"America’s Policy Mistakes Give Islamic State Big Breaks": David Singer's diagnosis and remedy

Once again, with a characteristically astute latest article, here's Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:
 
America’s ongoing insistence on wanting Syria’s President – Bashar al-Assad – removed from power – continues to hinder American policy on removing Islamic State as a threat to international peace and security.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly made it patently clear to America on 2 June 2015 that the issue of removing Assad as Syria’s President should not be confused with removal of Islamic State from the world scene:

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

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

If people continue to acquiesce with what is going on and continue to acquiesce with those who categorically refuse to start the political process until Bashar Assad disappears, then I’m not very optimistic for the future of this region…”

America should have:

1. accepted Lavrov’s sage advice;

2. acknowledged the ineffectiveness of its coalition led air strikes in preventing Islamic State rapidly expanding its occupation into large areas of Syrian and Iraqi sovereign territory causing the horrific murder, brutal beheading and ethnic cleansing of its civilian populations

3. joined Russia in preparing an alternative agreed plan of action to defeat Islamic State

America missed this opportunity – enabling Islamic State to continue its policy of conquest and subjugation contributing to the current refugee crisis now threatening to sink the European Union’s capacity to meet the tide of human misery knocking on its door. Two earlier unanimous UN Security Council Resolutions – Resolutions 2170 and 2199 – had specified measures short of military action aimed at stopping Islamic State.

Both however have failed to halt Islamic State’s brutal advance.

Resolution 2170 – passed on 15 August 2014 – clearly enunciated the Security Council’s revulsion at Islamic State’s territorial grab and genocidal intentions following the self-declaration of Islamic State in June 2014 – stressing:

"that terrorism can only be defeated by a sustained and comprehensive approach involving the active participation and collaboration of all States, and international and regional organizations to impede, impair, isolate and incapacitate the terrorist threat”

Only a third Security Council resolution urging military action binding on “all States” can hope to meet this Security Council prescription.

American Secretary for State John Kerry has apparently learnt nothing from Lavrov’s June warning – declaring mantra-like on 19 September:

“We (America and Russia) share the same goals. We share the goal of ridding the region of Isil. They (Russia) allege that they also share the goal of a political transition that leads to a stable, whole, united secular Syria.”

Kerry continues to tie the fate of Islamic State to the fate of Assad – which will assuredly fall on deaf Russian ears.

America and Russia need to jointly sponsor the passage of that third Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Islamic State by a UN-commanded armed force under Article 42 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Negotiating that Resolution’s terms can be considerably expedited by understandings being reached with Russia that once that UN Mandated-force is constituted:

1. America and its coalition partners will only continue air strikes on Islamic State as part of any such UN force

2. Those American-backed rebel forces seeking Assad’s overthrow and those Russian-backed Assad forces defending Assad will be respectively withdrawn behind agreed red lines until Islamic State is routed.

Syria’s seven million displaced people may then just be able to see the slightest glimmer of light at the end of a long and very dark tunnel.

Tick Tock! "A Muslim Extremist & A Wannabe Kardashian"

This article (hat tip: reader P), like this video featuring Canadian broadcaster Ezra Levant (www.the rebel.media), effectively beats the clock!

You know which clock, the one that had the lefty Islamophiles from the bloke in the White House through Hillary Clinton through Mark Zuckerberg through Ellen De Generes through the wet media salaaming with admiration and/or giving lots of free stuff away and reminding the rest of us of the tom foolery and unacceptability of that inexplicable invention dubbed "Islamophobia"...

"Not A Refugee Crisis ... A Civilisational Issue": A rabbi warns the West

No namby pamby political correctness here, no propaganda of the kind the mainstream media is thrusting down our throats, in this needs-to-be-heeded warning from Rabbi David Bar-Hayim of machonshilo.org

The rabbi, whose beautiful voice is as easy on the ear as (I will dare to say it!) his good looks are on the feminine eye, warns that the present "crisis" is not a crisis at all but the norm for Arab-Muslim societies, and that "only a madman would take upon himself such a mission" as importing people "fleeing from their own crisis" because to do so is "importing a civil war" ... importing a culture in which internecine strife and murder is innate.

