Q: WHAT DO "BREXIT" AND THE "ABRAHAM ACCORDS" HAVE IN COMMON?

A:  BORDER ISSUES, SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES, TRADE ISSUES, CULTURAL ISSUES,  EXISTENTIAL ISSUES... ALL OF THESE ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF AN AMERICAN POLITICAL TRANSITION TO A BIDEN/HARRIS ADMINISTRATION AND THEREFORE TO ALL THAT SUCH A TRANSITION MAY MEAN IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, ALIGNMENTS OF SOVEREIGNTY, CULTURE, POWER, AND EXISTENCE.

 

  

 

Modern American History (that is, the history of the North American and South American Continents commencing with the European Invasions of the Americas) is perhaps defined by the recent period of seven-centuries since the "discovery" of the New World by Non-Native Americans. 

This reality stands in marked contrast to the familiarity of the European, African, Indian, and Asian Continents with each other, having engaged each other for thousands of years in every kind of human relationship possible (e.g. culture, politics, trade, war, etc.).

While Israel (in and out of power and sovereignty) has been at the center of the Middle East for greater than three-thousand years, the North Atlantic Island Nations of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (most recently by those names, and with significant variations of culture and nations) have been central to the North Atlantic and therefore to Europe and Scandinavia, also for thousands of years. 

The North Atlantic Island Nations and Israel have in common their central roles in culture and trade as well as war and politics.  The historic Silk Road connecting China and Southeast Asia to Central Asia, India, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe consisted of many river, land, and sea routes; the New Silk Road seeks to modernize the historic Silk Road, representing a return of power from Europe to China.

It should surprise no one that the North Atlantic Island Nations and Israel are both at the stress centers of shifting power alliances.  Peoples with far more in common than naught are caught up in webs of power politics extending far into the past, and those webs of power politics are being fought in the New World today, even as those battles rage in the Old World.

At risk in the present are two distinct possibilities: that the peace existing between Ireland and England may be undone, and that the budding peace between Israel and multiple Arab nations may be undone.

Far more than the COVID-19 Pandemic, it is economic inequality, food inequality, healthcare inequality, racial inequity, and environmental disasters and destruction that will define the Biden/Harris Administration, such that the reputation of the New Administration may depend as precursor upon the foundations and consequences of foreign policy (which is not to say that the domestic issues are trivial; but, that the New Administration's focus, attention, and budgetary concerns dare not be so radicalized or reversed as to rip focus, attention, and budgetary concerns away from the present historical foreign policy achievements and advances of the Trump Administration.

When Joe Biden says, "America's back," chills should race up and down our spines, much like the chills that once again run up and down the spines of the two Irelands and Israel.  The imminent "hard and soft borders" (or, 'spine') dividing Ireland from Northern Ireland and therefore Britain is analogous to the 1967 "hard and soft borders" ('spine') dividing the various Arabias from Israel. 

Perhaps the Abraham Accords have something to teach Britain and Europe about a way forward beyond the stuck politics that the present EU-England negotiations suffer; perhaps Israel can assist the two Irelands and England to create a solution that will work for Ireland, Scotland, England and the EU; and perhaps in doing so, then the Abraham Accords may additionally be strengthened by lessons learned from the two Irelands and Britain.

Given that Joe Biden is himself Irish, there is an opportunity for Israel and the two Irelands to work together through Joe Biden, perhaps according to the working model of the Abraham Accords, to encourage the further growth of peace simultaneously in the North Atlantic and in the Middle East.  Success at these two central geopolitical faults may do much to ripple outwardly and generate equilibrium internationally all the way to the South China Sea.

PRESIDENT-ELECT BIDEN SHOULD SEEK TO SERVE THE U.S.A. IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON.

 

It is urgent and necessary that President-elect Biden speak clearly and forcefully that he will neither weaken, nor roll back, and will in fact strengthen and advance the Middle East peace initiatives set in motion by the Trump Administration. 

 

 

 

Given present equivocations by Sudan, Bahrain, Jordan, and given instability in hardline Iran, the momentum to Middle East peace initiated by the Trump Administration is under threat to collapse, for Arabia may anticipate that a President Biden may intend to kow-tow to the European Union, Iran, and China.

 

A transfer of power is already reality in Iran from father Mullah Khameini to son. Transition politics in Iran may or may not destabilize Iran, for better or for worse.  Meanwhile, Bahrain is feeling pressure from the world of fundamentalist Islamism, as indeed are any and all Muslim and EU nations on the verge of peaceful relations with the USA and Israel, due to the new potential US weakness regarding Iran that may unravel the growing tapestry of peace being woven across the world of Sunni Islam (and even Alawi Islam) with a thread binding the US and Israel (and inevitably the EU).  Shall President Biden be like a cat granted privilege to play with a ball of yarn?  Or, shall President Biden follow the model leadership of a George Washington?

 

There are only four reasons for a Biden Administration to deliberately fail to uphold and to strengthen the Middle East foreign policy initiatives of the Trump Administration: 

 

(a) if Biden's Administration is deliberately incompetent; 

 

(b) if Biden's foreign policy approach proves to be based on appeasement and conciliation; 

 

(c) if Biden's foreign policy approach proves to be based on financial dealings and obligations to his supporters and donors; or, 

 

(d) any and all of the above.  

 

In less kind words: it may well be that President-elect Biden is in bed with the enemy and is perhaps also in the pocket of the enemy.

 

There are two very good reasons for a Biden Administration to speak out now to reassure the world that he will neither unravel nor fail to continue to weave the Middle East peace tapestry sewn by the Trump Administration: 

 

(1) it is necessary for the stability and progress of the Middle East and therefore of the entire World, as the Middle East is the fulcrum of four major continents (Europe, Africa, India, and Asia); and, 

 

(b) it is necessary for the stability and progress of the USA, as the USA is the fulcrum of the North and South American continents.  

 

Just as the USA faces the domestic crises of pandemic, economic inequality, racial hatred, and climate change, so, too, does the entire World.  

 

Knowing what we now know of history prior to World War Two, could we and would we in the US try Woodrow Wilson for treason, based on the destructive and portentious reality of the Versailles Treaty? And could and would Britain try Lord Chamberlain for treason, due to his appeasement of the Nazis?

 

What will future history say of the yet tentative Biden Administration?  Will President Biden prove to be a Woodrow Wilson/Lord Chamberlain?  Or, will President Biden prove to be a George Washington?

CONSIDER THE ISRAEL-U.A.E. "ABRAHAM ACCORD" IN CONTEXT TO IMPERATIVES OF NATIONAL MANIFEST DESTINY.

 

Every nation believes itself to have a manifest destiny -- even a God-given manifest destiny.

Nowhere in the world as in the Middle East do we see the conflicts and competitions between national manifest destinies as we see in and around Israel, which sits at the fulcrum between the three continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa.  (Although India is itself a unique continent, being contiguous to Asia, India may to some extent be regarded as an extension of Asia and therefore of the third continent.)  In religious terms those conflicts include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Atheism.

Fundamental to the most extreme visions of each of these manifest destinies is the axiomatic devotion and commitment to imperial class status; therefore any sustainable solution to these conflicts requires the acceptance of a principle that appears anathema to each unique vision of manifest destiny; and, that principle is: respect and recognition of international political equality among nations.  

