall. When the town’s leaders protested, the army opened fire, killing four. The next day the Alawite soldiers opened fire on the funerals.
• Unrest spread. At first the protesters, mostly Sunnis, just wanted democracy and greater freedom, but as government forces opened fire on more demonstrations, they demanded that President Bashar al-Assad, resign. He refused, thereby starting one of the most brutal civil wars in history, with fighters and countries from all over the world participating.
• To date over 250,000 people have been killed, over 9 million have been displaced inside Syria and at least 1 million have become refugees after crossing into Turkey, and Jordan.

Who’s who in the Syrian conflict:

Pro Assad:

•  Regime Forces – About 25% of the original Syrian Military. Mostly Alawites, Christians, Druze and volunteers.
• Iran – About 3,000 combatants and growing, including regular forces, Special Forces, Missile Command, artillery and extensive air and logistical support. Iran is determined to maintain control of its over 100,000 missiles and rockets currently deployed in Syria and Lebanon and aimed at Israel. They know that any Sunni rebel group that gets its hands on them will point them at Shiite Iran – the Sunnis arch enemy. 
• Russia – Full commitment to maintain Alawite control over their historical coastal homeland, where Russia has invested heavily in building a modern naval base in Tartus and an Airforce base in Latakia. Russia is currently focusing its attacks on preventing Sunni rebel forces – including those supported by the US, from getting near that area or threatening the regime.

Against Assad:

1.    Sunni Rebel Organizations: The main fighting forces attempting to overthrow Assad, kill and enslave the Allawites, destroy their homeland and establish Sunni majority rule. Not unified and often in conflict with each other, these include:

o   Jabhat al-Nusra – Al-Qaeda franchise at war with US and the West.

o   ISIS

o   Free Syrian Army (FSA)

o   Islamic Front

o   A number of smaller Sunni groups that are supported by:

2.    USA - Having learned nothing from the “unintended consequences” of the Arab Spring, the US administration is demanding the removal of the last anti-Muslim Brotherhood dictator in the region in favor of “democratic national elections”.  But with an overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslim citizens who support anti-American and anti-Israel Jihadist groups (like Al-Qaeda and ISIS), such elections will just establish another Muslim Brotherhood inspired extreme Islamist regime that will set about to slaughter, enslave, torture, rape, plunder and destroy the Alawite, Shiite, Christian, Druze, Kurdish and Yazidi communities throughout Syria and Lebanon. 

So far US activity against Assad has been limited to diplomatic calls for his resignation, failed attempts to unite “moderate” rebel groups, failed attempts to build, train and equip a reliable multi-sectorial “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) and relatively symbolic and unsuccessful support for so called “moderate” Sunni rebel groups

3.    Saudi Arabia – The Sunni Kingdom’s policy has always been to rid all Arab lands of “non-Sunni” infidels, in this case the Alawite Regime in Syria, and replace them with solid Sunni regimes, in the hope that they will unite against the real threat to Saudi Arabia – Iran.

But there is another war raging in Syria and Iraq – The war the US declared against ISIS. This obviously has nothing to do with getting rid of Assad. If it did, then what is the logic of bombing the strongest Sunni rebel group dedicated to defeating the regime?

And by putting together a “coalition” against ISIS (which most of the members are only paying lip service to), the US has created a dangerous situation where in a very small airspace there are pro-Assad (Russia, Iran, Syria), anti- Assad (US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia), anti ISIS (US, France, UK, Jordan, UAE) and anti-Hezbollah (Israel) supersonic fighter bombers flying attack missions at the same time.    

Executive Summary:

1.    Syria is an artificial country established by France in 1946 encircling all or parts of 4 distinct and separate ethnic homelands:

o   Arab (Sunni)

o   Alawite (Shiite)

o   Kurd (Sunni)

o   Druze

2.    Since a 1966 coup, the country has been a dictatorship under Alawite military and political leaders, much to the detriment of the Sunni majority.

3.    Following the “Arab Spring” a Sunni rebellion broke out. Regime forces reacted with brutality, including chemical weapons and devastating block-busting “barrel bombs”.

4.    The Sunni rebels include terrorist groups affiliated to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, which already control large swathes of the country.

5.    The US supports the anti-Assad rebels.

6.    Russia, supporting Assad, has established air, ground and naval bases in the Alawite Homeland area. Infuriating Washington, Russia is launching heavy air strikes against the Sunni rebel groups that threaten its bases and Assad’s regime forces in the Alawite area. 

7.    In addition, the US, France, Germany, Turkey, the UAE, Jordan, Syria and a few other allies are bombing ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq.

8.    Adding to the already dangerous situation – Israel, determined to prevent missiles and heavy weapons from reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon, is also flying combat missions in Syria.

9.    With Turkey and Russia on opposing sides of this war, and with the skies over Syria and Lebanon getting more crowded with adrenalin driven combat pilots, I have a feeling that the shooting down of the Russian bomber by a Turkish F-16 will not be the last of such incidents.

