Syrian Sinkhole Swallowing Obama And Putin's Credibility And Political Judgement

[Published 30 September 2015]


President Barack Obama’s continuing focus on removing Syria’s President Assad to secure America’s co-operation with Russia to destroy the Islamic State — whilst President Putin has now independently commenced Russian air strikes in Syria - supposedly on Islamic State forces — exposes both leaders lack of credibility and political judgment.

Obama addressing the United Nations General Assembly on 28 September asserted:

“The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo…

... Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL. But realism also requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader, and an inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild."

Obama’s acceptance of Russia and Iran as acceptable partners — but not Syria - makes no sense. Russia and Iran have propped up Assad’s hold on power in Syria for the last five years enabling the bloodshed and carnage in Syria to continue unabated.

Putin however argues for co-operation with Syria’s armed forces:

“We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurds militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

Putin’s undisguised contempt for the American led coalition’s efforts to degrade and destroy the Islamic State is a harsh — and arguably unfair - indictment.

Nevertheless both Presidents’ differing viewpoints and responses are now on the public record - and need to be reconciled before any Security Council resolution creating a UN armed force to destroy the Islamic State can emerge.

Obama’s preference for a Security Council Resolution can be gleaned from his comments made at a press conference in Russia on 6 September 2013 — shortly after chemical weapons had been used in Syria to gas 1400 people including 400 children. America took the view that Assad was the culprit — whilst Russia considered that the rebel forces battling Assad was the aggressor.

President Obama reasoned:

“You know, there are number a of countries that just as a matter of principle believe that if military action is to be taken, it needs to go through the U.N. Security Council…

... It is my view ... that given Security Council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required and that will not come through Security Council action.

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”

Eight days later — after three days of negotiations between America and Russia — the Security Council in fact adopted a resolution - jointly sponsored by America and Russia - on destroying chemical weapons in Syria - contrary to Obama’s belief that such co-operation was not possible.

Concentrating on their commonly agreed problem — destroying chemical weapons — and not who fired them — averted any possible Security Council paralysis.

Similarly Russia and America need to concentrate on jointly destroying their common agreed enemy - the Islamic State - under a UN mandated Security Council Resolution - rather than acting independently — and dangerously - of each other whilst arguing about Assad’s fate as President or Syria’s inclusion in any proposed UN force.

President Putin warned that the stakes of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution are high:

“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.

We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.

On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.

Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes.”

President Obama also understands the risks of acting unilaterally:

“No matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy, we understand the United States cannot solve the world’s problems alone.”

With Russian airstrikes seriously escalating the conflict in Syria - Obama and Putin need to urgently sponsor that Security Council resolution before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.

Gaza - Hamas Evil Must Be Confronted And Defeated

[Published 10 August 2014]


One month of fierce fighting between Israel and Hamas has resulted in an enormous propaganda victory for Hamas as horrific pictures of dead and wounded Gazan children and civilians, their destroyed homes and other buildings have appeared daily in social media and newspapers around the world.

Why these tragedies need never have occurred has been lost - as racial incitement is fuelled by articles sensationally headlined:

1. “South Africa Compares Gaza Operation to Nazis’ Actions”,

2. "The Nazis Are in Gaza",

3. "Turkey’s Erdogan Compares Israel Gaza Offensive to Hitler" and

4. "Letter from America: Israel’s Nazi-like criminal campaign in Gaza."

Israelis have been represented as Nazis inflicting war crimes on Gazan Arabs - just as war crimes were inflicted on Jews by the Nazis.

Jews have been attacked in Paris, London, Sydney, Rome, Frankfurt and Austria.

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies has been told by a leading trade union official:

“If the Jewish Board of Deputies wants to advance a Zionist agenda, they should leave South Africa and go advance their agenda elsewhere”

Hamas is attempting to gain continuing success in its campaign to denigrate and demonize Israel.