The rabbi praises the insights of Frontpage columnist Daniel Greenfield into this issue and in support of his warning discusses the Torah phrase "This is the way of Ishmael".

A highly recommended video.

Has The JLC Sold Pro-Israel Activism Down The River Exe?

Some time ago I mentioned that in October the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter, in the Devon cathedral city which takes its name from the River Exe, will be hosting a one-sided Israel-bashing conference consisting of  Professor Ilan Pappe and like-minded academics.


 Now, an official statement emanating from the Jewish Leadership Council declares that an acceptable and praiseworthy compromise has been reached that sets the template for future such events:

'The Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), Board of Deputies, Union of Jewish Students (UJS) and The University of Exeter can today announce a new approach to the debating of issues on campus pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whilst upholding the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech.

In the lead-up to the academic conference on ‘Settler Colonialism in Palestine & Workshop on the Naqab Bedouin’ the University and the JLC have worked together to adopt a plan which, it is hoped, will form the basis of an approach for future similar conferences.

In a constructive engagement, the JLC raised the issue that the call for papers and conference timing could give the appearance of a lack of opportunity to submit opposing views on the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The University understands this concern, and has worked with its academics to address it, while keeping at its heart the principles of academic freedom and freedom of enquiry. 

Therefore, on this occasion:

The JLC has been invited to nominate two academics to attend and participate in the conference in its current form which is scheduled for the beginning of October.

An academic event will be held later in the year and co-hosted by the University of Exeter and the JLC, which will provide an opportunity for further academic debate, ensuring that many topics are covered from a range of speakers on both sides of the debate. The JLC and the University will jointly agree the title, format and content.

The principles of academic freedom and open enquiry are fundamental. Those principles do not prevent academic conferences looking to offer as wide a range of academic evidence and argument as possible within the range of study and to actively seek out views which might counter perception of underlying bias.

Working with Universities UK, the University of Exeter and the JLC have benefitted from a constructive dialogue and this experience may benefit other universities to engage at the outset of any future conferences on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.'

The JLC's statement quotes many appreciative sentiments on the part of relevant campus organisations, including Jewish ones.  Also quoted is David Brown, CEO, Union of Jewish Students (UJS), who asserts:

"UJS are encouraged by the steps taken by the University of Exeter to secure the welfare of all their students whilst ensuring academic freedom. Academic freedom also requires that any students do not feel threatened or have their learning impinged due to their religious, ethnic or national identity. We are proud of the Exeter J-Soc and Exeter Friends of Israel Society for the determined and pragmatic way they have worked with their Guild and University leadership. We hope that Vice Chancellors and Students’ Unions across the UK will emulate this sensitive response to the needs and concerns of their students."

But some prominent pro-Israel activists are not placated.  One, for instance, comments on the above site, below the line:

'This is not an academic conference. It is an Israel hatefest. The phrase “Israel’s exceptionality” is deeply antisemitic. It means “Because of Holocaust guilt, Israel is exceptional – it is allowed to break laws with impunity”.

This event – financed with public money – should not be happening at a University. That is what the JLC should have aimed to achieve. Being ‘allowed’ to nominate two academics simply gives the hatefest a seal of approval.

“This approach should form a good model for future discussions on conferences which may cause controversy”

No it should not. It is unacceptable for Israel hatefest events to take place at Universities. Giving the event a seal of approval in this way makes it no better – worse in truth.'

Another argues:

"You cannot have a debate when one side sets the title for the conference and the terms of the debate. The October conference inverts the true nature of the struggle of the indigenous Jewish people against Arab and Muslim ethnic cleansing, colonialism and imperialism. The debate’s premise is founded on a lie. You cannot have dialogue when one side wants you dead and the argument is simply over the manner of the death – emasculation of Israel’s right to self-defence, diplomatic isolation and condemnation in the court of world opinion or demographic strangulation. The October conference is simply one more weapon in this Palestinian/Islamist war, under cover of academic respectablility. None of this must be allowed to go ahead and the Jewish establishment must not be party to it."

