Iraqi military and special police preparing assault to retake Ramadi.

Link: Iraqi government forces close in on Ramadi.


With recent events in Syria and Paris dominating the international press, the Iraqi government's much-publicized offensive to retake Ramadi is no longer front-page news.  Actually, the struggle to retake Ramadi has taken much longer than the government and the Iraqi people expected.  Combat around Baiji and in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq have made for much more interesting journalism, as the average person begins to consider that the Ramadi campaign has become a stalemate.  Fortunately, in the last few days, news reports from the Iraqi government and the Pentagon indicate that the Iraqi Armed Forces are getting very close to recapturing the capital city of Anbar Province.  It is estimated that ISIS has roughly 600 to 1000 fighters still hunkered down in the few downtown neighborhoods that government forces have yet to reoccupy.  The fact that the Iraqi government is determined to complete this operation according to plan, with minimal casualties and damage to infrastructure, is very encouraging.  Its true that the campaign to retake the city has not followed the most ideal timetable, but the Iraqi authorities have been able to carefully search areas formally occupied by ISIS, in order to remove any improvised explosive devices or abandoned munitions.

Last Wednesday, Iraqi forces took possession of the Palestine Bridge in the northwest part of the city.  The bridge, which spans the Euphrates River, was a vital link to food and other supplies for ISIS.  The coalition air campaign continues to harass ISIS by strafing supply routes and bombing key defensive positions.  In fact, air support has proven particularly effective in destroying explosives that were purposely planted in abandoned structures in the downtown part of the city.  Aggressive action by the coalition air support has been instrumental in saving the lives of ground troops, as explosives disposal teams prepare to enter neighborhoods that have been cleared of ISIS snipers.  Iraqi authorities fully expect the remaining ISIS operatives to fight to the death.

Once the military campaign to liberate Ramadi is complete, the Iraqi military will focus on bringing relief to Haditha, which although occupied by Iraqi forces, has been under assault by ISIS for most of the year.  In recent weeks, coalition air attacks have successfully targeted ISIS positions and prevented the delivery of supplies to ISIS operatives near Haditha.  Al-Asad Air Base in outside of Haditha, and presents a valuable target for ISIS.  U.S. troops have been present at Al-Asad for some time, providing important training to Iraqi personnel.  For some inexplicable reason, the Obama Administration made no attempt to keep this particular bit of information confidential.  Once the international media got wind of the presence of U.S. troops at Al-Asad, ISIS wasn't far behind.  Can you imagine if ISIS were to overrun that base and take our young men and women prisoner?  Fortunately, recent combat in the Haditha area has severely compromised ISIS' ability to conduct offensive activity.  No doubt the Iraqis are also determined to remove ISIS from Fallujah, which sits northeast of Ramadi and is actually closer to Baghdad (as the crow flies).  The various Shi'a militias were more-or-less assigned the task of retaking Fallujah, while the Iraqi Regular Army and Special Police targeted Ramadi.  At various times over the past six months, it appeared that Fallujah would fall first.  The fact that Ramadi will indeed be reoccupied by government forces before the Iranian-backed militias have removed ISIS from Fallujah will be celebrated in Baghdad, where the populace has begun to voice its annoyance at what is perceived to be Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs.

The world needs a leader to stand up to ISIS; can Putin fill the role?

Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.

Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place.  Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria.  What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader.  Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State  are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode.  Whose left?  What about Vladimir Putin?  Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace.  Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you.  Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.

ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate.  The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.  What is a Caliph?  A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority.  At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops.  Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan.  The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals.  The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States.  Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant.  As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder.  The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear.  Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus.  How are they able to convince so many young people to join?  ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope.  For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home.  And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr.  For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.

Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS.  In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well.  Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS.  There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys.  But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job.  Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS.  Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast.  If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS.  But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?

In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious.  I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends.  I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor.  I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS.  I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish.  The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state.  Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand?  Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago.  Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now.  Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job. 