 Until the creation of the Modern Jewish State of Israel in 1948, Jews have been subjugated internationally, most notably by dominions of Christianity and Islam.  To those given to apocalyptic thinking, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism regard the existence of today's Israel as imminent to the End of Days, according to which is anticipated the Second Coming of Christ, the Appearance of the Mahdi, or the Arrival of Moshiach-Moshichay, respectively.  Correlatively and imminently, the apocalyptic mind makes ready for the onset of Armageddon, that cataclysmic war in which the deserving dead will arise and live once again, flesh growing upon flesh upon bone, jumping out of graves, Armies of Heaven prophecied to defeat Worldly Evil once and for all Eternity.

Never mind that in answer to the question, "When will you return...?",  Jesus replied "Only the Father [God Himself] knows..." (Sermon on the Mount).  Never mind, too, that both Judaism and Islam caution that anyone claiming to be the Moshiach-Moshichay or the Mahdi, respectively, must fulfill certain conditions that have yet to be fulfilled, rendering as false any claims to such Heavenly Messianic Status. 

It may be said that in the USA approximately half of the population perceives President Donald John Trump in messianic terms and that former President Barack Hussein Obama was perceived in messianic terms by the alternate half of the US population.  "Hussein" is a name that indicates the possibility that former President Obama may be a direct descendant of Muhammad.  "John" is a name that stands out in Christianity, not least in the lyric of the gospel song "I Wanna Be Ready" ["... to walk in Jerusalem, just like John"].  On the one hand one must be careful not to read to much into names or to interpret the facts on the ground according to metaphor; on the other hand one ignores such things at one's peril, as they may have cultural, political, and religious significance in the minds of millions of persons.

Only a fool would deny the messianic importance of Vladimir Putin to Russia... only a fool would deny the messianic importance of Tayyip Erdogan to Turkey... only a fool would deny the messianic importance of Kim Jong Un to North Korea... only a fool would deny the messianic importance of Xi Jinping to China... only a fool would deny the messianic importance of Rodrigo Duterte to the Philippines... etc.  (But, we do live in a world of fools, don't?)

Any lasting peace agreement(s) in the Middle East must be based on the fundamental requirement that the religious manifest destiny visions of the conflicting nations be factored into account.  This is necessary in order to transform the present conflicts into healthy competitions.  All too often the word "competition" is misused, where "conflict" ought to be the correct word, as the word "competition" means "to strive together" and "conflict" means "to contend, fight, struggle".  This means that the (ideally) competing nations must respect each other's sense of manifest destiny, and this respect must be defined both within nations and across borders.

No respect of Israel's sense of manifest destiny may include promulgation of "Dhimmitude" status and the repression, oppression, and persecution of Jews that is inimical to Islam or for that matter to Christian equivalents.  Nor can any similar status be promulgated by Jews against Arabs, etc.  It is possible within borders to establish a special status for foreigners so that foreigners may live and thrive within the borders of a dominant culture and not be repressed, oppressed, or persecuted.  And it should be possible for the Arabs and for the entire world of Muslims and Christians and Jews to understand that no human being speaks absolutely for God.  That being so, borders must be recognized and accepted, so that each nation may express it's own sense of manifest destiny and not yet impose any unique vision upon the other similarly unique visions.  For example, Arabs ['Palestinians'] accepting and preferring to live in Israel [inclusive of Golan, Judea-Samaria, and Jerusalem] ought to be able to do so, having a preferred status that is however exclusive of Israeli Citizenship.

As to definitions of borders, reality must be recognized.  The de facto borders of Israel are those areas already under Israel's political and military hegemony, which for the good of everyone should be accepted as de jure, irregardless of propaganda, political posturing, biased and invalid decision-making by the ICJ, and one-sided resolutions against Israel at the UN.

There is absolutely every reason -- religious, philosophical, and political -- for the Muslim world to adopt a religious posture that is protective of the State of Israel as a manifestation of the People of the Book, protection of which People is required by Islam.  As Christians are also regarded by Islam as People of the Book, there must be an end to Muslim persecution of Christians.  And, by extension, there must be a universal end to persecution of any faith group by any other faith group; secular influences not withstanding, it is not incorrect to regard Western Culture as Christian Culture, Eastern Culture as Muslim Culture, and Israeli Culture as Jewish Culture. 

The "Abraham Accord" gives promise to a possible future of Middle East Peace.  Yet, it will succeed, if and only if religious commonality between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, being Abrahamic Faiths, provides a basis for the respect and recognition of international political equality among nations. 

TO BE FAIR...

To be fair to the various theocracies of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and their secular counterparts... Each has significant humble populations that do not presume to an imminent expectation of the Ultimate Salvation. Judaism anticipates that before the remnant of Israel is redeemed to Zion as the Ultimate Redemption, Jewish exile may extend to the farthest reaches of the universe; yet, this does not necessarily preclude the day to day expansions and contractions of sovereignty over mundane life. Christianity teaches that "Only The Father Knows, when Jesus will return (Sermon on the Mount)." Islam teaches that when the Mahdi will appear, the coming of Jesus will then also be known, as well as the Day of Judgment; and, until then, nobody knows. This common humbleness regarding Ultimate Redemption is the root hope for all humanity, springing as it does from the same tree of life, speaking of God, yet presuming (at least some of the time) not to be God's mouthpiece and not to dictate God's terms, valuing the right to life of all people and all Peoples.

THE CYNIC IN ME SAYS...

EVERYBODY LOVES A FOOD FIGHT... AND SO THE ONLY MOVEMENT WE SHALL SEE SHALL BE SUCH MOVEMENT AS MAKES FOR A GOOD FOOD FIGHT... MEANWHILE, THE VAST MAJORITY WILL CONTINUE TO BE STUNNED AND STUPIFIED... ULTIMATELY THE SURVIVORS WILL PICK UP THE PIECES... SOME WILL BE HAPPY FOR THE WORK... SOME WILL SAY, "WOW... WASN'T THAT A FOOD FIGHT TO BEAT ALL FOOD FIGHTS,"... SOME WILL BE UNHAPPY AND CONDEMN THE FOOD FIGHTERS... AND SOME WILL GET INTO THE NEXT FOOD FIGHT, WHICH REALLY IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE ONE ETERNAL FOOD FIGHT... SO I ASK THE ULTIMATE QUESTION... "PIZZA, ANYONE???"

BEINART'S EQUIVOCAL REVELATION

THERE IS A GLIMMER OF LIGHT THAT SHINES IN THE DARKNESS OF BEINART'S 'REVELATION'.

The guts of the Jewish Left Wing are so twisted and so contorted that the Left Wing does not know one end from the other, only that a purging and purification is required and inevitable. There is nothing new in Beinart's ideal of a democratic Israel-Palestine, as it harkens back to the competitive days contemporary to the early formation of the modern State of Israel and of the differing concepts of Zionism, when the Left Wing sought to create a combined Arab-Jewish Palestinian State along Marxist ideals. Events such as numerous wars and terrorism, bent on the annihilation of Jews and Israel, have made a reductio-as-absurdum of such an ideal. In Beinart's article one perceives the writhing and perhaps even the last throes of a Left Wing recognition and acceptance of the death of their ideal. The death of any ideal and an awakening to reality is always preceded by denial and by great intellectual and emotional angst. The glimmer of light in Beinart's 'revelation' is in the acceptance, however terrifyingly equivocal, of the inevitability of One State.

Beinart gives a Left Wing interpretation of what that State might look like, based on early Left Wing ideals... '"back to the future", if you will. But, that ship sailed, foundered, and sank. In today's world, as Daniel Gordis and Alan Dershowitz articulated so eloquently, so strongly, so intelligently, and so passionately, Beinart's idealistic plan would bring suicide to the Jewish State of Israel and would re-subjugate Jews to foreign domination... [that is, those Jews remaining alive after such a cataclysm, as would be the inevitable consequence of any realization of Beinart's Plan].