 
The Syrian war can be resolved, eventually, by splitting the country into its five natural “nation states” under strong no-nonsense supervision and military guarantee of an international, reliable super-power (Russia?), or a united Arab League. This is not the time or place for clueless “coalitions”, and certainly not for a toothless UN.

The Difference Between ISIS and al-Qaeda

With ISIS taking responsibility for the downing of the Russian airline, the terrorist attacks in Paris and making specific threats against US cities, and al-Qaeda taking responsibility for the attack this week against foreigners in a hotel in Mali, I am once again being asked about the similarities and differences between these two radical Islamic terrorist organizations.

 

Al-Qaeda ("The Base") is a global Islamist Jihadist terrorism group founded by Osama bin Laden around 1989, for the sole purpose of attacking and humiliating the US until all Americans leave Saudi Arabia and Moslem Middle East lands.

 

Initially it was made up of Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s with the help of the CIA. Today it includes many foreigners, including Americans who are training in Syria in their Khorasan Brigades to perpetrate suicide attacks on US soil, US commercial airlines, and US interests worldwide (The hotel in Mali this week).

Among their beliefs:

• They are convinced that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam.
• As Salafist jihadists, they believe that the killing of non-combatants is religiously sanctioned.
• Al-Qaeda opposes man-made laws, and wants to replace them with a strict form of Sharia.
• Al-Qaeda regards liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other sects as heretics and attack their mosques and gatherings.

Despite the killing of Bin Laden, the rise of ISIS and recent losses in Syria, al-Qaeda is still growing and raising money. It commands a multinational, stateless army (Jabhat al Nusra - in Syria) as well as a worldwide network of Islamist, extremist, jihadist cells. The two terrorist groups that claimed responsibility for the hotel bombing in Mali, "Al-Mourabitoun" and "al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" are both Al-Qaeda franchises.

 

ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Sham), aka IS (Islamic State), aka ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and Levant), aka DAESH (Arabic acronym for ISIL), was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as Jama'at al-Tawhid wa-al-Jihad, "The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad". In 2004, al-Zarqawi swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden and the group became known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

 

In 2006, AQI merged with several other Iraqi Sunni groups. Their main objective was to establish an Islamic State in Iraq while killing or enslaving all Shiites, Christians and Sunnis who refused to accept Al-Zarqawi's strict interpretation of Sharia law imposed in areas under AQI control.

 

Al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006. His successors, Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri changed the group's name to The Islamic State in Iraq (ISI).

 

When they were killed in 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the new leader, expanding the territory controlled by ISI in Northern Iraq.

 

By 2013 ISI had control of large swathes of Syria, too. Al-Baghdadi again changed the name to The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL). In Arabic - ISIL = DAESH.

 

As ISIS continued to capture territory in both Iraq and Syria it used barbaric tactics to terrorize and eliminate whole villages of Shiites, Christians, Kurds and Yazidis. Still under the patronage of Al-Qaeda, al-Baghdadi was warned several times by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden's successor as head of Al-Qaeda, to stop the depraved brutality.

 

Al-Baghdadi ignored him, so In February 2014 al-Zawahiri ordered the disbanding of ISIS. When al-Baghdadi ignored that order, too order, al-Qaeda kicked ISIS out.

 

Free to do as he pleased, Baghdadi was now in control of over half of Syria and a third of Iraq.

 

In June 2014 ISIS, now renamed, "Islamic State" (IS) self-proclaimed itself to be a worldwide Caliphate with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi its Caliph.

 

As a "Caliphate", it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide. The very concept of it being a "Caliphate" and the "Islamic State" has been rejected by Muslim leaders worldwide

 

So to summarize:

• Both Al-Qaeda and ISIS are extreme Islamist terrorist groups.
• Both adhere to the Salafi stream of Islam which wants to take believers back to the "pristine" early days of the faith before it was "polluted and corrupted" by foreign cultures and ideas.
• Both believe that violence and terror are the only ways to achieve their goal of worldwide Sharia and reestablishment of a real Caliphate and Islamic State.
• Al-Qaeda's main goal is attacking the US homeland, and US interests and personnel around the world (First World Trade Center bombing, 9/11, the Cole, Khobar Towers, the Mali hotel, etc.)
• ISIS main goal is to establish a large Islamic State in the Middle East by capturing and "ethnically cleansing" non-Sunnis from most of Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, North Africa and Israel (aka: the Levant) and renewing the Caliphate that was abolished by Kamal Ataturk in Turkey in 1924.
• ISIS secondary goal is killing all the Shiites within its state and either killing or converting all non-Muslims to their extreme interpretation of Islam.
• Al-Qaeda is currently planning a wave of attacks against the US that al-Zawahiri hopes will be greater, in both spectacle and casualty count, than 9/11.
• ISIS has for some time been talking about major attacks in the US, using both radicalized home-grown Jihadis, like in Paris and Belgium, and Americans and Canadians just back from training and fighting with them in Syria.

With no love lost between them, ISIS and al-Qaeda seem to be competing as to who will succeed in attacking the US with greater results.

