Trump triumphs as Oman and Brazil step up and PLO bows out

[Published 6 November 2018]

Oman has broken ranks with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) by endorsing President Trump’s efforts to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict.

The PLO has made it crystal-clear on many occasions that it wanted nothing to do with Trump’s upcoming proposals. The PLO Central Council also threatened on 30 October to suspend its recognition of the State of Israel and halt security coordination with Israel.

Addressing the 14th Middle East Security Summit in Manama, Bahrein, Yousef Bin Alawi – Oman’s Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs declared:

“I would like to tell you very clearly that we call, we request and we affirm and confirm that the main role is mainly relying on the role of the US and what the US president will be doing regarding the deal of the century, because we want this effort to be very successful and to lead to getting rid of all the problems that we have faced recently or during the last 40/50 years.”

Oman had in the previous week hosted separate visits within days of each other by PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Alawi still continued to utter the following Arab mantra to the Summit – which would not have impressed Trump:

“We consider that the Palestinian issue is the core of all the problems that we have seen during the second half of the last century and the 18 years of the 21st Century. We have to see how we can solve this problem and find a future for a new generation of young persons in this area who can really live with the other generations of this world into the future.”

Conflicts in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Kuwait and the rampage by Islamic State – all having nothing to do with the Palestinian issue - strangely seem to have escaped Alawi’s purview.

The Palestinian issue had not even been referred to once in an earlier keynote address to the Summit by US Secretary for Defense – James Mattis.

Alawi returned to reality when answering a question posed to him:

“How can we involve Israel and prompt it to contribute to the affairs of the region? I am going to say something that I say for the first time. Israel is a state that is present in this region. We all understand this, we know this; the world is also aware of this fact. But despite that, Israel is not being treated by the other countries as it is treating the other countries. Maybe it is time for Israel to be treated the same and it should also bear the same obligations as other countries. Why? Those are really facts. History says that the Torah saw the light in the Middle East, that the prophets of Israel were born in the Middle East, and that the Jews also used to live in this area of the world.”

Building on this reality is key to ending the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Meanwhile Brazil’s President-Elect - Jair Bolsonaro - announced Brazil was moving its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – tweeting:

“Israel is a sovereign state and we shall duly respect that”

Balsonaro – echoing the Trump administration’s stance - also announced he will close the Palestinian embassy in Brasilia stating:

“Is Palestine a country? Palestine is not a country, so there should be no embassy here.”

The 22-member Arab League includes Oman, the “State of Palestine” and Brazil as an observer state - whilst the 134 members of the G77 include all three. Some soul-searching by fellow-members is urgently required.

Trump’s focus on reality – not fantasy – is bearing fruit.


Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators – whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Trump Thrashes Clinton On Ending Sexual Violence In Syria And Iraq

[Published 16 October 2016}


Mainstream American media’s obsession with groping allegations against Donald Trump going back twenty years or more has papered over public discussion of major policy differences between Trump and Hillary Clinton on defeating Islamic State and ending the horrific sexual violence perpetrated on women and children in Syria and Iraq for the last two years.

In a stark report to the UN Security Council on 30 September — UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon warned:

“ISIL [Islamic State] continues to systematically use sexual violence against Yazidi women and girls in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as against other minorities caught up in the conflict. Even though some women have managed to escape their captors, around 3,800 abducted Yazidis were still missing at the time of writing. This is a matter of grave concern. Those who have escaped have described the appalling conditions under which they were bought, sold, traded and abused. Both girls and boys are advertised online and traded for weapons, suicide vests, cars and a range of other commodities. Thus far, no formal mechanisms have been established to secure the release of those held captive by ISIL. Those who have managed to escape have done so with the help of their families and smugglers or by taking advantage of other opportunities. Some have resorted to suicide as their only escape. The children of women who commit suicide, or who attempt to escape, are beaten or killed as punishment”

You have to search high and low to find any American media discussion of these highly disturbing revelations.

America and Russia have become embroiled in these conflicts raging in Syria and Iraq and both bear a major role in ending this ongoing dehumanisation of women and children. Yet American media has not critically examined Trump or Clinton’s views on what each would do under their Presidency to defeat Islamic State and end such reprehensible sexual violence.

Co-operation with Russia to achieve these objectives — as espoused by Trump — has been rejected by Clinton - who promises to follow President Obama’s resolute refusal to co-operate with Russia in defeating Islamic State in Syria since November 2015.

Clinton made her policy crystal clear in the second Presidential debate:

“It’s also important I intend to defeat ISIS, to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations.”

Who these Muslim nations are and how Clinton intends to defeat Islamic State in Syria without Russian co-operation remains unexplained. It is a pipedream the American media should be grilling her on every day until they get an answer.

Trump however indicated in the same Presidential debate that he would welcome co-operation rather than confrontation with Russia:

“I don’t know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example.”

Trump and Putin acting in concert or going hand in hand to the Security Council jointly sponsoring a commonly agreed plan of action to eradicate Islamic State represent two possible ways forward.

Meanwhile new allegations of decades-old sexual transgressions by Trump surface in the American media accompanied by sanctimonious expressions of indignation to justify his unfitness to be America’s next President.

Makes for salacious reading — but keeps voters in the dark on whether Trump or Clinton is the best candidate to:

1. See Islamic State defeated

2. End the ongoing sexual violence in Syria and Iraq

3. Extricate America from Obama’s disastrous forays in the Middle East that continue to cause American military casualties and bankrupt America both morally and financially.

Trump may not be perfect but America’s media should hang its head in shame.

Clinton Will Continue Obama Policy Confronting Russia In Syria And UN

[Published 10 October 2016]


Hillary Clinton has made it very clear in the second Presidential Debate that if elected next President of the United States she will continue President Obama’s confrontation with Russia both in Syria and at the United Nations.

Clinton told 66.5 million viewers:

“Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.
Russia hasn’t paid any attention to ISIS. They’re interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.

But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it’s all in, in Syria. And they’ve also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it’s not me.”

Clinton’s no-fly zone over Libya proved disastrous and has already been rejected by Russia over Syria.

She left unexplained what leverage she could put on Putin to get him to the negotiating table.

Her assessment that Russia wanted Trump elected as President of the United States was probably correct for the following reasons enunciated by Trump during the debate.

“I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS..

... I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, who she [Clinton] made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.

I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn’t.”

The choice for America’s voters could not be clearer:

1. co-operation with Russia to first get rid of ISIS and - unmentioned during the debate - al-Nusra threats to world peace and security already declared by the UN Security Council or

2. continuing confrontation with Russia seeking to resolve the Syrian civil conflict which has raged since 2011.

Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov extended the following olive branch to America on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”.

Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position.

