US Middle East, and other foreign policy, in shambles:

3 Apr

The United States never did have a very enlightened policy in the Middle East, but the Barack Obama Administration treatment of the region is the epitome of failures.
The US under Obama encouraged and helped in ousting Mubarak, and then, perhaps unwittingly, supported the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood. The rest of the mess in Egypt is well known.
Under Hillary Clinton’s inept guidance, the United States “led from behind” at Arab Springs, a move towards enhancing Sharia law in North Africa, a move she mistook as on for democratization.
Then Mrs. Clinton declared Assad a “true reformer” and did not have the United States support a legitimate rebellion allowing it to turn into a real religious civil war in Syria. The war in Syria caused some 5,000,000 refugees to mostly enter Jordan and Lebanon, to never return to Syria, and to likely completely change the geo-politics of the region.
The war in Syria, as is the mess in Egypt, is very likely to reduce the minimal possibility of a “two-state” solution from faltering, to failing. The situation in the area would likely get the West Bank to be annexed to Jordan, Gaza to Egypt, while the Golan to remain, and the Bekaa Valley will become a part of Israel.
One should note that in the three years of the Syrian rebellion more than 100,000 Arab Syrians were killed, and Five million refugees were made to flee the country of Syria; in both areas the numbers are scored higher than the total deaths of Arabs in the one hundred year old Jewish Arab conflict is the area!
Yes, US foreign policy as led by Lady Hillary, Sir John, and King Barack did not make the United States proud with their actions regarding the Middle East.

Discussing Pollard a mistake by both US and Israel; trying to buy peace, a travesty!

2 Apr

The Palestinian authority (PA) received billions for the United for “tourism,” or in reality, so that they will agree to participate in the “peace talks!” On the other side of the equation, the Israelis must commit to release some very violent prisoners which is an act not popular by the Israeli public. The Obama Administration seems to be considering the release of Jhonathan Pollard, as an incentive for the Prisoners release, and which would ease the pain with the Israel populous.
Each side is essentially being “bribed” by the Obama Administration to participate in the “peace talks,” an event that could add favorably to an otherwise lack luster legacy that the President is assembling.
A prisoners release, freeing Pollard, and other minor discussion, are not items that will bring an Israeli-Palestinian peace any closer.
In order to get any semblance of peace, the hard issue must be cleared up front since there are a number are irrevocable items. For example, Israel must keep Jerusalem as its capital, the Palestinians would not accept that notion without a serious fight. The Palestinian would like their refugees to return, not a notion that Israel will accept. Israel must have its Jewish identity while the Palestinians do not like the idea.
If anyone is serious about peace one must solve the hard issues upfront and leave the “window-dressing” of Pollard and some prisoners release for another time.
Shared with: http://www.dangoor.wordpress.com

The anti Israel BDS: A substanially unfounded Anti-Semitic effort! Boycotting the only democracy in the Middle East is like “cutting your nose to spite your face!”

28 Feb

The anti Israel: Boycott Divestment Sanctions (DBS) activity, is based on untruths from its foundation!
Let me start by saying that the are no such things as “occupied territories!”
Throughout human history there never were a nation that conquered land, especially in a defensive war, that had to give it back; why should Israel be required to do so?
Those territories within Israel that BDS and others call “occupied” are legitimate Israeli territory, they will be returned to the Arabs when, or rather if, there is a sovereign Arab Palestine, which is not fait-accompli, and may never be.
As long as the Palestinian Authority (in its Arabic charter,) and Hamas in all its formal document, call for the destruction of Israel, as they presently do, there will not be an Arab Palestine.
Unless Arabs attitudes towards Israel’s sovereignty, and viability, the lands Israel won on war will remain hers.
Israel, for example, in good faith, and in a unique case in history, in order to demonstrate its desire for peace, through its largess returned the oil rich Sinai to Egypt.
Israel is not a ruthless occupier, on the contrary, it is a responsible care-taker. However until such time as it has negotiation partners who are willing to accept its sovereignty, and its right to exist as a Jewish State, it is a legitimate care-taker of the territory it won in war.
Israel only required to give up when a “two state solution” is in place, and without a responsible negotiating partner that will likely never happen…

Will Islam join the global community, or dominate the world?

