Archive | November, 2011

Egypt’s election: Is it a referandum on war or peace? Opening the Pandora box…

28 Nov

Egypt’s election, is it a referendum on war, or peace?

News: “The [Egyptian] Islamic Brotherhood vows to kill all Jews!”

Hosni Mubarak was a dictator who in many ways he deprived some of his people of liberties, but who, in other ways was a benevolent leader. When dealing with the United States, and also, as those dealing extended to Israel, the Egyptian ruler was a positive influence in the region.

With support from the West, the Egyptian people revolted and deposed Mubarak. Since under Mubarak political parties were not allowed to function, the Islamic Brotherhood, a radical Islamic political force, was building its strength outside of public view. Now, however, without Mubarak in office, and without military control, the Islamic Brotherhood may well determine Egypt’s future, including the inevitable rejection of its peace treaty with [Jewish] Israel.

Egypt’s military has been a calming influence in Egypt, since Mubarak’s removal from office. In spite of its positive control of the country. There were, in Egypt, actions against the Christian community, against the Israeli Embassy, against the military rule, and otherwise in demonstration of the new independence. What happened to date is, however, nothing compared to looming action should the Islamic Brotherhood take charge and start its Quranic ethnic cleansing.

Should Egypt become an Islamic nation living under Sharia law, its peace with Israel will be terminated. The peace treaty will be voided, if for no other reason then because the Islamic Brotherhood’s vow to destroy all Jews; Israel’s options will be few.

Should Israel allow an armed conflict to be initiated by Egypt, the Jewish state will be forced to quickly strike. Israel knows Egypt’s weaknesses, and can essentially drive most Palestinians out of Gaza, into Egypt proper. Israel will then likely end any military conflict with Egypt with modified borders better suited to its security. Such action, if force upon Israel by the “new Egypt,” will likely have a significant economic benefit for Israel, the Jewish state will probably take over and hold the Sinai with its vast oil reserves.

One can still hope that the Egyptian people will elect a secular democratic government, and not fall under control of the Islamic Brotherhood. Islamic rule, especially one attached to a vow to destroy the Jewish people, can still be averted.

Shared with: www.zyonism.org

Syria’s revolution: Key element in world balance-of-power

26 Nov

Syria, and Egypt, the key to Middle East balance-of-power; Or Syria, the Iran influence, and regional stability:

Preface:

While the people of Syria are valiantly trying to remove a ruthless dictator, a second generation of rule with little, or no liberties, or civil rights, for the general public; the United States and the rest of the world is doing little to support the people’s effort.

Assad’s unacceptable behavior is not hidden from the world, but, for some unknown reason, much less support is given to the Syrian revolution than was given Libya, or Egypt. With its large, and well educated population, one with rich and important history, the intelligentsia of the country suggests that when Assad is removed, a secular and andvanced democracy is likely to emerge.

Arab League expelled Syria due to Assad’s unacceptable behavior, the US and other nations imposed sanctions, but nothing material to affect the defeat of Assad has even been proposed. Is Syria not getting the support other Arab world revolutions got because it only has very little oil, and others do?

SHARED WITH: WWW.ZYONISM.ORG

Introduction

While Bashar Assad is causing death and distraction among his own people, mostly among civilians who either protest against the regime, or who just happen to be in a place that Assad’s forces felt compelled to attack, the future of Syria becomes more and more critical as an element in Middle East balance of power. The revolt in Syria is very a-similar to those in other Arab countries such as Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen.

Unlike many other Arab countries, Syria is rich with history, a country that in spite two generations of Assad dictators remains cultured and civilized. In spite of the positives associated with Syria, it is, and has been for a number of years, a client state of Iran; Assad is in large part controlled by Ahmadinejad. This relationship may appear somewhat peculiar since the Iranians are Aryans, while the Syrians are Arabs; it is a feather in Ahmadinejad cap as his Ayatollah’s goal is Iran’s domination of the Islamic world. For Ahmadinejad to have in an Arab client is indeed a positive step in his quest of control.