 Another, Professor Denis MacEoin, observes, inter alia  (read his entire comment here):

"The JLC compromise does not solve, but rather exacerbates the problem. Given the overall tenor of the conference and its clear bias, I would not feel confident in exposing myself to its atmosphere and a likely tirade against whatever views I might express, even though I am qualified to do so... A properly managed academic conference should not display such an exorbitant degree of pre-judgmental bias or a clearly one-sided panel of papers and individuals....The JLC approach is ultimately self-defeating. It is a mistake to argue that a non-academic body representing a single viewpoint can, in effect, appoint someone to take part in an academic conference. As a precedent, this will allow bodies like the Muslim Council of Britain and other Islamic bodies to appoint pious Muslims with degrees of vague relevance or none to take part in this or later conferences.... It is a dangerous direction to take and the JLC, regardless of its motives, should be made aware of the long-term threat it poses. It will undermine balanced academic work on this topic. Moreover, simply by taking part we are endorsing the conference, which should be halted on academic grounds for its one-sided approach. Read the description of the conference, the title, and the proposed papers and ask why on earth should we go along with an anti-Zionist and, by more than implication, anti-Semitic event by dressing it up as ‘open to all views’, something it clearly is not."

And please read this long robust piece  that concludes thus:

"The Jewish students have been sold out, Israel has been sold out, Jewish Academics have been sold out, Israeli activists have been sold out and many in the community have been sold out, probably so one Jewish group can score a few publicity points. Who knows and who cares, it doesn’t make this action any less wrong. I am no extremist, and this agreement shows clearly these groups do not have enough of a fundamental grasp of the situation to be able to make decisions, and they most certainly do not have the authority to speak in my name. They have just made everything a whole lot worse. I know that historians will one day look back in astonishment at the treatment Israel is currently being given within academic institutions in the West, just as historically we always retroactively analyse anti-Semitism in any time period; and now in addition, historians will once again analyse how the Jewish leadership simply put its head in the sand as the world around them began to burn. Anti-Zionism / anti-Semitism, there is no negotiation and no white flag. It was, is, and always will be unacceptable, however it wishes to dress itself up."

"The Best Thing That Can Be Said About Corbyn is That He Has No Chance of Election as Prime Minister"

Someone should have gone to Specsavers!

Below is a guest blog regarding Jeremy Corbyn by Professor William Rubinstein, who has published widely in the fields of British and Jewish history:

The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the British Labour Party is obviously a matter of great concern to many people around the world.  An extreme leftist, possibly the most leftwing member of Parliament, he is hostile to every aspect of the West’s attempt to defend itself and friendly to every radical movement in the world, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the IRA.  He has never held any government office of any kind, and it would have seemed utterly inconceivable, even a few weeks ago, that he could have been elected leader of the Labour Party.

That he was elected is as if the late Bill Hartley, the socialist left extremist of politics in Victoria, Australia, who was known as "Baghdad Bill" for his pro-Arab proclivities, had been elected leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP).

Corbyn was enabled to become leader of the British Labour Party because Ed Miliband changed the voting system to eliminate Labour MPs choosing their own leader, and substituted a system whereby the leader was elected purely by a vote of individual members of the party, anyone who paid £3 to join.  This virtually made certain the election of an extreme leftist, especially given that the other Labour MPs who were contesting the leadership was especially uninspiring and little known

Ed Miliband, who was leader of the Labour Party from 2010 until he left after the May 2015 general election, will surely be ranked as the worst leader of the party in its history, with the possible exception of Michael Foot; his legacy is the selection of someone totally outside of mainstream British politics as his successor.

It may be assumed by some that Corbyn has not attacked Israel in the visceral way commonly found on the Western left and has no real track record in the area, other than declaring Hamas and Hezbollah to be his "friends".