23 Feb

Of the three Abrahamic religions Gospels only the Koran spells out (at the beginning of every Surah/chapter) that it is Allah’s last word to the human race and that it can never be changed. In Islam there is no “second coming,” and no allowances are made for adaptation to a dynamic changing world.
In contrast to the two other monotheist religions which had undergone many changes to adapt to a dynamic world, the Koran, and Islam, remained stagnant, and in large part, violent.
Until 9/11/2001, in spite of much strife, Muslims were left alone because most of their mayhem was internal. For example, we, in the West, are not terribly disturbed by Assad killing of well over 100,000 Syrians, but we are concerned about 77 dead in the Ukraine.
Muslims who live by the letter, cannot modify Koranic instruction, yet the fact that many Muslims now live in Western countries may be encouraging, and may eventually force their hands. Most of Europe, and parts of the United States, are seeing influx of Islam. Upon a close observation, and in spite conflict with strict religious rules, one can now see measurable Islamic assimilation into non-Muslim societies where they live.
Is Islam a dangerous religion? Of course it is, just look at Syria! Nearly five millions refugees were dumped on the region in the last three years, this “change in population distribution,” will eventually change the geography of the Middle East, and global balance of power. Then there is Egypt that elected, but quickly forced out, a radical Islamic government. Even the virtual (yet to exist) “Palestine” is divided by two authorities, one democratically elected radical Islamic government, the other a semi-secular one.
America’s political correctness towards Muslims is very short-sighted and dangerous. One cannot doubt that in spite of the Koran calling for “world domination,” the day will come when Muslims will become integrated in the global community.
In the meantime, United States foreign policy is so misguided that the chasm with Islam is widening rather than narrowing. Hillary Clinton’s supporting the United States effort to “lead from behind” at Arab Springs, was a boost for expanding Sharia law in North Africa. Supporting the removal of Mubarak was another boost to Islamic law, and then Mrs. Clinton calling Bashar Assad a “true reformer,” a declaration that kept the US from supporting what started as a very promising nationalistic and secular rebellion in Syria, to loose its initial effectiveness.
Next there is Iran. President Obama who seems intimidated by anything Muslim is allowing Iran to walk all over the United States. Iran is a [radical] Islamic Republic controlled by an Ayatollah (an emissary of Allah) whose first goal is to dominate the Islamic world, and then the rest of the world. In spite of being Shiite (20% of Islam,) and non-Arab, Iran is following the Koranic directive towards world domination. The nuclear bomb that Iran is developing is designed to first become leader of the whole Islamic Middle East, it already started with Iraq, Syria, and “Palestine’s” Hamas.
The most important question about the Islamic world has to do with its integration into the global community; will it integrate, or will it try to dominate? Since it is unlikely that Iran will have a functioning nuclear bomb before President Obama leaves office, and because it is relatively certain that whoever follow the President into office will not allow the likes of Iran, a third world country, to push the United States around, a case of “the tail wagging the dog,” Islamic domination is unlikely to become reality.
Does this mean that the Islamic World will fall in line and be essentially integrated into the global community? The answer is yes!
The follow-up question: When?
My answer: Not in my lifetime, not in my lifetime!

Shared with: http://www.dangoor.wordpress.com

Is US outrage at Venezuela and the Ukraine while thousands are slaughtered in Syria based on its view of Islam?

21 Feb

Is US outrage at Venezuela and the Ukraine while thousands are slaughtered in Syria based on its view of Islam?
The biased international view of Conflicts: Ukraine, Venezuela versus Syria, what a contrast!
There were seventy killed in the Ukraine, a report said, hundreds injured in Venezuela, another media tidbit…Over five million Muslim refugees were driven out of Syria in the last three years, yet the press in the US is essentially quite about Syria since President Obama capitulated on his red-line to Assad.
Did the American people develop such a callous view of Muslims that when Assad slaughters thousands it is essentially ignored, but when people “more like us” are killed by their governments we are outraged?
Muslims are continuing to kill Muslims, and others when the occasion presents itself, and the rest of the world does not blink a [serious] eye; what should be done?

Shared with: http://www.dangoor.worpress.com

Zionism a ploy not cause for Middle East strife.