Why Won't Someone Help The Poor Palestinians? (Part II)

(Part II)


Funding from the west (the EU, UN and the United States...please see links) also poured into the Israeli-occupied West Bank.  The eternal optimists with all the loose cash continued to believe that they were paying for the rebuilding of homes, infrastructure, possibly an airport, harbor facilities in Gaza, a medical system for both the West Bank and Gaza, a unified education system for both primary and secondary education, etc.   None of it happened.  The Arabs and those that espouse the cause of the Palestinians try to find reason to blame the Israelis, but the reality is, the money was stolen, plain and simple.  It continues to be stolen and it will always be stolen until someone creates some system of accountability. A few Palestinians who have managed to reach the top of the political structure, not to mention the bosses in Hamas and the PA, have done very well.  But the five million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank still live in absolute destitution.  Hamas and the PA (and the anti-Zionists) have tried repeatedly to blame the plight of the Palestinians on the lack of a political resolution to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (and the continued Jewish settlements, and the Israeli control of the economy of Gaza, etc.)  But the reality is, if Israel were to pull out of the West Bank tomorrow and dismantle all of the Jewish settlements, it would not result in the building of one Palestinian home, supermarket, crèche, or hospital.  The Palestinian communities would continue to exist as the have for the last four decades.  One fact would change: Israel would be handing over territory that would OVERNIGHT become a base for terror operations into Israel proper.  If you don't see that coming then you are too blind to have a balanced conversation on the subject.  The groups and individuals that represent the Palestinians (in many instances chosen by the Palestinians) do not call for sharing the land and living peacefully together.  They are still dedicated to destruction of Israel, and make no effort to disguise their intentions.

As complicated as it seems in this short commentary, believe me, this issue is one hundred times more convoluted.  No one can be satisfied with the reality that five million Palestinians, whose parents and grandparents actually called Israel home sixty years ago (they called it Palestine, not Israel), are obliged to live under a military occupation and without any real hope for the future.  The PA, who should have used the financial aid from the west to build some sort of functioning economic system that creates jobs and grows wealth, builds new homes and sanitation systems, and improves the lives of the people.  It never happens.  The PA owns one plane, I think its an old 737, and they have no real airport from which to fly it (the operative word being "real").  Can you imagine the fishing industry that would take root in Gaza with a legitimate port facility, not to mention revenue and jobs from imports and exports that could be charged to Israel and Egypt?  The only way a port facility will ever be built in Gaza is if someone arrives TO BUILD IT.  Any funds donated for that kind of a project will be stolen.

I used to have this idea in my head that one day Israel would be able to foster the development of a separate Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank.  it won't be easy getting the Israelis to agree to leave the West Bank and to leave Gaza in peace, but I have a feeling that if a year passed without any terrorist attacks on Israeli targets originating from the West Bank or tunnels dug from Gaza, that the Israeli people would be amenable.  The next step would be to find some mechanism to ensure that development aid gets spent on infrastructure and education, instead of ending up in Swiss Bank Accounts.  I made an effort to calculate the total amount of money that had been given to the Palestinian people through their political representatives over the years.  I quit when I reached the thirty billion dollar mark.  That equals six thousand dollars for every Palestinian man, woman and child.  And there is nothing to show for it.  The development that has occurred in the West Bank and Gaza includes a few "showy" projects for the Europeans, and that's all.  The rest has been accomplished by the sacrifice and hard work of the Palestinian people, who are taxed, by the way.  I can't help but wonder exactly what they are paying for with their taxes.  In some cases, running water and electricity.  And the right to live under the authority of the PA or Hamas, within the occupation of the Israeli military.  Can you imagine a more discouraging environment in which to raise a family?

Why Won't Someone Help the Poor Palestinians? (Part I)

Links: A. Wikipedia Entry For Palestine
           B.  PLO Corruption
           C. Endemic Corruption in Palestine
           D. EU Audit Of PA Finds Billions Unaccounted For
           E. Obama Releases 500 Million In Aid To PA