Wrong, as his demagogic rant at the Al Quds Day rally in London three years ago starkly shows:

He wants to abolish the British Army (I'm serious), strip Britain of its nuclear deterrents, exit from NATO, and stop bombing ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

 His other proposals are a hodge-podge of ultra-left measures of confiscatory socialism, old-style nationalisation, and empowerment of bloody-minded, Marxist-dominated trade unions of the kind which virtually destroyed the British economy and British democratic society in the 1970s.  Everyone had assumed that Thatcher followed by Blair had laid these monsters to permanent rest, but, evidently, like Dracula, they arise at midnight.  In part, Corbyn's ascendancy is a delayed product of the 2008 world recession (when Labour was in power in Britain under Gordon Brown), although the statistics on unemployment and other indices in the UK are largely back to where they were before the recession.

The best thing that can be said about Corbyn is that he has no chance of election as prime minister, since he would have to win 100 or more seats from the Tories at the next General Election, not due until May 2020.  In all likelihood, Labour will lose many seats if he remains Labour leader.  It is now incumbent on David Cameron and the Conservatives not to trip up when they are ahead.

[The above interview, in June, with anti-Israel former Press TV hack Hassan Alkatib, covers, in the Youtube uploader's words, Corbyn's "life, activism and role as a politician in creating a more just society in Britain and beyond. Corbyn revisits his role in bringing about a peace settlement in Northern Ireland; his experiences in Gaza; his opposition to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria; his support for Chilean, Palestinian and Irish independence; Britain's role in Zionism and much more."  The Middle East content starts at 11:34 ... D.A.   See also here and, concerning his son Ben Corbyn's abysmal attitude to Israel, here]

David Singer: Russia and America Must Jointly Confront Islamic State

As always, I'm delighted to post the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The possibility that Russia and America may at long last be seeking common ground on confronting Islamic State has been increased with US Secretary of State John Kerry revealing that his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov [pictured together, left] has approached America proposing military talks over Syria. Kerry told reporters:

"The Russians proposed in the conversation I had today and the last conversation specifically that we have military-to-military conversation and meeting in order to discuss ... precisely what will be done to de-conflict with respect to any potential risks that might be run, and to have a complete and clear understanding as to the road ahead and what the intentions are” 

Russia is concerned to ensure that America will not take the opportunity to use any jointly agreed action against Islamic State as a pretext to try and oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or weaken his hold on power.

America suspects that Moscow’s motives in sending 200 Russian naval infantry soldiers, seven tanks, a portable air traffic control station and components of an air defense system to an Assad-stronghold airbase near Latakia on the Mediterranean coast is part of an ongoing military build-up to support Assad’s continued hold on power.

Russia would also not have been too impressed with White House spokesman Josh Earnest reportedly stating a few days earlier:

“What we would prefer to see from the Russians is a more constructive engagement with the 60-member coalition that’s led by the United States that’s focused on degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL”

Eleven members of that US coalition comprise a group known as the London 11 supporting and arming the rebels fighting Assad for the last five years.

American and Russian distrust of the other’s possible motives in Syria were successfully put aside when they co-operated to have all chemical weapons in Syria held by Assad and his opponents destroyed by jointly securing the passing of Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013) on 27 September 2013.

Such agreement – reached between Russia and America without threatening to either restrict or extend Assad’s hold on power – was an impressive diplomatic achievement. However it only came about after they both decided to focus on destroying all chemical weapons in Syria – rather than focusing on whether Assad or the rebels was responsible for the use of chemical weapons that caused the deaths of 1429 Syrians on 21 August 2013.

Security Council Resolution 2118 ended the deadlock that had paralysed the Security Council’s efforts to end the civil war in Syria for the previous thirty months.

Russia and America now need to solely focus on defeating Islamic State - whilst putting their support for Assad or his overthrow on the backburner until Islamic State is defeated.

They can achieve this by jointly sponsoring another Security Council resolution under Chapter V11 article 42 of the United Nations Charter which empowers the Security Council to:

“take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations”. 

Every day’s delay in securing the passage of such a resolution - and acting on it
– means further deaths, injuries and suffering for the Syrian and Iraqi populations at the hands of Islamic State. Internal displacement of those populations inside Syria and Iraq, or to neighbouring countries – or even into the European Union – has had disastrous consequences that have shocked all people of compassion and goodwill over the last three weeks.

The time for procrastinating, arguing and blaming is surely over.