Trump seems ready to take up Russia’s offer of defeating ISIS first.

American voters have been presented with a stark choice between Clinton and Trump on America’s future involvement in Syria.

Trump promotes Jordan, downgrades PLO and defunds UNRWA

[Published 18 February 2018]


US Secretary of State – Rex Tillerson – was in Jordan this week delivering some very good news for Jordan - but not for the PLO and UNRWA.

Tillerson announced America’s commitment to fund Jordan to the tune of $1.275 billion per annum for the next five years - an increase of $275 million per annum over the previous annual commitment of $1 billion per annum during 2015-2017.

Part of this increased funding seems certain to come from defunding UNRWA – which receives about $355 million per annum from America. $65 million to UNRWA has already been frozen following President Trump’s earlier warning.

Tillerson stated that America’s ongoing contribution to UNRWA is dependent upon what other non-donor States who can afford to contribute to UNRWA are willing to do.

Trump has also expressed his annoyance at countries that take America’s money then show hostile intent in the United Nations when voting on matters inimical to American interests – such as America’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy there.

Jordan had voted with 127 other nations at a rare emergency meeting of the General Assembly on 21 December 2017 asking nations not to establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

Yet Jordan has not been punished financially by Trump for that decision but has seen its funding substantially increased.

Secretary Tillerson justified America’s decision at his joint press conference with Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ayman Safadi - citing:

1. The truly indispensable strategic partnership for decades between the United States and Jordan that’s been critical to the security of both nations, as well as contributing to the region’s security.

2. Jordan receiving [650000] displaced Syrian refugees.

3. Jordan actively participating in the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State

4. Jordan cutting diplomatic ties with North Korea

Tillerson’s North Korea remarks were particularly significant since the “Embassy of Palestine” remains open in North Korea.

Trump has also certainly not forgotten PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s extraordinary two-hour-long anti-American and Jew-hating diatribe delivered on January 14.

Tillerson also stressed President Trump’s commitment to respecting Jordan’s role as the Custodian of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem. This special role was assigned to Jordan in the 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty and seems set to be one of the cardinal planks in President Trump’s eagerly-awaited proposals to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Foreign Minister Safadi pointedly remarked:

“We’ll continue to work with this current administration [to resolve the conflict] because we believe in the key role of the United States in delivering that peace. We cannot give up. It is a difficult situation. The challenge is not to make it worse and to find a way of moving forward. If we do not have the two-state solution, then I think we’re looking at a longer period of conflict that would only play into the hands of the spoilers and radicals who want to exploit the suffering and despair of people to spread their agenda of hate.”

Jordan’s position starkly contrasts with the PLO which will not accept America’s pivotal role.

Any negotiated two-state solution involving the creation of another Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history was rejected by the Arabs in 1947 – could have been created at any time by the Arab League between 1948 and 1967 – and was again rejected by the PLO in 2000/1 and 2008.

Jordan – comprising 78% of former Palestine – has now signalled its readiness to move forward with Trump on achieving his “ultimate deal”. Trump’s latest funding commitment to Jordan guarantees Jordan’s co-operation for the next five years.

The PLO’s anti-America stance continues to test Trump’s patience.

Balfour Declaration Falsehoods Fuel Jew-Hatred and Israel-Bashing

[Published 30 October 2017]


The centenary of the Balfour Declaration issued on 2 November 1917 is being used to unleash a barrage of falsehoods designed to denigrate the Jewish people and delegitimise the Jewish State of Israel.

Among those current egregious falsehoods:

1. Raja Zaatry - an official of the High Follow-up Committee - the Arab community’s leadership body in Israel - has asserted:

“In 1917 less than 10% of the population was Jewish and more than 90% Arab. The British gave to the Jews something that didn’t belong to them,”

The British Government gave nothing to the Jews in 1917 other than its “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations” expressed in the Balfour Declaration. Palestine in 1917 still remained under Turkey’s rule as part of the 400 years old Ottoman Empire.

2. Vincent Fean - British consul general to Jerusalem between 2010 and 2014 - reportedly said the UK should uphold its commitment to helping achieve a two-state solution promised in the Balfour Declaration - if only to prevent radicalization at home - stating

“I firmly believe that this unresolved issue contributes to radicalization in our own country among the Muslim community and if only for that self-interested reason we should think of doing something about it.”

The Balfour Declaration promised no two-state solution.

Islamic State has caused Muslim radicalization in Britain.

3. The Balfour Apology Campaign and the Palestinian Return Centre — protesting the Royal Albert Hall being used to host a Balfour Declaration Centenary event on 7 November - have urged the public to sign a letter containing the following statement:

“The 1917 Balfour Declaration directly caused the 1948 Arab-Israeli War where Israel ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians and then established a state in Palestine.”

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War was directly caused by six Arab armies from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq invading Palestine in total violation of international law. No invasion — no war.

4. University of Manchester academic Nick Thoburn grabbed some media space by reportedly saying he was dismayed that the University had allowed a Balfour Declaration commemoration event to take place on its campus - adding for good measure:

“Lord Balfour (declared), chillingly, that Zionism was ‘of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land'"

Chillingly - our news-grabbing academic selectively misquoted what Lord Balfour actually said:

“The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”

Nick appears to have been engaging in deliberate spin.

Nick should be looking for another job outside academia if this is the standard of his intellectual expertise.

5. Ambassador Jonathan Allen - UK deputy permanent representative to the UN told the Security Council on 17 October:

“And let us remember, there are two halves of Balfour, the second half of which has not been fulfilled. There is therefore unfinished business.”

Ambassador Allen was spouting pure unadulterated fiction. There are no two halves of the Balfour Declaration.

There is however “unfinished business”: allocating sovereignty in the last remaining 5% of Palestine between Jordan and Israel — the two successor States in Palestine — as was first envisaged by Article 25 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

The sooner this business is concluded — the sooner the Arab-Jewish conflict can be resolved.

It surely is time to end 100 years of relentlessly hounding 15 million Jews world-wide and falsely and misleadingly lambasting their tiny Jewish State.

Trump and Putin must co-operate to defeat Islamic State

[Published 2 March 2017]


President Trump made his intention to destroy Islamic State crystal clear in his stirring address to the Congress on 28 February:

“As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS — a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.”

The Department of Defense plan had already been delivered to members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee - and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis was due to brief the committee on 27 February.

Whether this plan recommends co-operation with Russia still remains under wraps.

Certainly President Obama’s decision in September 2014 to degrade and destroy Islamic State by forming a broad international coalition of 68 States without:

1. Including Russia and
2. first securing a Security Council resolution endorsing such action

has proved both catastrophic and very expensive.