Now THIS is a tough subject to tackle in four paragraphs or less.  Politically speaking, I do not apologize for the fact that I am a great admirer and supporter of the Israeli people.  This shouldn't come as a surprise to you unless this is the first time you have visited the blog.  Simply put, I tend to look at the history of the region with as little complication as possible.  In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the British-occupied land known as Palestine, and divide it between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians.  The international Jewish community was still reeling from the damages of the Holocaust, and there was a great deal of sentiment in favor of the idea of a Jewish nation or homeland.  Obviously consideration was given to the European survivors of the genocide, and the real possibility that they had no interest in returning to Germany, or Austria, or Hungary, or any other country that had either assisted the Nazis or turned a blind eye to the relocation of European Jews to concentration camps.  Before the World Wars, and international Zionist organization existed for the sole purpose of finding a suitable location for a Jewish homeland (the Russian pogroms, miniature versions of the death camps, had sounded the alarm that trouble was on its way).  If they had been successful, it would be interesting to know if Israel as we know it would have come into existence.
Following the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was determined to provide the Jewish diaspora some place to claim as their own.  Palestine seemed like as good a place as any.  the population was very rural, much of it nomadic.  It was home to two large urban areas, Jerusalem and Haifa, but otherwise, the UN probably assumed no one would complain about their choice.  Certainly the Jews were happy, because Palestine was the land of David and the home of the Jewish Holy City of Jerusalem.  In truth, the Arab community was not happy, because for as long as anyone could recall, the land was Arab land (occupied by Ottoman Turks from the 14th century until the end of the First World War).  The UN and the British expected them to share with the Jews but why should they have to share anything that belongs to them?  The Arab countries in the region rose in revolt and invaded the nascent state of Israel.  the Israelis, against all odds, prevailed, just as they did in the Six-Day war (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973).  In each instance Israel was heavily outnumbered in tanks, planes and troops (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, sometimes Lebanon against Israel), but managed to win and occupy formerly Egyptian and Jordanian territory.  This is the crux of the problem: Israel's continued occupation of land that the Palestinians claim is their homeland.

Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel militarily occupied the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River (Jordan).  Each location was strategic and was used as the invasion route chosen by the Arab armies, so Israel felt justified it keeping this land.  The Sinai, which is sparsely populated, was eventually returned to Egypt, but the West Bank, heavily populated, and the Golan Heights, were not returned.  When Israel won its war of Independence in 1947, the Arabs that were living in Israel or in territory that was now occupied by Israeli forces, picked up and moved, mostly to Jordan.  After the next two wars, Israel assumed possession of the part of Jordan known as the West Bank, which was home to almost three million Arabs, who rightly identified themselves as Palestinians. Initially Israel considered annexing the West Bank permanently, and construction began on Jewish settlements.  its possible that the leaders of Israel at the time thought it might encourage the Palestinians to leave the West Bank, but they didn't.  Then the Jewish settlements became a hot-button issue in internal Israeli politics.  The moderates and the left in the Knesset demanded at least an end to construction, and at best, an evacuation of Israeli Jews.  On the other hand, the right-wing coalition not only refused to stop existing construction, they announced intentions to start new developments.  The occupying Palestinians were left to consider that three decades previously, the entire land was Arab; they were forced to move in 1947, then again in 1967.  There would not be another move.  The Golan heights of Syria did not develop into an issue of settlements; instead, it would flare-up every few years when the Syrians would demand Israeli withdrawal, and in response Israel would gas up the tanks for a nice Golan parade.