A part of Syria’s role as Iran’s client has to do with relations with Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria is host to the headquarters of both groups, and a conduit for whatever Iran wishes to transfer to its clients. As hard as Assad proved to be with his own people, in his dealing with Iran he is a very submissive client that Ahmadinejad manipulates at will. Removal of Assad and replacing him with a democratic regime represents a harsh blow to Iran’s ambitions of Islamic World domination.

The significance of Ahmadinejad feat of recruiting Syria as a client state is impressive for a number of reasons. As was previously mentioned Iranians are Aryans, and Syrians are Arabs, there is no love lost between Aryans and Arabs. Through many years in Iran it was made very clear that Iranians are insulted if considered Arabs.

At the same time, most Arabs in the Middle East do not like, nor trust the Iranians. The mostly Sunni Arabs have problems with the Shiite Aryan nation, a nation with stated visions of regional domination. The ability of Ahmadinejad to get Syria as a client state demonstrates a tremendous ability of the man and his regime to influence even those who by eight should be his foes. It is quite interesting to observe the Sunni Syrians allowing the Shiite Iranians dominate their country without resistance.

It is important to note that the relationship between Iran and Syria is not likely to survive when Assad is removed from power. In large part present day interaction between the two nations is due to the fact that Assad and his inner circle gain from the arrangement. A new regime in Syria will unlikely allow any significant Iranian influence to continue, and will thus force a big shift in Mid East balance of power.

Syria, Iran’s conduit to Hamas and Hezbollah; to be severed:

Without Bashar Assad at the helm, Iran’s influence on Syria will likely dwindle and Iran’s isolation in the region will develop into a serious problem for that regime. One of the few connections that Iran will likely develop is one with the mostly Shiite Iraq, after United States withdrawal from that country.

As things stand, Iran, in spite of its saber-rattling, is a very isolated and unstable country. Iran’s nuclear program is not designed to destroy Israel, but rather to be held over other nations’ heads as a tool for acquiring influence, and control. The destruction of Israel is a rallying point for Iran, one of very few incentives the government has that it can use in order to keep its people from revolting, it is unlikely that Iran will give up this vehicle; while, by attacking Israel it will also face a sure retaliation by Israel, the Jewish state, action that could well mean the inhalation of Iran by the nuclear armed Israel.

Presently Iran exercises its influence in the Middle by funding and arming terrorists, it does so by using Syria s its conduit. Syria conveniently borders Lebanon (Hezbollah,) Israel, and had access, through the Mediterranean, to Gaza; it also allows Hamas to maintain its world headquarters, and Hezbollah a strong presence, in Damascus. Without Assad in charge, especially should Syria turn into a secular democracy, as can be reasonably expected, neither Hamas, nor Hezbollah, should expect the situation remain as it now is. Without Assad at the helm, Iran’s grip on the Middle East would get weaker, without an option to return to its present state.

With Syria, a secular democracy: Mid East re-alignment?

Since this is designed to be a relatively short summary paper, not all that is considered “the Middle East,” will be discussed. Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, and Yemen, in Arab Africa. In the world of Mid East Semites (Arabs and Jews,) the following countries will be considered: Israel, Jordan, “Palestine,” Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, and Dubai. Finally, Iran, the dangerous [non-Semite] outsider, will be examined.

One should note that the word Palestine was put in quotation marks. This was done deliberately since the “non-country,” that Palestine is, and always, throughout history, was, is an aberration if one considers it as a sovereign state. If one were to view Palestine in a rational manner and from an historical perspective, one would include that region as part of a number of existing viable states.

Since Jordan was historically and naturally a part of what was known as Palestine until the British, in an illegal move, under a League of Nations Mandate, carved it away creating, what was known at the time: Trans-Jordan. Jordanians, and “West Bank” Arabs, are the same people, even though West Bank Arabs, and many “Palestinians” within what is now called Jordan, are not legally recognized as Jordanians. This is an obvious aberration of history that should be changed.