The State Department trumpeted that the breadth and diversity of America’s coalition partners demonstrated the global and unified nature of Obama’s endeavour.

Yet Islamic State today remains undefeated in Syria and Iraq.

Support for — and pledges of allegiance to — Islamic State by over 30 radical Islamic terrorist groups world-wide are creating horrific humanitarian problems — some far removed from the Middle East.

Defeating Islamic State in Iraq and Syria will see these “lawless savages” joining such disparate groups in their drive to establish the restoration of the Caliphate and the implementation of Sharia law world-wide.

Members of the US-led Coalition have not been contributing their fair share towards dealing with Islamic State — leaving the burden to fall squarely on America.

Australian Prime Minister — Malcolm Turnbull — declared last week that Australia was in fact the second largest international contributor to the US led coalition after the United States — shaming NATO countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom and Middle East members Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

The remaining 125 UN member States have escaped sharing the cost and responsibility of confronting and defeating Islamic State.

Trump’s reprimand of NATO would indicate he considers the Obama-led coalition has been a very bad deal for America.

Trump can rectify this situation by jointly co-sponsoring with Putin a United Nations Security Council resolution authorising the use of force against Islamic State under Chapter V11 of the UN Charter.

Russia and America have previously expressed their willingness to involve the Security Council.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made this clear on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all.”

President Obama preached a similar mantra in St Petersburg on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

Mentioning any relationship with Russia is a very sensitive issue in American politics today.

However Trump may well have had Russia in mind when he told Congress:

“America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.”

Defeating Islamic State is a shared interest of Trump and Putin.

Co-operation in the United Nations Security Council will materially advance that objective.

Palestine - Pope Forfeits Spiritual And Moral Authority

[Published 20 May 2015]


Pope Francis has suffered a serious blow to his spiritual and moral authority following the Vatican’s recognition of the “State of Palestine” in a new treaty announced on 13 May.

The Vatican’s latest slippery slide into political and legal chaos represents a clear breach of clause 11(2) of the 1993 Fundamental Agreement Between The Holy See And The State Of Israel which provides:

“The Holy See, while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders.”

Vatican officials openly admitted that this new treaty did not constitute the Holy See’s first breach of the Fundamental Agreement - Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi pointing out:

“We have recognized the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook,”

This latest challenge to the Pope’s spiritual and moral authority - first transgressed by his predecessor Pope Benedict - arises from the fact that the United Nations recognition of the State of Palestine on 29 November 2012 affirmed:

..."the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967…"

600,000 Jews presently live in this designated territory.

PLO Chairman - Mahmoud Abbas - warmly welcomed by Pope Francis this week as a potential “angel of peace” - has insisted upon their total displacement and removal as a condition of any peace agreement.

Abbas made his racist views very clear in Cairo on 28 July 2010 when he told Wafa - the official Palestinian news agency:

“I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as Nato forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the Nato forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land.”

Abbas - Israel’s putative “partner for peace ” - leads an Organisation that claims the entire territory of former Palestine as another exclusive Arab fiefdom - denying the Jews any political rights in their biblical, ancestral and internationally sanctioned homeland.

Abbas’s continuing refusal to recognise Israel as the nation State of the Jewish people has been a major roadblock to the successful conclusion of negotiations between Israel and the PLO.

Pope Francis - like his predecessor Pope Benedict - is apparently prepared to ignore that Abbas and the PLO remain sworn enemies of the Jewish people - pursuing the total elimination of the Jewish State by armed struggle as documented in the 1968 PLO Charter.

The Pope has strayed from the eternal message of the Psalms - the key to the spirituality of the Old Testament and an essential and permanent part of Christian prayer.

Psalm 28 in the New Jerusalem Bible declares:

"Do not drag me away with the wicked, with evil-doers, who talk to their partners of peace with treachery in their hearts.

Repay them as their deeds deserve, as befits their treacherous actions; as befits their handiwork repay them, let their deserts fall back on themselves.

They do not comprehend the deeds of Yahweh, the work of his hands. May he pull them down and not rebuild them!"

Pope Francis - like Pope Benedict - has joined the evil-doers to the chagrin of the Jewish people.

Pope Benedict’s dessert - the birth of Islamic State in 2014 - has seen the willful killing, forced conversion and wholesale destruction of ancient Christian communities in Iraq and Syria.

Pope Francis’s dessert remains unrevealed.

Trump and Putin need Security Council Resolution to defeat Islamic State

[Published 8 December 2016]


The United States and Russia seem set to jointly confront their common enemy - Islamic State - once President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office on 20 January 2017.

This possibility emerged after a telephone call between Trump and Vladimir Putin following Trump’s stunning presidential victory on 8 November.

President Obama’s failure to co-operate with Putin for the last two years in seeking to degrade and destroy Islamic State has resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless civilian deaths and injuries and the internal and external displacement of millions of Syrians and Iraqis.

Islamic State has been confronted in Mosul - Iraq’s second largest city - for the last three months without Security Council authority by a US-led coalition airborne force supporting 100000 Iraqi and Kurdish infantry against an estimated 7000 Islamic State fighters. Some territorial gains have been made but little progress in ending the 30 month rampage by Islamic State and the spawning of many offshoots in at least 25 other countries.

Identified as a threat to world peace and security in a number of Security Council resolutions - the UN’s resolve to defeat the Islamic State has stopped short of authorising military action.

An eye witness account published on 7 December in the Wall Street Journal says it all:

“Yet ISIS hangs on. Is it because it concentrated its most seasoned personnel in Mosul proper? Is it because the remaining fighters have their backs to the wall and battle here with furious desperation? Or is it that the coalition — with the cold weather setting in, with the rain and low, cloudy skies interfering with airstrikes — is getting weary?

Whatever the explanation, I return home with a deep sense of unease. Between Al-Zohur and Al-Qadisiyyah, a handful of fanatics manages to hold off an Iraqi counterterrorism unit. A little to the west, in Mishraq, a single sniper holed up alone in a mosque stalls the coalition’s advance. One senses that the battle for Mosul, which began with a flourish, could bog down.

Is it possible that we might become resigned to the idea of a strange war in which 4,000 cornered fighters stop an ultra-powerful coalition? For the children of Mosul, held hostage and on the verge of famine, that possibility would be catastrophic. And, in the capitals of the West where populations already live in fear of the next terrorist attack, it would be an admission of weakness that could only embolden aspiring jihadists whose hearts beat to the rhythm of the supposedly great feats of their big brothers in the “caliphate” of Iraq and Syria.

The fire must be stamped out. And very soon. To bring this about, one looks to Barack Obama, who might prove willing to quicken the pace so as to end his second term with a victory for civilization over the pseudo-state that presently threatens every real state in the world.”

The chances of President Obama rising to the occasion seem very remote.