Hamas rejected the continuation of a 72-hour ceasefire that ended at 8.00 am on 8 August — hoping to again induce Israel into retaliating against Hamas and the myriad other terrorist groups embedded in Gaza as they continue their indiscriminate firing of more than 3300 rockets so far into Israeli population centers from rocket launchers positioned in Gazan civilian population centers.

Gazan civilians have unwillingly become the sacrificial lambs in Hamas’s evil objective of eliminating the only Jewish State in the world.

Gregory Baskin summarises how the propaganda war is so far removed from the reality:

“In the current foray into the Gaza Strip, Israelis have killed approximately 1,200 Palestinians. To be clear, Hitler and his army of hypnotized worshippers not only killed millions of people but murdered them, meaning that lives were terminated and family lines severed on purpose. Anyone not consumed with their own anti-Semitism understands the distinction

Many Arab civilians have died in the Gaza Strip. At the least, Israel has made attempts to avoid this by warning civilians ahead of its bombing strikes with the use of dummy bombs, text messages and telephone calls. (Perhaps it is true, as has been reported, that the human shields Hamas puts in harm’s way are not allowed freedom of movement, thus generously contributing to the death toll.) Even the United States and Commander-In-Chief President Obama do less than this when U.S. drones kill terrorists in far off lands. Like so many guerrilla armies before it, Hamas fighters hide amongst the people it purports to protect and represent.

Again, yes, the deaths in the Gaza Strip have been undeniable and horrific. But by no means is what has, and is happening, there a Holocaust. What it is, most unfortunately, is a moment for anti-Semites to express their hatred. Logic is pushed aside as bigotry converts to delirium and then inevitably inflates in magnitude. Again: 1,200killed compared with 6 million-plus murdered.”

Hamas is openly honest about its intentions — as these three extracts from its Covenant make very clear:

1. “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised.”

2. “The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Moslems who have given their allegiance to Allah whom they truly worship, - “I have created the jinn and humans only for the purpose of worshipping” - who know their duty towards themselves, their families and country. In all that, they fear Allah and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness and evils.”

3. “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that.”

The London Times has refused to run an advertisement featuring Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel speaking out against Hamas’ use of children as human shields — because:

“the opinion being expressed is too strong and too forcefully made and will cause concern amongst a significant number of Times readers,”

This advertisement has run in The New York Times, Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, among other U.S. newspapers

Wiesel’s message is clear and unequivocal:

“What we are suffering through today is not a battle of Jew versus Arab or Israeli versus Palestinian. Rather, it is a battle between those who celebrate life and those who champion death. It is a battle of civilization versus barbarism.”

The events in Gaza over the past month would have been avoided if Hamas had accepted the ceasefire proposed by Egypt on 16 July.

Hamas is evil — it must be confronted, and defeated.

Palestine - Obama Chooses Zionism Over Rejectionism

[Published 8 April 2013]


Veteran Israeli peace activist and former Knesset member Uri Avnery points out in his latest article “Obama’s Empathy Deficit in Palestine” that there are two completely divergent Jewish and Arab narratives driving each other’s current claims to the territory once called Palestine.

“Our conflict is tragic, more than most. One of its tragedies is that neither side can be entirely blamed. There is not one narrative, but two. Each side is convinced of the absolute justice of its cause. Each side nurses its overwhelming sense of victimhood.”

Avnery is very upset that President Obama had apparently chosen to empathise with the Jewish narrative during his recent visit to Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman.

“The trouble with Obama is that he has completely, entirely, totally embraced one narrative, while being almost completely oblivious to the other. Every word he uttered in Israel gave testimony to his deeply-rooted Zionist convictions. Not just the words he said, but the tone, the body language, all bore the marks of honesty. Evidently, he had internalized the Zionist version of every single detail of the conflict.”

The reasons Avnery attributes for Obama empathising with Israel are shallow and misconceived.

“It was really amazing. He must have studied us thoroughly. He knew our strengths and our weaknesses, our paranoias and our idiosyncrasies, our historical memories and dreams about the future.