One remembers that the brilliant antisemitic British philosopher Bertrand Russell equated the ideal of a Marxist State as being a secular realization of the Catholic Church. It would be so easy to engage here in a discussion of the historical Western conflict between the Anglican Church, as well as other Protestant forms of Christianity, and the Catholic Church. However, keeping on topic, the majority of Christian religious fundamentals have their common denominator in antisemitism... after all, according to Christianity, the only "Real Jew" was Jesus. As for the rest of us, according to Christianity, we are all impostors, to be validated only by our sacrifice (hence the Christian word "Holocaust", not SHOAH). Our sacrifice is necessary to Christianity for it is Israel's sacrifice, come the "End of Days", that makes the "Second Coming of Jesus" possible and which is why from the Christian perspective a "stump of a stump" of Jews have been kept alive in ghettoes with and without walls, including the ghetto in the Middle East that we know today as the modern State of Israel.

Israel's existence today is a conundrum for both the vociferous Left and the vociferous Right, just as it is a conundrum for the Haredim (may one think of the Naturei Karta as being the Haredi Left and the Lubavitch as the Haredi Right?). Both the Secular Left and the Religious Left respond to the problem of Western [Christian Religious and Christian Secular] domination by tortuous contortions of 'justifications' and 'obligations' found within and without the Torah. The Naturei-Karta would have us do exactly as Beinart would do (would he realy?). Both Beinart and the Naturei Karta offer us what may only be understood in both Christian Religious and Christian Secular terms as The Christian Solution. That consequence would be an Holocaust. Given that the Pope travels the world kissing the feet of Muslims, one must perceive that the Beinart and Naturei Karta Solution does not pass the smell test for a real Jewish person. For the good of both the Christian world and the Muslim world, it is imperative that Israel not succumb to the temptation to enable another Second Holocaust in our time. Just imagine the pain and suffering of the Muslim and Christian worlds, when after such a 'Second Holocaust' there will have appeared no "Mahdi" (the Muslim Messiah) nor the "Second Coming of Jesus". At least the Lubavitch give us another 220-years before the "Arrival of the Moshiach-Moshichay" in the form of Rebbe Menachem Schneerson [Of Blessed Memory].

So one must give credit to Peter Beinart for his expressed awareness, which is that a "Two-State Solution" is not possible and that a "One State" is inevitable. For one who is Orthodox and utters the Shema on a daily basis, the concepts of ERETZ ECHAD and YERUSHALAYIM ECHAD should not be so hard to grasp. Only HaShem knows, whether or not such words, conceived and spoken as is the Shema, would be spoken as last words.

The challenge facing Israel in our time is to continue the establishing of a Jewish State that is democratic in the context of Torah as the foundation of Law and Life, disallowing cultural 'imprisonment' by Theocratic Politics, while also not vying to fulfill a conception that would make Israel into a 51st State of the USA. Israel is unique. It would be madness to continue efforts towards either a Two-State Solution or an "Israel-Palestine" solution. It would be madness to enable Israeli Citizenship for the Arabs presently living in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. It may be madness to continue Israeli Citizenship for those Arabs and Jews already having citizenship, who are hostile to Israel; and, Arab devotion to "Al-Nakba" is anathema to the existence of the State of Israel. Sanity demands that hostiles be expelled (may they be granted golden parachutes). Sanity demands that such Arabs of Judea-Samaria and Gaza, who are happy to reside in the hegemony of Israel, be granted "Blue Cards" allowing special status and special privilege, but, not citizenship. Sanity demands One Israel and One Jerusalem flying the Israeli Flag from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

"WHY THE DEVIL CAME YOU BETWEEN US?" (Mercutio, Act 3 - Scene 1, ROMEO & JULIET)

PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY BRING THE ARABS BACK TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE BY DELAYING RELOCATION OF THE AMERICAN EMBASSY FROM TEL AVIV TO JERUSALEM, AND CONGRESS SHOULD ULTIMATELY REVOKE IT'S LEGISLATION OF 20-YEARS AGO THAT AUTHORIZED THE EMBASSY RELOCATION.

I hope and pray that the Trump Administration will yet walk back the promise to relocate the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and that Congress will ultimately revoke the legislation of twenty-years ago to relocate our Embassy to Jerusalem. I say this, even as I applaud President Trump for recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol city of Jerusalem, and even as I believer that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for doing so. As for the withholding of American funds to the "Palestinians", the US makes a symbolic statement, but, the majority of "Palestinian" funding comes from Muslim nations, most especially Iran and Saudi Arabia and even Egypt and Jordan, and from Europe and [indirectly] from Russia and China. Facts on the ground and a longer term view should preclude relocation of any and all Embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; but, all nations should recognize Israel's existential right, actual existence, and Jerusalem's undivided status as Israel's capitol city.

The way forward to Middle East peace and Arab-Israeli peace is really quite simple, and ought not include American or other intercession in Jerusalem; but, must inevitably involve either independence or semi-independence for the Kurds, and a simultaneous truncation of Erdogan's Neo-Ottoman push and of Mullah Iranian terrorism and imperialism.

The way forward with respect to Israel should be quite obvious, but, requires the cooperation of the three Great Powers, which demands greater effort than is needed to overcome the unified Muslim objectionto Israel that enables the Muslims to play off the Great Powers against each other.

To date Israel has been continuously kicked in the head, like a soccer ball (imagine a soccer field designed as a Chinese checkerboard) -- "fun" for everyone, except for Israel (if only humanity would imagine peace as a way to more genuine entertainment than war...). It should be obvious that Israeli security needs preclude the creation of a "State of Palestine" on the "West Bank" (Judea-Samaria). As well, occupation once again (as in the period from 1947-1967) of the "West Bank" and East Jerusalem by Jordan would not only also be too great a risk to the security of Israel; but, would again be a reimposition of the Jordanian yoke around the neck of the "Palestinians". However, Israeli security does not necessarily preclude the expansion of a "State of Gaza".

The "Palestinians" would be motivated to come back to the negotiating table, if two major ideas are put forth and acted upon publicly: (1) an offer to revoke American Embassy relocation to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, and (2) an offer to negotiate [a] expansion of Gaza, and [b] paid relocation from the "West Bank" to the new "Gaza State" of any and all "Palestinians" unwilling to live as "permanent residents" within Israeli hegemony (include among the "unwilling" those Arabs deserving of expulsion, be they militant Arab-Israelis or militant "West Bank" Arabs).

The "land for peace" idea may be exercised, if and only if that land comes from the Sinai territory as an Egyptian "gift" (no doubt at American expense in the form of foreign aid to Egypt). Egypt owes an unpaid, unspoken debt to Israel of the Sinai territory, even if officially the Egypt-Israel "peace" deal was based on Israel's absolute return of the entire Sinai territory to Egypt. That (forced by a former American President) deal set the precedent upon which the Arabs take it for granted, that they may wage wars of annihilation against Israel at no risk to territorial losses and with the implicit understanding that the existence of Israeli hegemony in any form represents "occupation" that Arabs may inevitably terminate with worldwide anticipation, approbation, and approval. The amount of land needed for a viable State of Gaza need not be the entire Sinai.