Regrettably the conflict is set to escalate unless Trump and Putin can agree on joint action to defeat the Islamic State.

Their first step should involve obtaining a Security Council Resolution under Articles 42 and 43 of the UN Charter authorising the use of military force and obliging all member States to contribute such forces and resources as are necessary to defeat the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

A Security Council Resolution is vital - if the mistakes of America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq are not to be repeated.

Whilst Russia and America continue to fiddle - Syria and Iraq bleed and burn.

It is time to start getting serious.

Palestine - Brexit 1922 Key To Trump Resolving Arab-Jewish Conflict

[Published 16 November 2016]


President-elect Donald Trump has lost no time in stressing his desire to end the Arab-Jewish conflict which has seen many proposals in the last 100 years fall by the wayside as a result of unrelenting Arab rejection to any Jewish State in former Palestine.

The first such proposal came in 1922 when Great Britain went back on its promise made to the Jewish people in 1920 at both the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres - by restricting the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in only 22% of the territory of Palestine covered by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (“Brexit 1922”).

The Jews reluctantly accepted this proposal but the Arabs were not prepared to accept self-determination in only 78% of Palestine - today called Jordan. They wanted the remaining 22% - today called Israel, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) Jerusalem and Gaza - and have maintained this position until today.

Proposals to end the conflict recommended by:

1. the 1937 Peel Commission,

2. the 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution,

3. the 1993 Oslo Accords,

4. the 2002 Bush Roadmap and

5. Israeli offers in 2000/1 and 2008

have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

For President-elect Trump - resolving this conflict becomes the ultimate deal maker’s challenge to accomplish.

Trump lost no time in making his intentions very clear - just three days after his stunning Presidential victory:

“As a deal maker, I’d like to do… the deal that can’t be made. And do it for humanity’s sake.”

To understand how Trump might pull off this deal one need look no further than the views of John Bolton - a controversial front runner with Rudy Giuliani to be Trump’s Secretary of State.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Times on 16 April 2014 Bolton presciently wrote:

“Instead of pursuing the misguided notion of “two states,” U.S. policymakers should instead ask what other solutions are possible that would provide Palestinians with personal dignity and security, economic growth and the prospect of living under a responsible, responsive government.

Concededly, there is no perfect alternative, but the most attractive prospect is to attach the disparate Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to their neighboring contiguous Arab states, Jordan and Egypt, respectively. We might call this a “three-state solution.”

After the late 1940s collapse of the League of Nations’ Middle East mandates, Jordan successfully governed the West Bank until the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Today, Israel, Jordan and Palestinians should draw new West Bank boundaries embodying Security Council Resolution 242’s “land for peace” formula.

Jordan could, with relative ease, resume sovereignty over those portions of the West Bank not incorporated into Israel”

Jordan - part of the problem - must undoubtedly become part of the solution.

Bolton however conceded:

“Gaza is a harder problem, but incorporating it into Egypt is clearly a better solution than allowing it to remain the headquarters for Hamas and other terrorist groups.”

An easier solution could see Gaza connected to the West Bank by an overhead expressway or underground road containing adequate security safeguards.

Trump possesses the firepower to broker a successful deal by:

1. offering continued - and perhaps increased - funding to Egypt and Jordan and
2. providing guarantees to defend Egypt and Jordan’s territorial integrity against Islamic State and others who might seek to intimidate and undermine their sovereignty.

Trump can indeed drain the swamp of Arab hatred and rejectionism and succeed where so many others have failed.

Brexit 2016 was the precursor to Trump’s Presidential triumph.

Brexit 1922 can serve as the foundation for Trump to pull off the deal of the century.

Obama's Islamic State Policy Uncorks Shiite Genie In Iraq

[Published 31 October 2016]


President Obama’s decision 14 days ago to approve Iraqi and Peshmerga forces undertaking the liberation of Mosul has well and truly blown up in his face with the news that the Iran funded Shiite Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have now joined in the attack.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter certainly did not anticipate this development when announcing Obama’s decision:

“The United States and the rest of the international coalition stand ready to support Iraqi Security Forces, Peshmerga fighters and the people of Iraq in the difficult fight ahead.”

Neither did Operation Inherent Resolve Commander Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend who stated:

“But to be clear, the thousands of ground combat forces who will liberate Mosul are all Iraqis,”

The involvement of 15,000 Shiite PMU militiamen — designated by the Iraqi Government as “an independent military formation” - could aggravate already existing sectarian divisions in Iraq.

This could eventually lead to a Shiite land grab of territory liberated by the PMU.

The retention of land conquered by the Peshmerga forces is also a realistic possibility.

Iraq as a distinct and separate territorial unit could be in real danger of being carved up.

Obama’s inability to remove Assad from power in Syria during the last five years has been a spectacular Presidential policy failure.

Obama must be reeling after further reading on that:

“Ahmed al-Assadi, a spokesman for the Iraq-sanctioned paramilitary known as Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), said on Saturday that they will fight alongside Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces in Syria after finishing their battle against ISIS in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, Al Arabiya News Channel reported…"

Obama’s inability to remove Assad from power in Syria during the last five years has been a spectacular Presidential policy failure.

His justified hatred of Assad — propped up by Russia and Iran - has seen him refuse to accept Russia’s invitation to jointly seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution to first take military action against Islamic State in Syria and then try to resolve Syria’s future after Islamic State has been defeated there.

Obama could not fail to be also very worried about Al-Arabiya’s further report:

”... Jaafar al-Husseini, a spokesman for the Hezbollah Brigades, said they launched an offensive Saturday along with other large militias toward the town of Tal Afar, which had a Shiite majority before it fell to ISIS [Islamic State] in 2014. Iranian forces are advising the fighters and Iraqi aircraft are providing airstrikes”

Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan said on 30 October that Ankara - which already has a military presence in Iraq — would act if forces from the PMU abuse civilians in their fight for the town of Tal Afar.

“Tal Afar is a very sensitive issue for us. We definitely do not regard it [Shia militia involvement] positively in Tal Afar and Sinjar,”

Tal Afar is a totally Turkmen city, with half Shia and half Sunni Muslims. We do not judge people by their religious affiliation, we regard them all as Muslims.

“But if Hashid Shaabi [PMU] terrorises the region, our response would be different.”

In other parts of Iraq retaken from Islamic State - such as Fallujah and Ramadi - there have been allegations of Shia fighters mistreating Sunni civilians.

Iraq is fast becoming a tinderbox containing different elements and interests that could set Iraq ablaze — should Islamic State eventually be defeated in Mosul.

Obama’s decision to commence the attack on Mosul appears to have been made without any real thought to the possible involvement of the PMU and Turkey.