One very small section of the Egyptian Sinai was heavily populated.  The Gaza Strip borders the Mediterranean on the west, Israel on the north and east, and Egypt on the south.  The small piece of land (139 square miles) is home to almost two million Palestinians, another example of people being moved from one place to the next because of war.  At least Gaza isn't occupied by Israel.  It is administered by Hamas, a political party that is recognized as a terrorist organization in the west.  In total, roughly five million Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank.  They have been demanding independence for as long as I can remember.  Gaza is independent, but its economy is controlled by Israel and Egypt, who can shut its borders on a whim.  Interestingly enough, the majority of Palestinians (and descendants of the original occupants of Palestine) have probably settled and put down roots in other countries, including the United States, various European nations, Lebanon, and the Gulf States.  In a sad aside note, in some of the wealthier Arab countries, Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens and find it difficult to qualify for anything but manual labor jobs and cleaning up after people.  While screaming about how Israel mistreats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, wealthy Arab families in Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE do just the same in their own homes to their Palestinian maids and garden workers.  Back to the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank.  Since we are talking about almost five million souls, the resolution of this issue needs to be a priority.  When it became clear that Gaza was going to achieve some level of self-governance, the call went out to the west for financial support.  The hope was that Gaza would become a peaceful, economically successful (albeit crowded) nation, able to decide it own affairs.  Once the money started flowing in, everything changed.  The original political representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat, eventually renounced terrorism when they realized how much money would be donated from the west to help build schools, infrastructure, etc.  Arafat and his PLO collected billions of dollars from the west, and managed to steal just about every penny.  When Arafat died, the number of bank accounts in his name (many in Paris), and the amount of money that would be inherited by his widow, was nothing short of staggering.  After the PLO, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was born to represent the interests of the Palestinian People.  Following the renouncing of terror by the PLO, two groups in the region picked up the mantle of terror, Hamas and Hezbollah.  Hamas seated itself right in the middle of the Palestinian "occupied territories", while Hezbollah, addicted to financial support from Iran and Syria, chose Lebanon as a safe place from which to lob the odd missile into northern Israeli settlements.  Once financial aid started to flow into Gaza, The PA and Hamas decided to fight for the title of "official political representative of the Palestinian community of Gaza".  Hamas won the most recent election, so they are currently the legitimate government in Gaza.  And they are also still on just about everyone's short list of nasty terrorist organizations.

Whats Up with Syrian President Assad And His Moscow Handlers?

Links: Russia And The Syrian Civil War
           What Are Assad And Putin Up To?

Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, it seems that the Soviet Union/Russia has always sided with the Arabs while the United States sides with the Jewish nation.  To be

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict

fair, the Soviet Union voted in favor of the UN resolution that partitioned Palestine and created two separate states (the Palestinian state never really got off the ground; the Jewish half became Israel).  Given its strong support of a Jewish state following World War II, it's no surprise that the United States supported Israel from the beginning (I'm not saying a word about the politically influential Jewish lobby). However once Cold War tensions elevated, the Soviets sided with the Arab regimes in the Arab-Israeli conflicts in order to maintain thier position in opposition to the United States, Israel's strongest ally.  Conflict between Israel and the Palestinians/Arab states brings to mind three separate military engagements: the War of Independence (1947-1949), the Six Day War (June 1967), and the Yom Kippur War (October 1973).  In truth, my earliest memory as a child was my father celebrating President Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972; my family lived on U.S. Army Bases in Germany (Bad Kreuznach,  Kaiserslautern, and Bad Hersfeld). But I can still recall the attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.  I was barely out of diapers but I remember being so confused at how easy it was for some people to hurt others.  As I sit here in 2014, it seems as if Israel and the Palestinians have never really taken a break in their conflict.

The Soviet Union seldom went in for "half-measures".  They supported the Arab states both diplomatically and militarily.  Egypt's Presidents Nasser and then Sadat were dependent upon the Soviets for a never-ending stream of tanks and jet fighters.  The Soviets kept flying the tanks in, the Egyptians and Syrians kept rushing them into battle, and the Israelis kept creating bombed-out crematoriums for their crews.  I'm sure that Egypt, Syria and Iraq paid what they could, but there is not doubt in my mind that most of the military equipment that the Arabs lost came gratis from Moscow.  To the Soviets it was a necessary expenditure: Syria and Egypt gave the Reds access to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal.  I don't think that the Russians had a particular dislike for Israel; more than anything else it was a strategic issue (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).  Its been some years since Syria, Egypt and Israel actually met on the battlefield.  The Egyptians are now equipped with modern U.S. military hardware (and training), but the Syrians have stayed loyal to Mother Russia. A number of times in the last two decades there was some concern that Turkey and Syria might duke it out (once over a territorial dispute, and once over the flow of a river).  The Turkish military would have humiliated old man Hafez al-Assad and his outdated weaponry. 