Meanwhile, we in the USA should keep two things in mind: (1) in his Sermon on the Mount, when asked about "His Return", Jesus said, "only The Father knows..."; therefore, as we are not "The Father", our American politics should not and must not be driven by evangelical opinion that we live in Messianic Times here and now; and, (2) we must remember that the British Occupation in the Holy Land only brought sorrow to the British, as well as to the various Peoples of the Holy Land. Mercutio's words, "Why the devil came you between us?" from Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" ring loudly in my ears (it was not Romeo's intention to place Mercutio at risk of life and limb, however, death was the direct result of Romeo's intervention, leading inevitably to the immediate death of Tybalt and later of Juliet and Romeo himself (by this analogy I see Israel as Mercutio, the "Palestinians" as Tybalt, the Arabs as Juliet, and the US as Romeo).

********************

by William Shakespeare

ROMEO AND JULIET

(Act 3, Scene 1)

MERCUTIO

I am hurt.

A plague o' both your houses! I am sped.

Is he gone and hath nothing?

BENVOLIO

     What, art thou hurt?

MERCUTIO

Ay, ay, a scratch, a scratch. Marry, ’tis enough.

Where is my page?—Go, villain, fetch a surgeon.

ROMEO

Courage, man. The hurt cannot be much.

MERCUTIO

No, ’tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door, but ’tis enough, ’twill serve. Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man. I am peppered, I warrant, for this world. A plague o' both your houses! Zounds, a dog, a rat, a mouse, a cat to scratch a man to death! A braggart, a rogue, a villain that fights by the book of arithmetic! Why the devil came you between us? I was hurt under your arm!

ROMEO

I thought all for the best....

**************************************************

"ISRAELI AUTHORITIES HAVE APPROVED A MAJOR EXPANSION OF A JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN OCCUPIED EAST JERUSALEM." (BBC sub-headline, 10/25/2017)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41750916

"Israel approves 176 new settler homes in East Jerusalem" (BBC 

headline)

The above headline from today's BBC appears innocent enough, although the phrase "settler homes" brings with it the implication that for Jews to live in East Jerusalem in protected communities is somehow wrong.  This bias is just the icing on the cake of the larger bias represented in the sub-headline, "Israeli authorities have approved a major expansion of a Jewish settlement in occupied East Jerusalem."

East Jerusalem is the traditional Arab Quarter of Jerusalem, which Arabs and the EU and the UN (and apparently the BBC) prematurely and wrongly regard as part and parcel of a future "State of Palestine", speaking of that hypothetical, as if such a State were a fact. Such a State is not a fact. The BBC should be sued, as such an BBC news article ought not editorialize (a separate opinion piece is permissible). The omission of the word "Jewish" or "Israeli" from the phrase "in [Jewish/Israeli] occupied East Jerusalem does not avoid the obvious implication in the first part of that same sentence, "Israeli authorities have approved a major expansion of a Jewish settlement...". There is no excusing the BBC (or any news organization of politician or person) for presenting bias and opinion in the form and pretext of news. Loading the word "occupied" should never have occurred, not in this news article and not in any news article, as so loading such articles violates ethical standards of accurate and precise reporting.

News this past 18-months has been dominated by Elections in the UK, France, USA, Germany, China, and many other countries as well as by international warfare in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. If Israel has played an apparently minor role in world reporting during this period, this does not mean that events in Israel have been either insignificant or unimportant. The BDS movement must still be countered; the war in Syria has involved Israel directly, the Sinai situation involving Al-quaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Fatah, and the Muslim Brotherhood versus Egypt and Israel is an ongoing problem, as is the incessant threat of terrorism against Israel; and let us not forget Iran, nor the biases of the UN.

At sometimes more than others the BBC publishes and broadcasts opinion disguised as news reporting, almost as if to see, if Israel is paying the BBC any attention. We most hope that Israel is paying attention to the BBC and other media outlets and that Israel shall use every means at it's disposal to bring biased reporting to justice.

THE MIDDLE EAST IS KNOWN MORE FOR CAMELS, HORSES, AND DONKEYS THAN IT IS KNOWN FOR ELEPHANTS.

ONE "ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM"  
OF THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IS 
THE SUPPOSED "DEMOGRAPHIC PROBLEM".

This language of a "demographic problem" stinks to high heaven. It is a divisive and pernicious, racist rhetoric that only serves to play up the animosities between Arabs and Jews, most especially between the Muslim Arabs and Jews.

It is not a uniting and socially constructive rhetoric. If anything it calls to mind the "Jewish Problem" that the Nazi's created throughout Europe and sought to solve by annihilating the Jews in what is known in history as "The Holocaust" and which cost the lives of at least six-million Jews and their potential generations of Jewish life, which could not come into existence from their ashes.

Anti-Jewish, anti-Israel propaganda seeks to perversely flip that image and create the appearance that "Jews are Nazis", that "Jews practice apartheid" and similar such bizarre interpretations of Israel's treatment of the Arabs of the "West Bank". The darker, greater reality is that the Arabs of the "West Bank" are in large part the tip of the spear of the single-minded Arab war machine, which has sought to annihilate Israel since it's inception circa WW-1 and creation post WW-2. The darker, greater reality is that Arab nations have used the variety of Jihadi terror organizations (Hamas, El Fatah, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, ISIS, etc.) as training opportunities for Jihadi Wars; who does one think are under those KKK-like hoods that they wear?

Most of the native "Palestinians" left their homes in 1948 to avoid being butchered by invading Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other Arab nations, which invaded to snuff out the post-Holocaust State of Israel and to occupy "Palestine". Praise Heaven, these invading armies lost their war against Israel in 1948 and lost all the subsequent wars of annihilation they fought against Israel.

Native "Palestinians" have done well or poorly, depending on where their exile took them. Those, who made it to Europe and America have done relatively well and even very well. Those, who were protected by Israel, became Israeli Citizens and comprise 20% of Israel today.

Those, who settled in refugee camps in Arab countries, often suffered and still do, because the Arab nations that caused them to flee did not and do not want to take responsibility for them, except to use them as pawns in their wars. With the notable exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, most Arab and Muslim States do not recognize Israel.

"At present, a total of 31 United Nations member states do not recognise the State of Israel: 18 of the 21 UN members in the Arab League: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen; a further 10 members of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Chad, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, and Pakistan. Other countries which do not recognise Israel include Bhutan, Cuba, and North Korea.[12] In 2002, the Arab League proposed recognition of Israel by Arab countries as part of the resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict in the Arab Peace Initiative. 16 of these countries do not accept Israeli passports[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] and eight of these also do not accept passports of other countries whose holder has an Israeli visa endorsed in it.[16][20]" 

en.wikipedia.org

=""wiki=""international_recognition_of_israel="">

If any apartheid exists, it is a Muslim Apartheid against Jews that exists with it's center in Saudi Arabia and which extends in every direction into Africa, throughout Arabia, into Turkey and Europe and Russia, into Iran and parts of India, into much of Central Asia, into much of China, and into much of Southeast Asia.

And yet, as the above Wikipedia quote demonstrates, the Arab League has the unmitigated absolute gall to insist that it will only make peace with Israel, contingent on the existence of resolution of the "Palestine-Israel Conflict".

Respectfully, there is no "Palestine-Israel Conflict". Jews and Arabs of the geography of Israel are by definition altogether Palestinians in that the British and French resurrected the Ancient Roman Conqueror's designation of "Palestine" (actually, Syria-Palestina) for the geography of Israel. In all history there was never a "State of Palestine" and there still is no such State today. So why then are the non-Jews of the "West Bank" (known by history until recently as Judea-Samaria) called "Palestinians" and the Jews and non-Jewish citizens of Israel "Israelis"? This is a story in itself, and I invite everyone to ask themselves this question and think about it.