Why Obama thought it that urgent to commence the battle for Mosul at this late stage of his Presidency is a question that will be increasingly asked over the coming week
— especially by Clinton and Trump.

Obama's Islamic State Policy Threatens Clinton Election Victory

[Published 27 October 2016]


President Obama’s decision to agree to Iraqi and Peshmerga forces attacking Mosul to degrade and destroy the Islamic State just three weeks before the US elections sounds alarm bells for the prospects of Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump on 8 November.

Secretary of Defence Ash Carter confirmed Obama’s decision on 17 October.

The timing of the attack is very concerning.

Obama’s decision accords with his policy enunciated as far back as 10 September 2014:

“But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region.”

Obama had then further elaborated:

”...we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground…

... As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment.”

The same day as Carter issued his statement - General Stephen Townsend, Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve - reportedly acknowledged the presence of
“forward air controllers” amongst the US “advisory” contributions to the battle.

Those American “advisory” contributions now appear to have included an explosive ordnance disposal technician - Jason Finan - working with a Navy SEAL team near Mosul who was killed by an Islamic State bomb on October 20.

Both Carter and Townsend were meeting together in Irbil on 23 October when Townsend stated:

“Our investigation is still underway, but as I understand the event right now, they had moved to a position on the battlefield behind the Iraqi front lines with a headquarters element….

...These guys said you know what, we probably need to move back a terrain and gain a little bit more stand-off. And they were in the process of that when they struck an IED.”

Such direct involvement of American troops on the ground - leading to the death of an American soldier - seems a distinct departure from Obama’s 2014 policy.

Entrusting Iraqi and Peshmerga troops to defeat the Islamic State - declared a threat to world peace and security by the United Nations Security Council - was always a high risk Obama policy.

Now that attack has started - Hillary Clinton has been effectively lumbered with Obama’s policy if she becomes America’s next President.

Any suggestion of abandoning Obama’s policy now would send a bad signal to American voters.

Clinton’s situation has been further complicated by Carter indicating at the same press conference:

”... we want to see isolation operations begin, oriented at Raqqa as soon as possible. We’re working with our partners there to do that. And so there will be some simultaneity to these two operations. We’ve long anticipated that.”

This contradicts what Clinton said in the third Presidential debate:

“The goal here is to take back Mosul. It’s going to be a hard fight. I’ve got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.”

The IBD/TIPP poll finds widespread dissatisfaction with America’s direction - 62% of the public saying it’s headed in the wrong direction.

Obama’s decision could not have come at a worse time for Clinton.

Joseph Chamberlain said in 1886:

“‘In politics, there is no use in looking beyond the next fortnight.'”

Pollsters beware.

Pictures of body bags returning dead American soldiers, never-ending TV reports of murdered and injured civilians and people fleeing Mosul could certainly cause a huge voter backlash.

Clinton And Trump Clash On Defeating Islamic State In Syria

[Published 23 October 2016]


The Presidential debates have signalled fundamental policy differences between Clinton and Trump on defeating Islamic State in Syria [ISIS]

Clinton will be pursuing policies that prolong Islamic State’s existence in Syria - until Mosul has been conquered in Iraq. Trump wants to defeat Islamic State in Syria as an immediate priority.

Clinton laid out her policies during the third debate:

“The goal here is to take back Mosul. It’s going to be a hard fight. I’ve got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.”

Conquering Mosul is going to take months to achieve – not to mention what Turkey might do if Mosul looks like falling in the current fighting.

Pressing into Syria to conquer Raqqa after Mosul’s fall would have to be undertaken without Syrian or United Nations Security Council approval - political insanity of the highest order that would certainly embroil the invading forces in conflict with Russia and Syria.

“So I have said, look, we need to keep our eye on ISIS. That’s why I want to have an intelligence surge that protects us here at home, why we have to go after them from the air, on the ground, online, why we have to make sure here at home we don’t let terrorists buy weapons. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun."

Great policies - if implemented in co-operation with Russia – but could result in a dangerous escalation in Syria with both Russia and Iran if undertaken unilaterally.

“And I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians so that perhaps we can have the kind of serious negotiation necessary to bring the conflict to an end and go forward on a political track.”

Clinton is whistling in the wind if she believes these policies can place any leverage on Syria and the Russians whilst she is unilaterally trying to conquer Raqqa.

She herself acknowledged in the third debate that the establishment of a no fly-zone:

… “would not be done just on the first day. This would take a lot of negotiation. And it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.”

Presumably Syria would continue to burn whilst President Clinton negotiated with President Putin.

Trump has taken an entirely different tack:

1. He recognised the current problem:

“… our country is so outplayed by Putin and Assad, and by the way — and by Iran. Nobody can believe how stupid our leadership is.”

2. He identified America’s present precarious position as a result:

“he [Assad] has aligned with Russia and with Iran. They don’t want ISIS, but they have other things, because we’re backing — we’re backing rebels. We don’t know who the rebels are. We’re giving them lots of money, lots of everything. We don’t know who the rebels are”

3. He enunciated his policy in the second Presidential debate:

“ I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved.“

4. He had previously made clear the way forward:

“Wouldn’t it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIS?”

Voters have a stark choice come election day.

United Nations Must Militarily Confront Islamic State And al-Nusra

[Published 5 October 2016]


Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin’s assumption of the Presidency of the United Nations Security Council for October could have a lightning rod effect on the Security Council finally authorising military action against Islamic State and Al Nusra under article 42 of the UN Charter.

Both terrorist organisations have been the subject of many unanimous Security Council resolutions declaring them to be a threat to world peace and security — but all such resolutions have stopped short of authorising military action.

American-Russian relations are in a precarious and highly volatile situation today due to:

1.The collapse of the ceasefire in Syria negotiated between America and Russia,

2. America’s decision to call off further negotiations with Russia on reinstating the ceasefire

3. President Putin signing a decree suspending a Russia-US deal on plutonium disposal - blaming hostile US actions

4. America and Russia engaging in a vitriolic diplomatic war shaming each other for the humanitarian disaster in Aleppo as Russian-backed Government forces and American-backed rebel forces battle for supremacy at horrendous cost to the civilian population caught in the crossfire.

Churkin has been afforded a world stage to justify Russia’s actions in Syria during regular media conferences that will be held by him as President of the Security Council.

Churkin was quick to grab that opportunity on 4 October — as this official UN record reveals:

“He (Churkin) was not aware of plans for further discussions between United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Federation Minister for Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, and did not know the result of discussions between the two countries during the last few hours. The nature of their differences was overdramatized. He hoped cooperation on Syria could be resumed.

He could not accept unilateral steps such as grounding of airplanes.