Syria has had great difficulty keeping its Soviet-era equipment up-to-specs.  Before the start

Syrian T-55 ARV armored recovery vehicle
(http://www.armyrecognition.com/News)

of the Syrian Civil War, the army still laid claim to 2,000 T-55 tanks, for goodness sake.  The only way to keep a few of those old junks running would be to cannibalize some of the others.  At one time Syria had a healthy number of T-62S, T-72S, and T-72Ms in its arsenal.  I have no clue how many have been destroyed in the war, how many have been captured, or how many just don't run anymore; the Soviets were not known for their weapons craftmanship (ever fired an AK-47?).  As for the Syrian Air Force, the great majority of its jet fighters were aged Mig 21s, 23s, and 25s.  They also have a handful of Sukhois and Mig 29s.  It was rumored that Russia has been hesitant to supply Syria with the new model Mig 31 because of pressure from the west.  The truth is, for offensive purposes, the Syrian Air Force no longer exists.  I realize that the media puts out the odd report of Syrian government Helicopter Gunships shooting up civilian areas, but if the Syrian Air Force had any real offensive capability, they would be laying it to the Islamic State (safe to assume?).  Interestingly enough, I have seen more conversation lately regarding the Islamic State and Migs than I have the Syrian Air Force.

Over the past month, the Islamic State has been forced into the dreaded two-front war.  It's fighting the Iraqi Army in Anbar Province and in north central Iraq it's waging war on the

Bashir al-Assad

Kurds in Kurdistan. Additionally the IS is attacking the Kurds full-force in north central Syria (Kobani) all the while under a regular barrage of death from the sky (Carl von Clausewitz is spinning in his grave).  What is most amazing is that the Islamic State continues to have the initiative on all fronts.  Be that as it may, Bashir al-Assad could not be happier, as the Americans and their allies (some are hated enemies of Assad and his Ba'ath Party) degrade the fighting ability of the Islamic State forces (I'm being optimistic).  No doubt Assad has used this respite to reorganize his army, repair and upgrade his armor, train new recruits, and prepare the West for an inevitable diplomatic offensive, sponsored by Putin.  I just hope Bashir has had a few extra minutes to try and locate his missing chin. Seriously.  Never in my life have a seen such a "chinless" person.  Too bad he doesn't live in Beverly Hills; he could've bought a chin and had it installed over lunch.

Speaking of the upcoming charm offensive, I predict that Assad will try to stay in power by reminding the west of what happens in a vacuum in this part of the world.  Can we afford

another Libya?  Assad knows that Obama can't support a coup orchestrated by the U.S.-trained New Syrian Army.  It would be to much meddling for Obama to stomach, and would also infuriate Russia.  If the New Syrian Army defeats the Islamic State, they will probably make a play for control in Damascus.  However, Obama can't let that happen, and Assad is aware of this fact.  I expect that the New Syrian Army and the regular Syrian Army will actually be fighting side-by-side against the Al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State, Khorasan, and all the other baddies.  Assad may offer blanket amnesty to the Syrian military officers who originally deserted to form the New Syrian Army.  When the time comes, Assad will have many Aces up his sleeve, and will have Vladimir Putin to watch his back.  It's not difficult to imagine Assad making amends with the leaders of the New Syrian Army, and presenting a fait accompli to the United States and its allies.  So from my optic, Assad is in the cat bird's seat.  The chair is a bit wobbly, though.  He needs to continue do everything possible to reconstitute his military, especially the Air Force.  I started this post pointing out the historic ties between the Russians and the Arabs, and I want to end it on a similar note.  Why is Putin so intent on keeping Assad in power?  Because Syria has a bit of land that serves as a coastline to the Mediterranean Sea.  Putin has visions of Russian Navy ships and, more importantly, submarines, having a home away from home in the Levant.  How the Obama Administration deals with this evolving situation will be a fascinating piece of the puzzle.