19 Feb

Zionism a ploy, not cause of Middle East trouble. Arabs and Muslims in general, are violent people. The Quran instructs its followers to be so on many occasions!
One tends to counter with the fact that the Bible, both Testaments are also full of violence; the differences are quite clear:
The Quran, as are the other Bibles is a unique document. The Quran, unlike all other Gospels clearly insists that it cannot be modified, that it cannot be changed in any way. Devout Muslims even suggest that translations are not valid because of the [poetic] structure of the Arabic language. The Quran teaches that Muhammad was the last and only valid messager Allah was to give followers of the religion.
Unlike Christianity, in its various forms, Islam does not allow for interpretations, the clergy is made up of enforcers, at various levels, not as interpreters. Christianity underwent significant modernization when Martin Luther translated the Bible so lay people could read it, not having priests as go between the Book and the people.
In the case of Judaism, Rabbis are teachers, and many of the studies and extensive writing from the Diaspora are “modernization” of the Bible. Jews are not held up to some of the violent teaching of the original Bible.
Much because of Quranic teaching, much because the nomad nature of most Arabs, taking a politically incorrect view, and “stereotyping,” Arabs are violent people, and have been so throughout history.
Examples of Islamic violence and brutality are the Ottoman Empire, merciless to Armenians, Kurds, Jews and Arabs. Assad’s Syria, both father and son are another demonstration. Assad the father was responsible for the slaughtering about 60,000 of his people; the son already surpassed his father in approaching 100,000; many more Arab casualties than throughout the ninety-year Arab/Israeli conflict, and in two years.
Assad already caused over a million refugees to leave Syria, about twice as many as are Palestinian refugees in the region.
In 1948, through the largess of the United Nations with its creation of the Jewish State of Israel, the Arabs were given a common enemy. The Arab nations, in a very infrequent move of solidarity named Israel and its supporters as “Zionists,” and deployed the adage: “My enemy’s enemy is my friend,” Zionism being the common enemy.
Declaring Israel a common enemy allowed the Arabs a hiatus from Arab against Arab fighting; they attacked Israel. After several losing attacks on Israel, the Arabs discovered that the Jewish nation was not going to lie down and play dead, they returned to their traditional internal fighting. Since losing in 1967, Arabs nations have not attacked Israel, but returned killing one another.
One must understand, that had there not been an Israel, the Middle East would have been as volatile as it is with Israel, Arabs would be killing Arabs, as they are doing now!
Inter-Islam, or inter-Arab fighting is a way of life and likely to remain so for many years to come. At present, you have strife in Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Mali, Iraq, and elsewhere, where civilian deaths occur daily. And, of course, there is Syria, which will eventually be followed by Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia.
Those who think that solving the Palestinians Israeli conflict, and taking care of the Palestinian refugee problem would create regional stability, are wrong. The Palestinian refugee problem, for example is already dwarfed by the ever-growing Syrian refugee problem. When the Syrian conflict ends, the region is likely to have three or four times as many Syrian refugees as Palestinians, and you know what? The new Syria will not welcome them back.
It is time the West, led by the United States comes to realize that the Middle East problem has nothing to do with Israel, Zionism, or “Western Imperialism,” it is an inter-Arab, Inter-Islam problem that the Western Wprld cannot, and should not try to “fix,” except perhaps help democratizing when clearly called upon, and offering humanitarian help when needed.

Hillary: Hiding behind Benghazi…

28 Jan

In a recent interview, Hillary Clinton suggested that the Benghazi fiasco was the thing she regretted the most during her stint as Secretary of State, it should not be!

Since Benghazi is heavily scrutinized, and will likely to remain under the microscope until the 2016 election, it is a smart move for Mrs. Clinton to discuss it rather than to have the opposition have the lead. Yes, the Benghazi situation was horrible, from mismanagement, to cover-up, to the callous statements in front of Congress, but it was not her major failure at State.

Declining relations with many allies, from Poland, to Gulf nations, and even with Israel. But there are worse yet: Leading from behind at Arab Springs, a movement to shore up Sharia law in North Africa, to declaring Bashar Assad a “true reformer,” keeping away aid to the rbels and largely contributing to well over 100,000 Syrian civilians slaughtered, and 4,000,000+ Syrian refurgees dumped on the region, a situation that will change the geo-political alignment of the region, forever; likely keeping a “two-state” solution for the Israeli/Arab conflict from ever happening.

Yes, indeed, Mrs. Clinton your Benghazi handling was terrible, but your other blunder as Secretary of State clearly disqualify you as the person to answer the red-phone at 3:00AM, or at any other time.

Shared with: http://www.dangoor.wordpress.com