 

So while there are significant differences between them, the one thing that al-Qaeda and ISIS fully agree on is their hatred for the West in general, and the Great Satan and Little Satan, the US and Israel in particular. 

 

Therefore I agree with some analysts who argue that they just might put aside their differences in order to collaborate on a series of coordinated strikes against the "Great Satan". We'll see...

ISIS Will Not Stop With Paris

The brutal slaughter, by radical Islamic Jihadists, of over 129 French citizens, visitors, students and tourists in Paris, was both eerily similar to, and yet different from 9/11.

 

Both of them were well planned, well prepared and well executed multiple target attacks. Both were perpetrated by extreme Islamist terrorist groups, Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and both were part of the all-out war declared by radical Islamic spiritual leaders against Western cultures, values and religions.

 

The difference between them is that while Al-Qaeda has, to date, focused mainly on attacking the US (9/11, Khobar towers, the Cole, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, Times Square, etc.), ISIS has declared both in videos and social media that the downing of the Russian airliner with an on-board bomb and the recent attacks in Paris are just the beginning of an ongoing and sustained campaign of terrorism strikes against every member of the US lead coalition air strikes in Syria, as well as against Russia and Iran.

 

So to be clear, there is no doubt in my mind that ISIS and its world-wide radicalized, in-country affiliates are currently preparing multi-target, mass casualty terrorist attacks in: the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Turkey (again), France (again), Russia (again), Saudi Arabia (maybe), Qatar (maybe) Morocco, Bahrain and - though with very little chance of success - Israel.

 

Can these attacks be thwarted? Yes, at least some can - but not by dropping a few bombs here and there in Syria, or building a broader "coalition", and certainly not by declaring that the goal of the US is to: "degrade, and ultimately destroy ISIS". That just pisses them off and draws thousands more to their ranks.

 

Like Eli Wallach, as "Tuco", said in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly": "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk".

 

The military power of ISIS can be destroyed by less talk and by sending tens of thousands of US and coalition troops into Syria and Iraq, with much more massive air support, and with full Russian and Iranian coordination and participation. This very hypothetical operation, like the "D-Day" invasion during WW2, will recapture critical cities and bases from ISIS, kill as many of their fighters and leaders as possible, including any radicalized Western Jihadis they find.

 

They should then establish separate interim Sunni, Alawite, Kurdish Yazidi and Druze autonomies under a strong UN or NATO peace-keeping mechanism, or even better - individual foreign temporary mandates, like after WW1.

• Russia - the Alawite autonomy
• Turkey - the Sunni autonomy
• Israel - the Druze autonomy
• US (temporarily) the Kurdish/Yazidi autonomy, until a time in the future when Kurdistan can be reunited.

This fantasy military operation will only degrade and probably destroy the physical Islamic State. But it will have no effect on the ISIS ideology which is deeply rooted in traditional Islam, the Quran and the early reliable scriptures. It's these beliefs and ideologies that motivate and drive the thousands of ISIS influenced Islamic Jihadist in North America, Europe and the Middle East, that are at this moment preparing to fulfill their Caliph's recent orders to: "kill the enemies of ISIS with bombs, guns, knives, stones or your bare hands."

 

Robust, ongoing anti-Islamist/Jihadist police operations, based on excellent and actionable intelligence, can, in most cases (but not all!) prevent these inevitable terrorist attacks.

   

But to stop the "cancer" of extreme, radical Islamic Jihadism, as described by many commentators over the past weekend, its core source of influence must be eradicated, and that is not the Islamic State, but the so called "Caliphate".

 

The "Islamic State" controls large areas of Iraq and Syria. So by definition it is a "state". However a "Caliphate" has to have a "Caliph" who: (1) cannot be self-appointed and (2) must fulfill certain criteria. Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi is a false Caliph, who not only appointed himself, but also does not meet the full qualification test.

 

So if al-Baghdadi can be convincingly delegitimized and disgraced, then his whole compelling narrative about the prophesized reestablishment of the Caliphate becomes a lie, and fallacy. Hopefully this will damage the ISIS brand.

 

But the US can't do that, neither can any non-Moslem. But the religious leaders of Saudi Arabia can.

 

This kind of religious ruling, or Fatwa, can only be issued by a high ranking experts on Sunni Islam like Ahmed Al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo and Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Sheik Abdulaziz Al al-Sheik, the highest religious authority in the country.

 

Both have strongly condemned ISIS and Al-Qaeda as "enemies of Islam". But to date neither has demanded the removal of al-Baghdadi as an imposter nor initiated the complex mechanism to install a legitimate Caliph.

 

So even if someone kills al-Baghdadi, and then kills the next self-appointed leader of ISIS, and then the next one and the next one, the terrorist attacks won't end. As long as the false dream of the "new caliphate" is alive and well in the Cyber world, and the tempting, heavenly "benefits" that Islamic "martyrdom" bestows on those who "earn them" attract disenfranchised and marginalized young people from all over, we can expect many more ISIS ideology-driven attempts at mass casualty terrorist attacks.

 

ISIS and its followers will not stop with Paris. Its next targets are listed above. They said they will do it, and I have no reason to doubt them.