The situation in Gaza is quite similar to that of the West Bank. The natural and historical alignment of that territory is to have it se a part of Egypt. Since the Arab Springs and following events in the Arab World, Egypt’s fate is in the balance, what that country will become could, and in large part should, determine the future of Gaza.

Removal of autocracies from the Middle East was long overdue. The resulting entities, however, may prove no less of an obstacle to Western type civilization!

The former Soviet Union, and then the West, has been trying to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan for a long time. The USSR was outright defeated, while the United States coalition is not likely to do much better. Western fear of the Taliban has a great deal to do with Taliban’s strict adherence to the Quran, Sharia law, and generally strict Islamic rules. The same fear may exist if some, perhaps many, of the newly freed autocracies, as did Libya, choose to follow Sharia law. Egypt’s, and Syria’s selection of future laws to follow, for example, will have profound effect on Gaza, and the rest of the Middle East.

Libya’s election of Sharia law was not surprising, the country is a conglomeration of primitive tribes, it was never allowed exposure to modern cultures by Ghadaffi’s who kept those morès to himself, and his inner circle.

Egypt. Even though historically Egypt was a highly developed and cultured country, that was the case before it was inhabited by its present day Arab population. Present day Egypt is not without history and culture, but under Mubarak, since no political parties were allowed, a mostly underground Islamic Brotherhood developed and could be the key to the country’s future. Should the Islamic Brotherhood emerge as the ruling element in the future Egypt, the removal of Mubarak may prove to have been a colossal mistake, but it may not have to be the case. If the Islamic Brotherhood becomes the ruler, its selection of law will determine Egypt’s, and that of much of the future of the Middle East.

Best case:

Scenario I, Syria and Egypt, secular democracies?

 Syria: There is little, if any doubt, that the removal of Assad from power in Syria will yield a country that would likely be much more sympathetic to Western interests and desires. Starting with Basher Assad’s father, Islam was tightly controlled, and the intelligentsia was allowed to flourish. With intelligentsia comes modern thinking, and religion is more-or-less, muted. After Assad, one can expect a democracy to emerge, likely one of a secular nature with little religious influences.

 Historically Syria was the hub of the region, it may well return to that role. For example: A democratic Syria, a country a peace with Israel, could start, with Israel, and other neighboring states, an enormous joint economic development (I. e. a nuclear power-plant) on the Golan Heights. Syria may well become the key to Mid East key and stability, if its highly educated population is given economic and technological help in determining its own destiny.

 Egypt: The situation in Egypt is very different than the one in Syria. Egypt, like Syria, does have a highly educated populace, but unlike Syria, Egypt is under a very strong Islamic influence that Mubarak suppressed, but was not able to eliminate. Unlike Syria, where Hafiz Assad, the father of Syria’s present dictator killed tens of thousands of Muslims, just because they were Muslims, Mubarak simply kept their [political] voices silent.

 Elections are about to take place in Egypt, results, and how they are dealt with will have a profound effect on the region. If a secular majority is elected and Egypt becomes a functioning democracy, one that decided to continue its peaceful relations with Israel, one can accept an improved general stability in the region. On the other hand should Egyptians elect a religion oriented government, many problems could be the result. As a start, the military ruling group now in power, one very close to the United States, and Israel, may well not relinquish power to a religious entity. Not allowing an elected religious party to take over the government would likely cause serious riots, and a long-lasting conflict, likely civil war in the country.

 

Worse case:

Egypt: ((continued): Should the religious parties take power, and the like of the Islamic Brotherhood becomes the ruling party, many changes could occur in the whole region. Should a government elect to rule under Sharia law, personal liberties will be lost; the population at large will be even more oppressed than it was under Mubarak. Just as damaging would be Egypt’s regional relations, starting with a likely state of war with Israel.

Syria (continued): In the unlikely event that Bashar Assad can ward-off the revolution and maintain his hold on government, ties with Iran and its other clients, such as Iraq will likely become when US troops leave, will become even stronger, and the like of Hezbollah and Hamas will become even more powerful than they are now. With Assad remaining President, Lebanon should very quickly fall and become an Islamic entity that will also become an active client of Iran. A failure of the present Syrian revolution could offer a very significant boost to Iran and Islamism in the region.