Historic Issues Behind The Conflict In The Middle East (Part II)

Link: The Crusades

The Birth Of Israel

Part II

How does a short history lesson relate to the seemingly eternal disagreements between East versus West, Europe/United States against the Arab nations?  First and foremost, the Arab community has always believed that the United Nations (and Great Britain in particular) betrayed them with the creation of Israel. The argument has some merit, when the demographics of Palestine in 1947 are examined.  From a universal perspective, though, many felt that the Jewish people had suffered enough, with Russian pogroms, European anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust; it was time to unilaterally act in favor of the Jewish community, regardless of the consequences to the Arab Palestinians.  The truth is, an effort was made to create two separate states.  No effort to work within the United Nations declaration was ever really attempted, which is the real tragedy.  Both states could have very easily learned to work and grow together, building symbiotic relationships that encourage friendship as opposed to animosity.  Be that as it may, in 1947, the Arab and Muslim communities of the world decided that the West (and Christian nations) unfairly supported Israel.  Every conflict since the original war in 1948 has only encouraged this opinion, as the United States strongly supported Israel (while the Soviet Union became the patron of the Arab nations).

Herein lies the root of the issue.  The United States and the West are seen by Arab and Muslim states as being unfairly supportive of Israel.  During the various internal Israeli conflicts (West Bank, Intifada, Gaza) the United States is always first to declare its support for the state of Israel.  If the Palestinians and the Arab states would make two decisions in good faith, they would go along way to improving their image and relations with the United States.  Firstly, Israel's right to exist must be acknowledged.  Second, terrorist groups cannot be anointed as political representation.  It is difficult to criticize the United States for supporting Israel when both Hamas and Hezbollah have been involved in the brutal murder of American civilians.  Most Americans see Israel as our most loyal ally, but the desire for an end to this conflict is beginning to affect U.S./Israeli relations. When an American traveling internationally is targeted by terrorists, it usually will be connected in some way to the U.S. unilateral support of Israel.  Its true that terror groups like Al-Qaeda have expanded the list of complaints against the United States, but somewhere on this list will be Israel.  Many expected that the Obama Administration would slacken the U.S. support for Israel, but the Palestinian cause is a difficult one to embrace.  One minute after watching in horror on TV an Israeli tank destroying a Palestinian house, the news broadcast switches to a scene of rockets being launched into Israeli neighborhoods.  I want to see this mess come to end in my lifetime.  I'm not optimistic.  The saddest part of this entire circumstance is that Arabs and Jews are cousins, for goodness sake.  I had a cousin once who used to beat me senseless, but afterwards she always apologized.  We can't even get to that point with these two.

Historic Issues Behind The Conflict In The Middle East (Part I)

Link: The Crusades

The Birth of Israel


Part I

Trying to explain the genesis and motivations behind the Arab/European/Jewish conflicts in the Middle East is probably a bit much for my modest little blog.  But my dear friend Jennifer's brilliant, inquisitive 10-year old daughter Amanda asked her mother for an explanation, and I decided to give it a shot.  Not that Jennifer didn't respond to Amanda; I'm sure her answer made complete sense (Jennifer is fluent in the reasoning of young people....she is a teacher).  But if Jennifer is brave enough to give it a shot, I will as well.

The link I provided is the typical Wikipedia (I keep typing Wikileaks by accident...Freudian?) collection of useful and streamlined details regarding the various European Crusades during the High and Late Middle Ages.  My explanation begins earlier, at the time of Roman occupation of Judea.  The Romans were originally allied to the Jewish state, but under Pompey, absorbed it into the Empire in 6 CE.  In 66 CE the Jews rose in revolt, and the entire population was either wiped out or sold into slavery (give or take...).  The area we know as Palestine was occupied by various Muslim nation-states for almost ten centuries (with times of conflict involving the Byzantine Empire), with Christians usually welcomed as pilgrims to the Holy Land.  This changed in 1096, with the occurrence of the First Crusade.  At the time, Palestine was occupied by Seljuq Turks.  The Crusaders were successful in capturing both Antioch and Jerusalem (the city of Jerusalem was defended by both Muslims and Jews against the Crusaders, and together the Muslims and Jews of Jerusalem were put to the sword).  The First Crusade established what came to be known as the Crusader states- the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.  I would love nothing more than to dive head-first into the history of the Crusades, but I've already taken up too much time.