Al-Nusrah had moved to Aleppo and was keeping the civilian population hostage. He wanted as close cooperation with the United States as possible in fighting Al-Nusrah. Had it not been for Russian involvement, [Islamic State] black flags could now be flying over Damascus. There were 3,500 fighters in eastern Aleppo, of which 2,000 were Al-Nusrah, based on Russian intelligence. The rest were scattered in different groups. ISIL was not there.”

White House spokesman — Josh Earnest - reportedly said US policy would continue to give priority to the fight against jihadi groups in Syria.

“With regard to US options, we obviously have been very focused on countering ISIL [Isis] and other extremist groups that are using the chaos in Syria as a safe haven to plot and carry out attacks,”

Both Russia and America have previously expressed their willingness to involve the Security Council in defeating Islamic State and al-Nusra.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made this clear on 18 November last:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”.

President Obama preached a similar mantra in St Petersburg on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

Given the commonality of the positions of both America and Russia as reflected above — the possibility looms large that during Russia’s October presidency of the Security Council - Russia and America could co-sponsor a draft resolution to the Security Council authorising military action against Islamic State and al-Nusra.

October could indeed be make or break month for Syria.

Syrian Slaughterhouse Shames America - Undermines United Nations

[Published 29 September 2016]


The collapse of the Syrian ceasefire negotiated by Russia and America has led to bitter recriminations in the UN Security Council as each blames the other for the breakdown.

Civilians in Aleppo are paying the price.

Humanitarian partners in Eastern Aleppo have told Save the Children International:

“One hospital said that 43 per cent of the injured they treated yesterday were children, and the ambulance crew with Shafak, a Syrian NGO, said more than 50 per cent of the casualties they have picked up in the last 48 hours are children.

Doctors are working round the clock to try to save them, but children are dying on the floors of hospitals due to critical shortages of basic medicines and equipment, including ventilators, anaesthetics and antibiotics. Severe cases need to be transferred out of Eastern Aleppo for treatment, but all roads are blocked.”

Sonia Khush, Save the Children’s Syria Director, pleaded:

“The UN Security Council has a chance to right the wrong and prevent more suffering when it meets today in New York. They cannot leave the room until they agree an immediate ceasefire, with roads opened to allow us to bring desperately needed food, clean water and medical supplies in.

“The information they have provided paints a picture of unimaginable violence and suffering for children and their families”

The Security Council predictably could agree on nothing.

America had failed to positively respond to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s warning on 2 June 2015:

“The U.S.‘s “obsession” with [Syria’s President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

“People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick”

US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf had quickly dismissed Lavrov’s message — telling reporters that:

”... we’re certainly not going to coordinate with a brutal dictator who’s massacred so many of his own citizens.

“That’s just an absurd proposition. That’s certainly not going to happen.”

Syria’s civilian population meanwhile continued being murdered, injured and traumatised either by the Syrian Army, the American-backed rebel groups fighting to remove Assad or by Islamic State occupying huge chunks of Syria.

America again failed to respond to a further plea by Lavrov on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”

The eventual execution of a ceasefire agreement between Russia and America on 9 September 2016 only promised joint American-Russian co-operation to attack Islamic State and al-Nusrah without any United Nations imprimatur. This agreement is now dead in the water with the collapse of the ceasefire.

America’s recalcitrance has been shameful.

Obama must now put the resolution of the Syrian civil war on the backburner.

America and Russia need to stop trading barbs on the ceasefire fiasco and focus on resolving the common problem confronting the world in Syria — the defeat of Islamic State and al-Nusrah.

Co-sponsoring a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the United Nations Charter authorising United Nations military action against Islamic State will lock in all 193 member States.

Syria’s citizens can start to hope that Syria will ultimately become reunified once again

America’s reputation will be considerably enhanced — as will Russia’s which has been badly damaged in the last few years.

The United Nations will no longer be seen as a moral disgrace — but a moral place.

Islamic State and al-Nusrah Survive Whilst America and Russia Crash Dive

[Published 22 September 2016]


Botched airstrikes by American, Australian and British warplanes in Syria have accidentally killed at least 62 Syrian soldiers and wounded more than 100 - leading Russia to making the accusation that the “White House is defending Islamic State”.

The boot was however on the other foot when America blamed Russia for an airstrike a few days later that killed 20 Syrian Red Crescent aid workers and truck drivers delivering humanitarian aid relief to 78000 civilians trapped in Aleppo province.

A very angry American Secretary of State – John Kerry – addressed the UN Security Council on 21 September:

“For weeks over the summer, experts from my government worked with our counterparts from Russia in good efforts to develop a plan that would take into account the lessons learned from the original cessation, and the key elements of that plan launched in Geneva two weeks ago include the renewal of a cessation of hostilities, excluding only Daesh [Islamic State – ed] and al-Nusrah.

Importantly, it included arrangements for the unfettered delivery – unfettered delivery – of humanitarian aid to people in Aleppo and elsewhere in the country, and it envisioned the possibility – providing humanitarian assistance was unimpeded and sustained, and provided there were at least seven days of consecutive adherence to the cessation – that the United States and Russia would begin to coordinate their efforts against Daesh [Islamic State] and al-Nusrah.

And I want to make it clear, under President Obama’s orders, all preparations were being made in order to achieve that cooperation in terms of our military and intelligence community and the work we would do. So we’re committed to that."

America and Russia had again put the cart before the horse – and these two tragic events have happened as a result.

Russia, America and their respective cohorts now need to get on with the job of first destroying their commonly agreed enemies - Islamic State and al- Nusrah – but only after first obtaining a UN mandated Security Council Resolution - rather than acting independently of the UN by pursuing some joint co-ordinated action of their own.

President Putin warned in his speech at the UN just one year ago of the perils of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution:

“Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.”

Obama and Putin should urgently co-sponsor a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.

Such a Resolution would enable the UN to take action by air, sea, or land forces to defeat and remove Islamic State and al-Nusrah as a threat to international peace and security.

All UN Members would be obliged to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage.

Only a UN-mandated military force led by a single commander-in-chief can ever hope to defeat Islamic State and al-Nusrah.

America seems unable to understand that resolving this world threat to international peace and security in Syria must first happen before it becomes possible to start resolving the 5 year old civil war in Syria.

Meantime Islamic State and al-Nusrah survive – and the inhumane suffering in Syria continues.

Russia and America must use the United Nations Security Council for the purpose it was created – not as a debating forum to play the blame game.

Islamic State Crows As Russia And America Trade Blows

[Published 21 September 2016]


Islamic State combatants were no doubt jumping with joy following botched airstrikes against them by American, Australian and British warplanes in Syria that accidentally killed at least 60 Syrian soldiers and wounded more than 100.