 

Summary: 

The present Syrian revolution, coupled with results of Egypt’s election, represent two major elements in determining the future of the Middle East, perhaps, the world.

In the foreseeable future, the world will have to deal with the existence of a number of radical Islamic countries. The fact that such countries will harbor terrorism may be a given to which the non-Islamic world will have to continue to adjust. The non-Islamic world will also require acceptance that through Iran in the future, and Pakistan now, Islam will posses weapons-of-mass destruction, including, but not limited to nuclear munitions with worrisome deliver systems, that will be able to reach essentially anyplace in the world.

On the other side of the equation is a world with secular democracies in Egypt and Syria. A Palestine without an element of external support for terrorism by Iran, through Syria. With Syria and Egypt as secular democracies, Lebanon will become less controlled by Hezbollah and other radical Islamic forces, and a Palestine, either as a part of Jordan and Egypt, or as country without external support to continue its conflict with Israel.

Iran Nukes for Islamic domination, not Israeli destruction…

19 Nov

Ehud Barak told Charlie Rose that Iran’s nukes are not designed to be used against Israel. Even though Barak, the highly decorated ex-military hero is not known for his cerebral power, and often makes [planned] gaffs, his statement about Iran Nukes is on target.

There are many reasons for Iran not to use Nukes on Israel, let me briefly mention two of those reasons:

1) Nuking Israel will bring with it a retaliatory Israeli nuclear strike that will inviolate the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran’s leadership is that of survivors and will not risk the suicidal move that an attack to Israel will surely be.

2) Iran’s government has very little to offer the population in order to keep it from revolting. The economy is in shambles, and the tight Islamic restrictive control, is not to the liking of most Iranians. The Islamic regime has little, beside force to keep a revolt from happening. The most powerful incentive the Iranians have is Israel, and its friend, The United States as rallying target for the nation. Hatred of Israel is a key element in keeping Iran from exploding from within. Without Israel, the Iranian government will be short lived. Most Iranians tested European style freedom and will not tolerate Islamic rule if not for the common goal of destroying Israel; if the goal is removed, so will be the Iranian Ayatollah control, Iran will therefore not Nuke Israel and cut its nose to spit its face.

The existence of Israel is a very important for the Iranian Islamic Republic; without Israel Iran will likely remove the religious rule and become just another modern Middle East secular country.

The reason Iran wants Nukes is as part of dominating the Islamic World. In spite of wishing for such domination Iran realizes that being a Shiite nation in the midst of Sunni nation will require an ability to “recruit” other Islamic countries as its clients, if you will. Since Iranians are Aryans and therefore have an other major conflict with most regional Muslims who are Arabs, its nuclear posture will be designed as the big stick to convince the Islamic World that it should be allowed to be the dominate force behind the religion.

Shared with: www.zyonism.org

Re: Syria; is the Arab League more responsible than the US? Or, “Syria is [still] burning,” when will the United States act?

15 Nov

How long is the Unites States going to stand on the sidelines while “Syria is burning?” Syria, a country with glorious past, and a bright future, if allowed to get rid of its dictator, is getting lip service from the world, while Libya, a tribal nation that will return to Sharia law, was helped early on in its revolution, why?

Under Assad, Syria, in large part, is controlled by Iran, which is attempting to rule the Middle East. Iran has Syrian in its camp, and is already lining Iraq for when the United States leaves (note Iraq’s Arab League vote against removing Assad’s Syria…) When Syria frees itself from Assad, not only will Iran influence in the Middles East be reduced, the likes of Hamas, and Hezbollah will loose their main source of support, allowing for a much more peaceful Middle East.

Since the removal of Assad is a win-win situation for the civilized world, what are the United States, the EU, and the United Nations, waiting for?