Over the next two centuries, eight more Crusades would be attempted (the last in 1272); the former rulers were not happy with the Christian occupation of land that was just as Holy in their religion as it was to the Christians.  Eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem was sacked, and the land reverted to Muslim control.  Lets fast-forward to 1914, with Palestine as a province of the Ottoman Empire.  Then in World War One, the Ottomans chose the wrong side and ended up losing control of Palestine.  The entire area we now know as the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan) was occupied by France and Great Britain until the conclusion of the Second World War (see Sykes-Picot Treaty for a taste of European land-grabbing at its best).  At first, with the Balfour Declaration, it appeared that the British government was seriously considering establishing a Jewish state in Palestine.  The opposition of the Arab Palestinian community ended any such plans.  During this time, attempts were made to locate land for the creation of a Jewish state in other areas, including Africa (the Jews of Europe and Russia had suffered great hardships even before the Holocaust).  The displacement of so many European Jews by the Nazis left many without a home.  In 1947, a United Nations partitioned Palestine into two-separate nations, one for a Jewish state and one for a Palestinian state.  The Arab nations bordering Palestine (Egypt, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and even Yemen and Saudi Arabia sent troops) declared war against the nascent Jewish state.  The war was completely one-sided, as have been the two wars since that were fought to destroy Israel.  The Israeli Armed Forces earned a reputation from the very beginning of being disciplined, courageous, cunning and formidable in the methods of war.  That reputation exists today.  The history lesson is complete.  Now on to the difficult part.

ISIS, ISIL, Friends of the Caliphate, Caliphatians, whatever.....

Link:  Questions about the Caliphate you were too embarrassed to ask

The media has yet to decide exactly what to call the latest boogeyman on the Islamic Extremist scene.  And this one is a doozy.  At first they were known as ISIS, then Islamic State of the Caliphate (sorta rhymes), and now I'm hearing ISIL (thanks General Dempsey and Bagel Hagel).  The link provided answers some of the more pressing questions, and I have added some simple facts myself.  As far as extremist groups go, they are neophytes.  No Egyptian Islamic Jihad/Egyptian Brotherhood (EIJ) from the 1950s or Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from the 60s and 70s. But they are leaving a mighty big footprint for a newcomer.  This group is dedicated to creating a new Caliphate, something akin to the old Ottoman Empire.  The difference being, the Ottoman Empire was usually run by a besotted, sometimes pedophilic, other times syphilitic Sultan who had no interest in Islam whatsoever.  The Sultan of old also held the title of Caliph, which historically is the religious leader for all Muslims.  ISIL (my choice) is not interested in a Sultan but they do want a Caliph, and they want a Caliphate, a geographic area that their religious leader can rule over.  ISIL has repeatedly avowed to conquer Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Jordan and parts of Iraq to form their ideal Caliphate.  Of course, this will include Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capitol.  Make no mistake; these guys are for real, and they do not believe in compromise (otherwise I'd say lets just give them Syria and be done with it).

I strongly recommend that anyone seriously interested in the motivations and believes of this group to educate yourself on the Ottoman Empire.  The Ottomans were a Muslim

bunch who happened to have the most powerful military in the world in the 15th and 16th centuries.  They had a history of getting along with Christians within their borders, which is markedly different from ISIL.  But the leaders of ISIL seem to bask in the memory of Ottoman glory, recalling the days when twice Ottoman troops laid siege to Vienna (only to be defeated by the unluckiest of circumstances).  Please read The Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinross, one of the greatest historic books I have read.
We have also heard another less-than common term being bandied about.  I have been asked more than once, "What is the Levant?"  Well, ladies and gentleman, the Levant is the geographic area that borders the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.  The French, who used to run Lebanon and Syria, were very fond of the term.  The Levant refers to Syria, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.

Just so that no one misunderstands the motivations and intentions of ISIL, they may talk about only occupying enough countries to constitute their "dream" Caliphate, but I can assure you the battle will not end there.  There was a time when you could gather up 25 Islamic Extremists and you would be lucky to find 2 who were prepared to give their lives for Allah.  ISIL is different.  It seems that every one of these folks are obsessed with reaching the Pearly Gates.  This group is a Trident of tremendous danger, with three dangerous prongs.  The first is the absolute extreme attitude of the members of ISIL, the second is ISIL's ready access to loads of money, and the third prong is the vacillation of the West.  The Devil holds this Trident, and its only a matter of time before we feel the tips.