More importantly, I ask everyone to put away their racism, be it anti-Israeli or anti-Arab, be it anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim or anti-Christian or anti-Druse or anti-Bahai or anti-Hindu or anti-Atheist or anti-Agnostic... whatever your bigotry, put it aside! Take a look at Israel, at Gaza, and at the "Palestinian Authority" (which governs the Arabs in the "West Bank").... In Gaza there is Hamas -- Hamas apartheid and terror against everyone except Hamas. In the "West Bank" there is El Fatah, apartheid against everyone except El Fatah, and terror. In Israel there is freedom for everyone in a Jewish majority democracy... and unfortunately, there is also terror, either because of Arab terror against Israelis due to Jihadi incitement, or due to Israeli terror against Arabs in response to the terror against Israelis.

There is every reason that those Arabs, who are not Israeli Citizens and who live in the "West Bank" (Judea-Samaria), should be granted a status of "Resident Alien" -- as long as they are willing to live peacefully in Israel, once Judea-Samaria is properly annexed to Israel. Those, who are unwilling to live peacefully in Israel, have every right to receive compensation and assistance in relocating to any country that would have them; or, they have the right to be deported, as Israel cannot and should tolerate those, who would be terrorists.

Similarly, those Arabs, who are already privileged to live in Israel and have Israeli citizenship, who are unwilling to live peacefully in Israel, should be compensated to relocate or be deported. Israeli citizen or not, those, who celebrate the evil holiday "Al-Nakba" ("The Catastrophe", meaning that the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel is a worldly catastrophe) should be regarded as traitors and/or as enemies of the State of Israel and be summarily deported, no questions asked. Everyone else -- Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druse, Bahai, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, etc. -- may then live in Israel in peace.

There is no Israel-Palestine Conflict. There is only an Arab-Israel Conflict, because the Arab League and other Muslim Nations maintain a unified state of war against Israel and use the idea of a "State of Palestine" as pretext for continuation of war against Israel. It is long overdue for the world to set straight the Arab League and all those Nations not recognizing Israel. And it is long overdue for the world to perceive that the "West Bank" is a name jinned-up to create an Arab-style bank of funds for waging war against Israel.

It would be a good thing, should the Arab-Israel Conflict be  subject for discussion between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump, if new light were brought to the political table, which for decades has seen repetition to force the same failed idea of a "Two-State Solution". The very language of the discussion is critical, as there is no "demographic problem", only a need for the Jewish Democratic State of Israel to protect everyone willing to live in peace within it's borders (including Judea-Samaria, and One Jerusalem); and there is a need for the non-Jewish Muslim population of Judea-Samaria to have a special "Resident Alien" status.  This is not an abnormal reality in the world of democracies.

The American Embassy may stay in Tel Aviv; moving the Embassy is not important and may even become a detrimental sideshow. What is important is One Israel, One Jerusalem, and for everyone to live in peace within Israel's  borders, who is willing to live in peace.

May these meditations be taken as prayers and find favor....

<http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/02/14/israel-us-trump-netanyahu>

AN ENTREATY TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA

                  

Dear President Obama,

You still have one week remaining in the office of the American Presidency during which you may yet set things right with Israel by initiating a single phone call to Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, stating to PM Netanyahu, that the White House shall forthrightly and publicly announce support for Israel, if Israel shall annex Judea-Samaria and grant a non-voting "Resident Alien" status to the Arabs of Judea-Samaria (the West Bank), accomplishing a One-State Solution, which would enable Israel to remain a democratic Jewish State without suffering the demographic hit to the democratic process that full citizenship for hundreds-of-thousands of alien Arabs would mean.

The White House shall recognize Jerusalem as the united and undivided capitol city of Israel (only of Israel, but, the US Embassy may remain in Tel Aviv); shall  support a program of relocation to existing Arab States (of such Palestinian Arabs as may be unwilling to reside in and respect the Jewish State of Israel); and shall support such necessary legal processes (e.g. deportation of terrorists, when and where necessary), as shall realize a peaceful State of Israel.

Secretary of State John Kerry's "Hail Mary Pass" to the Russians resulted in a successful chemical weapons deal with Assad of Syria; a President Barak Obama initiative to Israel could "Slam Dunk" a One-State Solution by following the simple formula stated above in this Entreaty.

Mr. President: shall you be the one to choose and underwrite  such an initiative, as would honor the entire world with a model and legacy of peace in Israel, that may be replicated throughout the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere, too, in this war-torn, war-weary world? 

A COMMENT TO JOHN KERRY REGARDING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ISRAEL POLICY AND LEGACY

DESPITE the apparent reasonableness of the point of view expressed by SOS Kerry about American Policy regarding Israel, the fact is that he, Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, and President Obama have either failed to understand the meaning of Israeli independence and Jewish Settlements in Judea-Samaria in the face of monolithic Arab terrorism, or, they have chosen to undermine the State of Israel. At best, the decision by the Obama Administration -- to abstain from the UNSC vote, thereby enabling passage at the UNSC of the anti-Israel Resolution regarding "settlements" -- is a warning shot to Israel, that Israel cannot rely on the USA as a protector.

SOS Kerry's apparent reasonableness or "plausibility" ought not be taken as expressions of fact nor of correct interpretations of fact; his words should be perceived as a tactic of rhetoric, used in a campaign of propaganda to undermine an opponent, and for the Obama Administration the "opponent" is Israel.

The saccharin sweetness of Obama, Kerry, et al, provides Israel no real calories, no nutrition. The Obama Administration even takes credit for the current American next-ten-year military support budget for Israel, credit taken that may best be understood intellectually as politically pragmatic avoidance of the embarrassment that would come to the Obama Administration, had it sought to veto budgetary legislation by Congress in support of Israel. One need only look at the very fresh and recent vote [in opposition to the UNSC anti-Israel Resolution] across Party lines in Congress to perceive the extremity of the Obama Administration's perspective regarding Israel.  As well, the Obama Administration trumpets it's alleged support of Israel in order to create an  appearance of fairness and even over-fairness of it's Administration's support for Israel. 

THE SHAMEFUL ABSTENTION of the Obama Administration with respect to the UNSC vote against Israel speaks volumes about the Obama Administration and will be the blackest mark on the historical record of the Obama Administration.

ISRAELI POLICY has for decades quite publicly made clear, that for every act of terror committed against Israel, the consequence will be expansion of Jewish life. There is a continual fiction, that there is an entity of People, who may be known as the "Palestinian People", who have a distinct right to a State (even though there has never been such a People nor such a State in history); this fiction seeks to separate out the "Palestinian People" and to compartmentalize this fictional entity from the existing 400-million population of Arab States surrounding Israel -- States which remain in an official state of war with Israel, States which still deny any peace with Israel since 1948, States which still do not recognize any existential right of the State of Israel. There may have been a moment in time, proximal to the cold peace made between Israel and both Egypt and Jordan subsequent to the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when a window of opportunity may have been imagined to exist for the "Palestinians" to agree to make peace with Israel and thus realize a "State of Palestine" on the "West Bank" (Judea-Samaria). This idea has proved to be a Western illusion, an illusion still maintained everywhere but in Israel, where the daily struggle for life and death does not allow for such an illusion.

IT IS LONG PAST DUE for the West to properly frame the Arab-Israeli Conflict as a conflict inclusive of the "Palestinians" (Palestinian Arabs). It is long past due for the West to properly understand the "Palestinians" -- in rhetoric and on the ground -- as the tip of the spear of Arab aggression against Jews and Israel, an aggression maintained for more than a hundred-years with one goal in mind: the annihilation of Israel.