The Arab League suspension of Syria’s membership is a positive step in the right direction, when will others follow. The Arab League suspension was not only to humanitarian consideration, the League is aware of Assad ties to Iran, and League members in general are scared of Ahmadinejad and his rogue regime. When will the United States and its allies follow” Time is running out!

How many more debates before Palin “gets the calling?”

15 Nov

Present candidates are destroying each other in their “less than inspiring” debates, while the quitter, ex-Governor Palin of Alaska is simply enlarging the size of her “war chest,” as well as her personal fortune.  Sarah Palin can count, even at this early stage, of the present candidates, not many remain standing.

So far, Bachmann destroyed herself simply because she is neither ready, nor able to participate in top level national politics; Santourm who was defeated in his last bid to be re-elected in Pennsylvania, who is not well enough funded, and, perhaps unwittingly, pushes his Catholicism too hard; Ron Paul who is a Libertarian, not something the GOP can accept as its representative; Cain and Gingrich with women problems that will bring their individual morality to question, at least in a case of the religious right part of the GOP; Texas Governor Perry who started his campaign like a house on fire, but made too many blunders since the beginning to remain a viable candidate;  and finally, Mitt Romney, the leader who is stuck in one place, and who is not conservative enough to satisfy the conservative element of the GOP, including he Tea Party.

Sarah Palin is waiting on the sideline observing the other candidates eliminate one another, and, when it gets closer to the actual selection of a candidate, will likely get a calling for God who will ask her to fill the void and go after the Republican nomination.

Sarah Palin has two options. The Alaska ex-Governor can either enter the debates when most of her opponents are discredited, or wait to be drafted at the convention.

“Syria is burning,” why is the US on the sideline? A democratic Syria means that Iran’s influence in the Mid East will dwindle!

14 Nov

“Syria is burning,” why is the US on the sideline, when it could weaken Iran’s influence in the Mid East?

Under Assad, Syria is indeed under Iran’s influence. Add to that, Iraq’s sympathy (as was obvious by its vote in the Arab League regarding Syria’s membership,) especially that Syria is a key to the future of the Middle East, and avoiding action in Syria, is a dangerous posture for the US to maintain.

When Syria falls Iran’s influence in the Middle East will dwindle; Hamas and Hezbollah will be weakened, and the balance of power will drastically change.

You may wish to note that after Syria, Jordan fate is not going to be very different. Jordan, an artificial (an illegal British creation) Monarchy, a country with an extremely large Palestinian population (Jordanians are all originally “Palestinians,”) will likely soon follow the Mid East Arab domino of ridding itself of autocracies, and moving toward democratization.

Unless it’s due to oil, it is difficult to understand why the United states, and the EU helped the Libyan uprising, and is failing to help a legitimate revolt in Syria.

Sarkozy and Ahmadinejad: Caricatures of Napoleonic Jews? Or, are they Jews anti-Isreal?

9 Nov

 

Sarkozy and Ahmadinejad: caricatures of Napoleonic Jews?

Sarkozy’s open mic fiasco was not a-typical of Jews in high places who have anti-Semitic tendencies. Suggesting that Netanyahu is a liar, and stating to another leader that “he can’t stand the man,” is totally out of line and a likely the results of his Jewish roots.

Like Ahmadinejad, Sarkozy a little man boasting a distinct Jewish look, and “little man,” or “Napoleonic” complex of trying to be domineering, generally with some level of success.

Sarkozy’s looks were another issue during meetings with Obama. The first such issue came when Obama tried to compliment his French counterpart by saying that it would be best if the Sarkozy’s new daughter was to look like her [super-model] mother, not like her [impish] looking father. Since Sarkozy’s [Jewish] looks are the butt of mush humor in France, the French press and public did not take kindly to Obama’s good-natured remark…

Through history the French had up and downs in relations with Israel, and with Jewish people in general. It is sad to say that under the Jewish Sarkozy, the relations are not as positive as one may wish from them to be. The recent French vote at the United Nations for a Palestinian state, and Sarkozy’s open mic blunder to Obama, are but two examples of French shaky relations with the Jewish state.

Shared with: www.zyonism.org