The 15-member United Nations (UN) Security Council met on 17 September after Russia demanded an emergency session to discuss the American-led airstrike fiasco.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN - Samantha Power - chastised Russia for the move:

“Russia really needs to stop the cheap point scoring and the grandstanding and the stunts and focus on what matters, which is implementation of something we negotiated in good faith with them,”

Russia made no bones about its feelings:

“We are reaching a really terrifying conclusion for the whole world: That the White House is defending Islamic State. Now there can be no doubts about that,” the RIA Novosti news agency quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying.”

The boot was however on the other foot with America blaming Russia for an airstrike a few days later that killed 20 Syrian Red Crescent aid workers and truck drivers delivering humanitarian aid relief to 78000 civilians trapped in Aleppo province.

Islamic State no doubt relishes these recriminations and counter recriminations that will guarantee the end of the current tenuous ceasefire.

This disastrous state of affairs could have been avoided had Russia, America and their respective cohorts agreed to concentrate on jointly destroying their common agreed enemy - Islamic State - under a UN mandated Security Council Resolution - rather than acting independently of each other.

President Obama’s decision to intrude uninvited upon Syrian sovereign territory in September 2014 without the backing of a Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution - has seen America behind the eight ball ever since.

President Putin warned in his speech at the UN just one year ago of the perils of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution:

“Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.”

Resolving Syria’s horrific five year civil war cannot be achieved until Islamic State is comprehensively routed and driven out of Syria

The chickens are now coming home to roost for America as the consequences of its by-passing the UN unfolded this past week.

Obama and Putin now need to urgently sponsor a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.

Such a Resolution would enable the UN to take action by air, sea, or land forces as might be necessary to defeat and remove Islamic State as a threat to international peace and security.

All UN Members would be obliged to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of defeating Islamic State.

Only a UN-mandated military force led by a single commander-in-chief can ever hope to defeat Islamic State and end the threat to world peace that this evil organisation represents.

How many more horrendous incidents like these latest two have to occur before Russia and America agree to jointly initiate action in the Security Council to confront and eliminate Islamic State?

Resolving Syria’s horrific five year civil war cannot be achieved until Islamic State is comprehensively routed and driven out of Syria.

The name-calling and blame games being traded between Russia and America serve no purpose other than to prolong Islamic State’s existence and Syria’s suffering.

Wake up Russia and America.

Syria Hysteria Dooms Obama's Plan To Destroy ISIL

[Published 21 September 2014]


President Obama’s failed policies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt and the West Bank do not bode well for the success of the President’s current plans to end the threat to world peace posed by the meteoric rise of both the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL) and the Al-Nusrah Front (ANF).

That threat was articulated by UN Security Council Resolution 2701 - passed on 15 August - which expressed:

” its gravest concern that territory in parts of Iraq and Syria is under the control of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al Nusrah Front (ANF) “

Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter—the Security Council strongly condemned:

“the indiscriminate killing and deliberate targeting of civilians, numerous atrocities, mass executions and extrajudicial killings, including of soldiers, persecution of individuals and entire communities on the basis of their religion or belief, kidnapping of civilians, forced displacement of members of minority groups, killing and maiming of children, recruitment and use of children, rape and other forms of sexual violence, arbitrary detention, attacks on schools and hospitals, destruction of cultural and religious sites and obstructing the exercise of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to education, especially in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Deir ez-Zor, Aleppo and Idlib, in northern Iraq, especially in Tamim, Salaheddine and Niniveh Provinces;”

America has subsequently acted as though Resolution 2701 had never been passed.

In his speech to the American nation on 11 September Obama declared:

“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state… It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates.”

The President is wrong on both counts.

Firstly — ISIL is Islamic — as its formal Declaration of Statehood on 29 June 2014 proclaims - and this following analysis asserts:

“The Islamic State is not only a terrorist group. It is an extremist, Islamist, political and military organization that holds a radical interpretation of Islam as a political philosophy and seeks to impose that worldview by force on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Expelled from al-Qaeda for being too extreme, the Islamic State claims to be the legitimate ruler of all Sunni Muslims worldwide. They have established what they regard as a state which includes large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq, governed from Raqqa in Syria.

It advances a number of theological opinions to support its claims. Its adherents hold that they are merely practicing Islam fully, pronouncing those who disagree with them takfir (heretics).

This designation is used as religious justification for killing the Islamic State’s opponents”

Secondly - ISIL is a State - meeting the legal requirements of Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

Thirdly - Obama’s claim that ISIL is recognized by no other government is irrelevant — as article 3 of the Montevideo Convention makes indisputably clear:

“The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Obama’s false assumptions are a recipe for policy failure — as the goals enunciated by Obama in the same address clearly demonstrated:

“Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”

Destroying the UN condemned Al Nusrah Front did not rate a mention. A lukewarm response from 57 Islamic States to help defeat ISIL’s declared world threat to peace was not factored into Obama’s thinking.

Four days later an international conference held in Paris made it clear that Syria was not even part of the battleground where ISIL was to be confronted, degraded and destroyed.

Mouram Daoud—a member of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change in Syria — an internal opposition coalition — opined that ISIL cannot be defeated militarily without Syria and Turkey’s backing:

“The US administration should first pressure the Turkish partner to stop the flow of jihadists through its airports and stop buying oil from IS. According to [United Nations] Resolution 2170, the US will not be able to strike IS sites in Syria without the approval of the Syrian government, which is eagerly awaiting this type of cooperation to restore its international legitimacy. But the US will not include the Syrian government in this war, and will not recognize the government either. This means that the US will stick to its decision to only provide weapons to the Syrian [rebel] factions.”

Obama’s mantra - first delivered in August 2011 - remains unchanged:

“The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”

Not even 200000 deaths and the creation of millions of Syrian civilian refugees since 2011 have produced any momentum for rapprochement between Obama and Assad that would enable Assad to extend - and Obama to accept - any invitation to confront ISIL in occupied Syria.

Any expectation that Assad and his backers — Russia, Iran and Hezbollah — will help Obama by destroying ISIL in Syria - is a pipe dream.

UN Security Council Must Take Military Action Against Islamic State

[Published 17 June 2016]


President Obama’s continuing refusal to co-sponsor a Security Council Resolution with Russia authorising the use of military force against Islamic State ensures that the horrendous murders in Orlando and Manganville this past week will be repeated with ever increasing frequency anywhere and at any time.

Speaking after a meeting with his National Security Council following the Orlando massacres President Obama stated:

“As we know all too well, terrorist groups like ISIL have called on people around the world and here in the United States to attack innocent civilians. Their propaganda, their videos, their postings are pervasive and more easily accessible than we want.

This individual appears to have absorbed some of that, and during his killing spree, the shooter in Orlando pledged allegiance to ISIL.