AND A QUESTION MUST BE ASKED: Should Egypt be held accountable for it's authorship of the recent anti-Israel UNSC Resolution? Or, should the Obama Administration be held responsible for failing to veto that UNSC Resolution? On the face of it, all those States voting unanimously in favor of the anti-Israel UNSC Resolution should be held accountable; yet, in the world of realpolitik, every one of those nations -- including Egypt -- faces the extortion and terrorism of Jihadism on their own soil every day far in excess of anything the USA faces; so,it is not unreasonable to think that every one of those nations -- especially Egypt -- never in wildest dreams expected that the USA would fail to veto.

NOW, there is all kind of conspiracy theorizing going on about who may have orchestrated the UNSC vote. In fact IAN BREMMER suggested such a probability on the Charlie Rose Show only a month or two ago, when he said that the Obama Administration could vote against Israel in the UNSC (and, the abstention that actually occurred is tantamount to a vote against Israel). Sadly, Ian Bremmer was spot on.

YET, the fallout from the UNSC vote could conceivably have a positive effect, if other nations take their own rhetoric and public positions more gravely and more responsibly, such that they change the pattern of their behavior of relying on the USA to be the sole pillar of world security at the UNSC. 

ISRAEL may have no choice but to regard itself as being entirely on it's own. 

SOS Kerry did frame the question of Israel's future in terms of "democracy" (as the West understands democracy) versus some other form of non-democratic government; SOS Kerry takes it for granted that "democracy" means that a One-State Solution must needs grant equal citizenship to the "Palestinians" (this is the "demographic problem"). SOS Kerry does not acknowledge that there may be a Jewish Democratic State of Israel, which may create a Resident Alien, semi-autonomous, non-Israeli-Citizen status for the "Palestinians". This would be the most obvious democratic and peaceful path to a One-State Solution.

PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP... PLEASE, DO NOT MOVE THE AMERICAN EMBASSY FROM TEL-AVIV TO JERUSALEM.

If the USA moves it's Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, which would likely provoke attacks by Arab terrorists in Jerusalem upon the relocated American Embassy (such terror could include an Embassy takeover and occupation, such as occurred in Tehran by Muslim Shiite terrorists during the Carter Administration), then the USA would be obligated to respond directly in Israel on the ground in American self-defense due to Israeli security failure.  A move of the American Embassy to Jerusalem, and the likely consequence of terror waged on the US Embassy, is a cocktail that makes for an erruption of violence in Israel that Israel has not seen since the Yom Kippur War (and would likely be far worse, as the wars in Iraq, Syria, and throughout Arabia exemplify).

As much as I loathe the Obama decision to abstain from voting at the UNSC, thus allowing passage of the recent UNSC anti-Israel Resolution, I am far more concerned about the "unintended consequences" that may likely result due to an idealistic American Embassy relocation to Jerusalem.

I entreat President-Elect Trump to officially recognize, that Jerusalem is Israel's capitol city, that Jerusalem is a singular, united city, and that an undivided City of Jerusalem may only be capitol city to Israel and to no other nation or political entity.

And, I entreat President-Elect Trump that, when he is President,  he  should maintain the American Embassy in Tel-Aviv; he should not relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem.

It has often been said that, "The road to hell is paved by good intentions."  President-Elect Trump! We should avoid that road to hell....!!!!  If even now as President-Elect you were to say and tweet that you have reconsidered the implications of Embassy relocation to Jerusalem and have decided against such a move, then you shall have offered a fig-leaf and an olive-branch, and you shall have removed an obvious provocation to violence.

Keep in mind that three Messianic Traditions meet in Israel -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  Extremists of these three Traditions presume to know and speak for God and His Messiah, and are ready to bring about Armageddon in our time.  These extremists of the three great Western Traditions have given up on This World in favor of the Next World.  They would make a giant crater of the Holy Middle East and, then they would fight over ownership of that Holy Crater.

If it is Holy Craters that such extremists aspire to, then why not gather them together and send them on a one-way trip to the Moon?  Perhaps then the rest of us could live in peace!

BEST WISHES FOR A SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENCY.

****************

"CNN cited  unnamed Israeli officials as speculating that the move could be announced as early as May 24, on the Israeli holiday "Jerusalem Day" that marks the reunification of the capital in the 1967 Six Day War."

"“The president asked the American president-elect to not take this step [moving the embassy], as it will have destructive consequences on the peace process, the two state solution and the safety and security of the region,” official PA news site Wafa reported on Monday, paraphrasing Abbas’s letter. Wafa did not specify exactly when the letter was sent to Trump."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Trump-to-move-ahead-with-Jerusalem-embassy-move-despite-opposition-478009

L'HAVDIL ....?....

IS IT WISE TO MOVE THE AMERICAN EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM ....?....

Announcement was made within the past twenty-four hours that President elect Donald Trump will appoint David M. Friedman to the post of Ambassador to Israel.  David M. Friedman is a strong advocate of the annexation of Judea-Samaria, Jerusalem as the capitol city of Israel and only of Israel, and of American Embassy relocation to Jerusalem.

This Blog strongly supports the first two of these goals.  Israel is long overdue to annex Judea-Samaria.  The World is long overdue to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol city and solely as Israel's capitol city.  The one objection of this Blog is to the relocation of Embassies to Jerusalem.

The Jewish People are instructed to be in the world and yet to remain aloof from the world.  This is no small obligation before HaShem.  The secular, religious, and anti-religious elements of modern day Israel comprise today's State of Israel, which is a democracy and not a theocracy.  All of the citizens of Israel bring their present and historic memories to Israel and form the State in dynamic daily life in the context of a sea of Arab States, which still do not recognize Israel's existential right, (with the notable, yet changeable, exceptions of Jordan and Egypt).

Israel is an humble nation, despite the apparent historical chip on it's shoulder and despite it's cultural bluster, which is often mistaken by the world to be arrogance.  The world at large has great trouble accepting a psychologically independent and largely self-sufficient State of Israel.  Yet after thousands of years of exile, humiliation, abuse in ghettoes, Inquisition, and Shoah, Israel stands today as a State, recognized in 1949 by the UN.

In the world of politics and the deal making and power struggles associated with politics, one must always "hope for the best... expect the worst" (Mel Brooks, from "The Twelve Chairs").  One only need remember Israel's ceding of the entire Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt to recall the price of a "peace" deal.  The complete return of the Sinai to Egypt resulted in the assassination of Anwar Sadat and a cold peace with Egypt and later Jordan; ceding the Sinai set the precedent that the Arabs expect to have their cous-cous and eat it too, namely, that they may terrorize and seek to annihilate Israel at no ultimate cost to their territorial hegemony.

The past 60-years since the assassination of Sadat have seen the murderous bombings of the French and American Barracks in Lebanon, the Lebanese Civil War resulting in the assassinations of Bashir Gemayel and Rafik Hariri, Hezbollah domination of Lebanon, the Oslo Accords (may those Accords  turn over ad infinitum in their "grave"), the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin, several Intifadas, including the present Intifada and deliberate forest fires, several wars in Lebanon and Gaza, relentless missile attacks into southern Israel from Gaza, unending terrorist attacks from the geographies of Lebanon, Syria, Arab-occupied Judea-Samaria and Gaza, and then also the propaganda campaigns that have pitted the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and much of world opinion against Israel, most recently in the form of the Boycott, Divestitures, and Sanctions movement.  One must not exclude as well the foolhardy unilateral Israeli "disengagement" from Gaza, which gave only one blessing -- the proof reductio ad absurdum that "disengagement" is an oxymoron with real world consequences, such as the destruction of homes and communities, the displacement of thousands, and the handing over of territorial hegemony to an enemy, whose only motivation is, was, and always will be the annihilation of Israel.