And no wonder. He is surrounded by Zionist Jews. They are his closest advisors, his friends and his experts on the Middle East. Even from mere contact with them, he obviously absorbed much of our sensitivities.

As far as I know, there is not a single Arab, not to mention Palestinian, in the White House and its surroundings.”

This shabby explanation indicates little understanding of the multitude of advice that is received by any President from a variety of sources and the need for the President to ultimately sort the wheat from the chaff.

Avnery’s outburst regrettably leaves his readers in the dark by failing to actually quote President Obama’s carefully crafted remarks:

“For the Jewish people, the journey to the promise of the State of Israel wound through countless generations. It involved centuries of suffering and exile, prejudice, pogroms and even genocide. Through it all, the Jewish people sustained their unique identity and traditions, as well as a longing to return home. And while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea – to be a free people in your homeland.”

It is indeed this Zionist idea that has been rejected both by Avnery personally and by the Palestinian Arabs in their narrative.

The Palestinian Arab narrative ignores Obama’s sweep of history - starting its narrative from 1948 by characterising the conflict as the “Israeli - Palestinian conflict”- thus allowing such narrative to completely ignore a host of critical events that occurred between 1917-1947.

This rejectionism is clearly evident in article 20 of the 1968 PLO Charter:

"Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of their own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”

The Palestinian Arab narrative conveniently ignores the fact that the two-state solution was first suggested in 1922 and actually proposed and rejected by the Palestinian Arabs in 1937, 1938 and 1947.

The Palestinian Arab narrative has no memory or remorse for the Arab riots in 1920 and 1929 that targeted and slaughtered Jews or the 1936-1939 Arab revolt which wrought similar havoc on Jews living in Palestine during those turbulent years.

Starting from 1948 the Arab narrative can avoid confronting the reality that Winston Churchill told a delegation of Palestinian Arabs leaders in 1921 urging him to halt Jewish immigration to Palestine:

“It is manifestly right that the Jews,who are scattered all over the world,should have a national centre and a National Home,where some of them may be reunited. and where else could that be but in the land of Palestine, with which for more than three thousand years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?”

The flawed Arab narrative also avoids accepting responsibility for the Arab pressure put on Great Britain to severely curtail Jewish immigration to Palestine between 1939 and 1945 - resulting in hundreds of thousands of Jews perishing at the hands of the Nazis when their lives might have been spared had Great Britain ignored such inhumane Arab demands.

The Arab narrative has always rejected - and will continue to reject - the will of the international community expressed in the 1920 San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres, the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the 1945 United Nations Charter.

Avnery’s dismay at President Obama’s adoption of the “Zionist idea” is explained on Avnery’s own website:

“After some years of sporadic political activity, in 1946 Avnery founded the Eretz Yisrael Hatzira (“Young Palestine”) movement, also known as the “Bamaavak (Struggle) group” from the name of its publication, which he edited. This group provoked an unprecedented uproar because of its contention that the Jewish community in Palestine constituted a “new Hebrew nation” within the Jewish people, and that this nation belongs to Asia and is a natural ally of the Arab national movements.”

From Avnery’s viewpoint the Jewish community in Palestine in 1945 had no biblical or historical connection with Palestine - or any right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine - despite the League of Nations imprimatur to do so.

Avnery’s rejection of the Zionist idea identified with the viewpoint of the Arab population of Palestine in 1945 - whose opposition to Jews immigrating to Palestine had been violently resisted ever since the Allied Powers decided in 1920 that Arab self- determination should occur in 99.99% of the liberated Ottoman Empire - whilst Jewish self-determination should take place in Palestine - the remaining 0.01%.

President Obama has indeed empathised with the Jewish narrative - which dates the “Jewish - Arab conflict” as having begun in 1880 - not 1948.

Until both narratives at the very least commence from an agreed starting date - one can confidently predict that any talk of peacefully resolving the ongoing and unresolved conflict is a complete waste of time.

Hopefully President Obama has taken the first step to ram this message home.