As I’ve said before, these lone actors or small cells of terrorists are very hard to detect and very hard to prevent.

But across our government at every level—federal, state and local, military and civilian — we are doing everything in our power to stop these kinds of attacks.”

President Obama was in complete denial so far as his Presidential options were concerned.

Despite a raft of resolutions passed by the Security Council under article 41 of the UN Charter requiring member States to take a melange of actions against Islamic
State — a resolution calling for the use of military action by the United Nations under Article 42 of the UN Charter remains stymied because of America’s opposition to taking such action proposed by Russia.

Article 42 is quite clear in its terms:

“Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

Passing such a resolution would oblige all 193 member States to comply with Article 43(1):

“All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued this warning on 18 November last:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”.

President Obama preached a similar mantra in St Petersburg on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

Independent and uncoordinated military actions to wipe out Islamic State taken by Russian-led and American-led coalitions have only had limited success.

A minority of UN member States are shouldering the burden of inflicting total defeat — whilst the rest just make pious condemnatory declarations and avert their gaze.

Islamic State’s radicalising of Moslem minds everywhere is endemic and growing and represents a world-wide problem demanding a world-wide response.

How many more San Bernardino and Orlando massacres will President Obama mourn and decry before he agrees to co-sponsor a Security Council resolution with Russia authorising military action against Islamic State?

Clinton Silent On Honouring Bush-Congress Commitments To Israel

[Published 20 March 2016]


Marco Rubio’s withdrawal from the Presidential race this week will not relieve Hillary Clinton from affirming or disavowing the following pledge made by Rubio during his failed campaign:

“I will revive the common-sense understandings reached in the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter and build on them to help ensure Israel has defensible borders,”

The terms of Bush’s letter - dated 14 April 2004 - were overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 on 24 June 2004.

The letter backed Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and promised to support Israel’s following positions in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority over the previous 11 years:

1. Israel would not cede its claims to all of the territory captured from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War

2. Millions of Palestinian Arabs would not be resettled in Israel and

3. Israel must be recognised as the state of the Jewish people.

Israel’s insistence on these conditions had been major stumbling blocks in the PLO rejecting Israel’s offer to withdraw from more than 90% of the West Bank during negotiations brokered by President Bill Clinton in 2000/2001.

The Bush Congress-endorsed letter had put America squarely in Israel’s corner.

Elliott Abrams — Middle East Affairs point-man at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009 — had no qualms about the significance of the Bush letter — when stating in July 2009:

“Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation — the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step”.

President Obama however sought to change the goal posts laid down in the Bush letter with this statement on 19 May 2011:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Glenn Kessler pointed out at the time:

“Indeed, Israelis and Palestinians have held several intensive negotiations that involved swapping lands along the Arab-Israeli dividing line that existed before the 1967 war - technically known as the Green Line, or the boundaries established by the 1949 Armistice agreements. (Click here for a visual description of the swaps discussed between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.)

So, in many ways, it is not news that the eventual borders of a Palestinian state would be based on land swaps from the 1967 dividing line. But it makes a difference when the president of the United States says it, particularly in a carefully staged speech at the State Department. This then is not an off-the-cuff remark, but a carefully considered statement of U.S. policy.”

Given the chaos in Syria since Obama’s statement, the birth of Islamic State in 2014 and the continuing unstable political and security situations in Gaza and the West Bank— mutually agreed land swaps as a concept have become just another missed opportunity whose time has expired.

Michael Oren—Israel’s Ambassador to Washington between 2009 and 2013 was moved to make the following call in January 2015:

".. it’s time to revive the Bush-Sharon letter and act according to it.”

Will Clinton so act — if elected America’s 17th Democratic President — to honour a former Republican President’s commitments to one of America’s longstanding allies that go far beyond personal partisan politics?

Her answer is eagerly awaited.

Syria - End The Diplomatic Doublespeak, Start Getting Serious

[Published 20 February 2016]


The deadline for a ceasefire in Syria by 19 February has passed with no indication that it will be achieved at any time in the foreseeable future.

Hopes for that ceasefire were high after the UN Security Council had unanimously passed Resolution 2254 on 18 December 2015 requesting:

“the Secretary-General to lead the effort, through the office of his Special Envoy and in consultation with relevant parties, to determine the modalities and requirements of a ceasefire as well as continue planning for the support of ceasefire implementation, and urges Member States, in particular members of the ISSG, to support and accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to agree and adhere to such a ceasefire;”

The ISSG mentioned in the Resolution is the International Syria Support Group – comprising the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States.

ISSG has proved totally ineffective in ending the five year conflict in Syria that has seen more than 300000 deaths and seven million Syrians internally displaced or fleeing to neighbouring States and swamping Europe to escape the horrific carnage unleashed in Syria during that time.

Islamic State was spawned in Syria and Iraq in July 2014 and now occupies more land than the area of Great Britain. Together with Al Nusra Front - a Syria-based Sunni extremist group that adheres to the global jihadist ideology of al-Qa’ida - both have been declared terrorist organisations by the UN Security Council.

Meeting in Munich on 12 and 13 February the ISSG members agreed that:

“The UN shall serve as the secretariat of the ceasefire task force. The cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria.

During that week, the ISSG task force will develop modalities for the cessation of hostilities. The ISSG task force will, among other responsibilities continue to: a) delineate the territory held by Daesh [Islamic State], ANF [Al Nusra Front] and other groups designated as terrorist organisations by the United Nations Security Council; b) ensure effective communications among all parties to promote compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions; c) resolve allegations of non-compliance; and d) refer persistent non-compliant behaviour by any of the parties to ISSG Ministers, or those designated by the Ministers, to determine appropriate action, including the exclusion of such parties from the arrangements for the cessation of hostilities and the protection it affords them.”

Meaningless gobbledygook.

The ISSG task force failed to meet once during that critical seven day period.

Whilst the UN and the ISSG task force mumbles, fumbles and stumbles – the carnage continues - as the ISSG members remain divided between those supporting Syria’s President Assad retaining power and those seeking his removal.

The ISSG is hopelessly conflicted and needs to adopt a different approach to begin ending the suffering of the Syrian people.

All ISSG members unanimously agree that Islamic State and Al Nusra Front represent a grave threat to world peace and security.

Russia, America, China, France and the United Kingdom – the five permanent members of the Security Council and all ISSG members - need to combine their diplomatic power to procure the passing of an unequivocal and unambiguous Security Council Resolution establishing a UN military force to confront and defeat Islamic State and Al Nusra Front.

Until these enemies are comprehensively defeated – all else is diplomatic doublespeak and a complete waste of time in ending the conflict in Syria.