As the precedents for such an history was set by (1) the failure of Israel to annex Judea-Samaria in 1967 after the success of the Six-Day War, (2) the acceptance in principle of the idea of a Two-State Solution and the Oslo Accords, (3) the return in it's entirety of the Sinai to Egypt, (4) the "disengagement" from Gaza, (5) the freeing of thousands of terrorists from their Israeli prison cells, and (6) failure at the UN to prevent the propaganda of Arab Terrorists from becoming resolution after resolution against Israel; there is now hope (keeping in mind yet to expect the worst) that the tide is turning in Israel's favor and that some happy resolutions of the Arab Israeli Conflict exist now in the air, on the ground, and on "the table".

The consequences of the Iran-Nuclear Agreement are yet to be proven and are thus in the air.  On the ground American and international acceptance of Jerusalem as Israel's capitol city (and solely as Israel's capitol city) is long overdue and may now be on "the table".  Also on the ground, international recognition of the Israeli Golan and Sheva Farms, and Israeli annexation of Judea-Samaria also appear to be on "the table".  (Such recognitions and annexation is long overdue;  commensurately, there should be a paid opportunity for the voluntary relocation to Arab States of as many Arabs, presently residing within Israeli hegemony, who may not stomach the idea of life as a loyal Israeli, be their status as a Citizen or Refugee; as well, there should be an imposed relocation of Arabs terrorists to any nation that may accept them.  Those Arabs, who celebrate Al-Naqba, should have no place in the State of Israel.

The short-term symbolic impact of embassy relocation to Jerusalem appears to be supportive of Israel; but, one must remember, that even though there is no physical Bais HaMikdash on Earth today, there was an historical time, when the Babylonians invaded Jerusalem and destroyed Jerusalem and the Bais HaMikdash; at a later time in history, the Greeks, and then the Romans, occupied Jerusalem, the Royal Court, and the existing Bais HaMikdash, which the Romans ultimately destroyed.  As we ready ourselves to celebrate Channukah, let us remember, that even the short separation of distance between Tel Aviv and Yerushalayim is a separation that may best serve Israel and the World in their relationships over the long-run.  As one Rebbe has stated to this writer in times past with respect to involvement in the world and the in understanding of proper eruvim, "It is good to have an open mind, so long as one's brains do not fall out."  It is one thing, to pray for Mashiach in our time, may he not tarry, may he come speedily and in our time.  It is quite another to presume his arrival, which we will only know, when the Bais HaMikdash Shlosha descends MinHaShemayim in Yerushalayim.  In the meantime as Jews we had best remember that HaShem holds Har Sinai over our heads, that we should be Bitul before HaShem and before each other.

MEL BROOKS, "HOPE FOR THE BEST... EXPECT THE WORST."

VIEWPOINTS BY GARY KASPAROV AND STEPHEN COHEN REGARDING RUSSIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS...

(Note: Please reference the conversation broadcast 10/24/2016 on the radio program OnPoint <https://disqus.com/home/discussion/wburfm/garry_kasparov_is_watching_russia_move_on_election_2016/#edit-2966574554>. Note also that this post regarding the Kasparov/Cohen conversation bookends nicely to the immediately preceding post "ROSH HASHANAH - YOM KIPPUR 5777".)

VIEWPOINTS BY GARY KASPAROV AND STEPHEN COHEN NEED NOT BE PERCEIVED TO BE  CONTRADICTORY; AND, THEIR COMBINED VIEWS MAY COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER AND ALLOW FOR A GREATER SENSE OF THE DEPTH OF THE REALITY.

Stress, be it personal stress or mass stress, may lead to xenophobia. Both Mr. Kasparov and Prof. Cohen have evidenced the existence of xenophobia in the context of the present issues under discussion, even though the word "xenophobia" was not itself under discussion.

Xenophobia may have both religious and political manifestations and consequences, especially when national, ethnic, racial, and economic factors are germane to stress and conflict. Such rampant xenophobia has obviously raised it's head above ground in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. And, while the world has it's eye's "over there", it is also true that xenophobia has it's constituencies in the USA, Europe, and Russia.  The figureheads of these xenophobic constituencies are Putin, Trump, and (arguably) Clinton, and in Europe there are equivalent figureheads and equivalent constituencies.

There is no shortage of Superpower aggression, be it American, European, Russian, Chinese, and so on. Nor is there any shortage of aggression by proxy nations. So at issue, given the brinksmanship that may lead to war between the US and Russia, is whether or not these tensions may be released and relieved in ways that may trend to peace and not war. 

The oil and gas wars in the Ukraine and in the Middle East represent the flip side of the coin that is the religious-political-national-ethnic-racial stew of currency that has been cooked too long and is burnt to the point that the entire oven may catch fire. Can the stew be saved?

Who in his or her right mind would expect Russia to sacrifice it's vital strategic control of Crimea?  Is it too naive to suppose that Russia's xenophobia -- which is reflected by it's internal affairs and also by it's aggression in the Middle East, the Ukraine, and along the borders of the Baltic States -- may begin to ratchet down, if and only if the West comes to an agreement with Russia about the Ukraine?  

If  a glance at the map is at all suggestive, it is that the entire region of Baltic States, Belarus, and Ukraine (less Crimea) should be one larger political entity capable of common economy,  common defense, and common economic and political ties with Russia to the east and Europe to the west.  Only in this way may the constant game of the Cold War truly come to an end (reference the map below). Negotiating to bring the Cold War to it's final end may then coincide with bringing the Middle East War to an end. 

Assad may or may not remain in power; but, the geography over which any Syrian regime rules may necessarily shrink in order to accommodate the rightful needs of Assad's enemies. Still, the future may see four Middle East oil and natural gas pipeline routes capable of supplying Europe: (1) Iran --> Iraq --> Syria -- Europe (2) Iraq --> Turkey --> Europe (3) Iraq --> Syria --> Europe (4) Qatar --> Saudi Arabia --> Jordan -- > Syria --> Turkey --> Europe (reference the maps below). Syria is a pathway for three of these routes and a distribution center for two of those routes. Oil politics reflects the balance of power in the Middle East. Rational minds should perceive that multiple players and multiple routes would be a win-win all around. The sooner that hostilities  cease and peace is negotiated, then the sooner it will be that the devastated areas of the Middle East may be rebuilt, and that the majority of refugees may either return to their former homes or resettle to new homes.  

It is likely that in redrawing the map of the Middle East, Syria may shrink and much of eastern Syria may be absorbed by into Iraq and Iraq may become a Confederation comprised of an Arab-Sunni Province, a Kurdish Province, and a Shiite Province (success would be contingent upon a Western supported "Marshall Plan" modeled after the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe subsequently to WW2).

Failure to accomplish peace in the manner described above may prove both Gary Kasparov and Stephen Cohen to be equally correct beyond their worst nightmares.

ROSH HASHANNAH - YOM KIPPUR 5777

EREV YOM KIPPUR 5777 - KOL NIDRE

DEDICATED TO HASHEM, ISRAEL, BIBI NETANYAHU (MAY HE LIVE LONG), AND SHIMON PERES OF BLESSED MEMORY....

Pros and Cons of working with Russian and Turkey to Fight ISIS (a tentative viewpoint):

The one comment made during the second presidential debate that struck me as significant was the comment by Hillary Clinton, that she would establish "no-fly zones", but, would not send significant ground troops into Syria, and that she would supply weapons and trainers to the Kurds and Arab Sunni Rebels to fight ISIS. This is what we have been doing, and it appears that her intention as President would be to ramp up that particular strategy. So, what is the wisdom of such a ground game, pro and con? Firstly with respect to our NATO "ally" Turkey: supplying the Kurds with weapons and trainers has been done on a limited scale, owing to the Turkish antipathy to the Kurds, and we have relied on Kurdish courage, bravery, and skill; ramping up equipment and training for the Kurds may place us at odds with Turkey. Secondly, also with respect to Turkey, supplying Arab Sunni Rebels may be a double-edged sword, because some of these rebels are also at odds with Turkey. Thirdly, neither the Kurds nor the Arab Sunnis have much love for each other or for the Shia Iraqis, with whom for the moment there is a fragile unity against ISIS. Fourthly, as ISIS is also composed primarily of Arab Sunnis (Al-Quaeda + BATH Party = ISIS), Arab Sunni Rebels are a more natural ally to ISIS -- and so not only is there such a risk to us and to the Kurds and to the Shia, there is the obvious reason that -- according to Syria, Russia, and Iran -- no distinction is to be made between ISIS and Arab Sunni Rebels (be those rebels Al-Quaeda, Al-Nusra, or any other (Al-"). Fifthly, with respect to "no fly zones", one must ask, would these be negotiated and established via the UN or by the US and Russia in binary negotiations or by NATO in conjunction with Syria and Russia? The risk of air conflicts between NATO forces and both Russia and Syria is already too real. Sixthly, what is our intended end game of all of this Syria-Iraq-ISIS Conflict? There is no coherent end game, therefore there is no coherent strategy, IMHO. There is the appearance of an end game -- that Bashar Al-Asad must go, and that there must be an end to the slaughter of [mostly Sunni] innocents; yet, our intended "weekend" jaunt into Syria has devolved into five-years of conflict with no end in sight, several hundred thousand casualties, millions of refugees, and Asad still thriving in power. Both the humanitarian crisis, political crisis, and balance of power crisis remain to be resolved.

IMHO, it is both the BALANCE OF POWER CRISIS and the POLITICAL CRISIS that must be resolved in order that the HUMANITARIAN CRISIS be resolved.  As long as there is benefit to  various power players in the conflict to prevent cessation of the humanitarian crisis, then the humanitarian crisis will continue.  Thus far it is the Syria of Asad, Iran, Russia, and our "ally" Turkey, who have benefited from the humanitarian crisis by the strengthening of Asad's Syria, by the destabilization of Iraq, and by the destabilization of Europe.  There are those, who blame the post-Nine-Eleven War on Iraq as the primary cause of all this.  Respectfully, such destabilization was likely inevitable; it is stupid and foolish to get caught up in the divisiveness of the blame game, and wiser to look at the opportunities to make peace, and with whom.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia benefit by the existence of ISIS.  The expansion of Islamist Turkey and Islamist ISIS cannot be seen as independent of each other.  The deliberate refusal of Saudi Arabia to put troops on the ground against ISIS is a "tell" that any poker player should be able to see.  Whatever the convoluted pathways of money, power, and weapons may be in Islamic World, both Sunni and Shia, the humanitarian crisis there is a crisis in the balance of power of the Islamic World, though that crisis does certainly exist in context to the balance of power dissonances of the Great Powers (USA, Russia, China).

It must be pointed out that in Turkey the primarily Arab Sunni refugees owe their lives to Erdogan, who although being a hated Turk in Arab eyes, is also Sunni and is their benefactor.  We have seen Erdogan brutally consolidate his Islamist Regime in Turkey.  Turkish-Saudi cooperation is therefore likely; neither the Turks nor the Saudis are on the ground fighting ISIS, although the Turks give lip service to fighting ISIS directly, when the reality is that they fight the Kurds and they fight some of the Arab Sunni Rebels in an effort to get them to tow the line (IMHO).  IMHO we are seeing a regional shift in the balance of power that is being defined by an alliance of the Saudis and the Turks, which represents an alliance of these historical enemies based on Sunni Religion, technological modernization, economic advantage, geographic and military cooperation, and a future anticipating desalinization of water and stabilization of fossil fuel patterns even as alternative energies experience growth.

It is therefore incumbent upon the Great Powers to perceive these trends in order to negotiate a balance of power and political stability.  A pause in the humanitarian crisis becomes possible, as soon as the Great Powers and the Regional Powers get on the same page and define the balance of power and political stability of the region.  The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Syria Chemical Weapons Deal do create a positive wind towards doing so and against devolution into chemical and nuclear war in the imminent future, but, regional peace must be established, if such a present reality is to maintain into the long term future.

In order for this to happen Russia needs much more than a bone as well as a diminution of insult from the West.  The starting point has already included some meat in the form of the Syria Chemical Weapons Deal and the Iran Nuclear Deal.  It is time that an official split of the Ukraine be negotiated by the West with Russia.  The ethnic, religious, geographic, and strategic reasons for doing so should be quite clear (unless of course it is the intent of the West to utterly cut off Russia from the Middle East, Arabia, and South Central Asia).

What then should political resolution of Syria-Iraq-Kurdish regions look like?  Perhaps Joseph Biden had it right in suggesting that at root Iraq should be split into three largely independent geographies:  Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiastan [Sunnistan and Shiastan are my own original terms for the Sunni and Shia geographies].  Such a regional set of compromises would mean that the Kurds would not get all that they want, otherwise there would be no chance of getting Turkey onboard; the Sunni may never see Baghdad again and may lose much of the existing oil infrastructure including beachfront property on the Persian Gulf; the Iraqi Shia would have Baghdad and the port areas and therefore would gain the commercial and political value of such hegemony, which would include the possibility of becoming a strong commercial brokerage center with respect to the other Persian Gulf States (e.g. Iran Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.).  It may be that the key to peace would be that these three entities be confederated; and, though they may govern themselves largely independently, a central government would govern common interests and the power and benefits of that government would necessarily be evenly split three ways.  Implementation of such a reality would require either and American or a NATO presence analogous to the Marshall Plan.

It must be said as well that the entire Middle East Region including Saudi Arabia and Iran must cease bashing Israel and must engage in lasting peace with Israel.  The required elements are easy enough to understand and to implement: (1) All twenty Arab Nations still formally in a status  of war with Israel since 1948 must unconditionally terminate that status and must unconditionally normalize relations with Israel; (2) Terror organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah must no longer be supported; (3) Egypt, which has already made peace with Israel, should be encouraged to sell at least ten-percent of the Sinai to Israel, so that once and for all the Arabs in and around Israel may understand that lands lost to them due to their own aggressions may not be taken for granted to be lands that would be returned to them; (4) Arab countries should accept settlement by Palestinian Arabs presently protected under Israeli hegemony, be those Palestinian Arabs "refugees" or Israeli citizens, given that approximately half of the Palestinian Arab population desires to be independent of Israel; (5) Judea-Samaria, the Golan, and the Sheva Farms geographies must be fully integrated into and accepted worldwide as belonging to the State of Israel; and (6) Jerusalem must be understood and accepted to be the undivided Capitol of the State of Israel.

It is not impossible to imagine a continuation of the Asad Regime, though it is difficult to imagine such a continuation, if Asad does not stand down his present strategy of laying waste to his very real enemies.  If Asad were to offer three fig leaves: (a) to abruptly cease his devastation of his enemies; (b) to secure his de facto constituency; and (c) to allow a well-supervised flow of humanitarian aid (supervised by the Russians, perhaps, to guarantee a flow of only food and medicine and not weapons); then, Asad may regain some moral high ground and put the onus on his enemies to do the same or face the World's retribution.