WEST BANK FIASCO

The reason for this piece to to explore the recent passage by  the UN Security Council resolution  condemning the continued building of settlements by Israel in the West Bank  In which the U.S. abstained:
It started last week when the United Nations began considering a deeply one-sided resolution calling on Israel to end all Jewish settlement building in disputed areas of the West Bank and even East Jerusalem without a single word calling on Palestinians to end violent attacks on civilians or do anything else.  (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/obama-and-trump-are-engaged-in-a-3-billion-game-of-chicken-over-israel-commentary.html)

This abstention has created a good deal of hysteria among various groups although this is not the first time the UN has condemned the settlements.   It also did it in 1979 and 1980 and Israel continued to populate more and more settlements.  Independently Canada and the United Kingdom have held the settlements to be illegal though American legal experts feel they are legal. In theory, the condemnation could be more than words as it could lead to sanctions against Israel, though I doubt that will happen.  So it is just words, as nearly as I can tell.

As it is, Israel seems to be taking sanctions against those who voted for the resolution.  Is anyone else bothered by Netanyahu's attempts to run U.S. foreign policy?  [He] reportedly told New Zealand’s foreign minister that support for a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement-building in the occupied territories would be viewed as a “declaration of war”.
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/28/netanyahu-told-new-zealand-backing-un-vote-would-be-declaration-of-war)  He is lucky we didn't vote for the resolution.  Since 13 other countries were involved in the decision, Netanyahu has declared a WW!

Ronald Reagan had one of the mildest opinions on the West Bank settlements; however,
In Reagan’s view, Israeli settlement was not illegal, but merely “ill-advised” and “unnecessarily provocative.” (http://www.cmep.org/content/us-statements-israeli-settlements_short)

Actually, Israel has conceded about two dozen settlements are illegal and promised to remove them, but nothing has been done. (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/obama-and-trump-are-engaged-in-a-3-billion-game-of-chicken-over-israel-commentary.html)

1967 War
In 1967, Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq in what is called the Six Day War.*  In this war, Israel captured the Sinai and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan.

East Jerusalem
East Jerusalem has been occupied by Israel since 1967 and was effectively annexed by Israel in 1980, an act internationally condemned. On 27–28 June 1967, East Jerusalem was integrated into Jerusalem by extension of its municipal borders and was placed under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel.^[10][11] In a unanimous General Assembly resolution, the UN declared the measures trying to change the status of the city invalid.^[12
............................................................................

Following the 1967 war, Israel conducted a census in East Jerusalem and granted permanent Israeli residency to those Arab Jerusalemites present at the time of the census. Those not present lost the right to reside in Jerusalem. Jerusalem Palestinians are permitted to apply for Israeli citizenship, provided they meet the requirements for naturalization—such as swearing allegiance to Israel and renouncing all other citizenships—which most of them refuse to do. At the end of 2005, 93% of the Arab population of East Jerusalem had permanent residency and 5% had Israeli citizenship.^[65]

Between 2008 and 2010, approximately 4,500 Palestinians resident in East Jerusalem applied for Israeli citizenship, of which one third were accepted, one third rejected, and one third had the decision postponed.^[66]

As residents, East Jerusalemites without Israeli citizenship have the right to vote in municipal elections and play a role in the administration of the city. Residents pay taxes, and following a 1988 Israeli Supreme Court ruling, East Jerusalem residents are guaranteed the right to social security benefits and state health care.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem)

Golan Heights
After 19 yrs of sniping and other attacks, Israel captured the Golan Heights** in the Six Day War and formally annexed it in 1981 for defensive purposes at which time military rule was replaced by civilian rule.

Click on figure to enlarge)


Sinai
Eventually, Israel ceded the Sinai back to Egypt in a peace agreement that recognizes Israel's existence and Israel even withdrew its settlements, military bases, and oil land in 1982.***

Gaza Strip
The Gaza strip had long been a hybrid property that was claimed by Egypt but never formally annexed it nor made the residents Egyptian citizens.***  The Israel occupation lasted until 2005 when Israel formally withdrew and removed Jewish inhabitants (some by force).  Egypt had renounced Gaza also in 1979 so the tiny Gaza Strip became a Palestinian land.***

East Jerusalem
Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and combined it with West Jerusalem to unify the city and make it the capital of Israel.

West Bank
About 300,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank along the Israeli West Bank barrier (and a further 200,000 live in East Jerusalem and 50,000 in the former Israeli–Jordanian no-man's land).^{[citation needed]} The barrier has many effects on Palestinians including reduced freedoms, road closures, loss of land, increased difficulty in accessing medical and educational services in Israel,^[42][42] restricted access to water sources, and economic effects. Regarding the violation of freedom of Palestinians, in a 2005 report, the United Nations stated that:[47] ...it is difficult to overstate the humanitarian impact of the Barrier. The route inside the West Bank severs communities, people's access to services, livelihoods and religious and cultural amenities. In addition, plans for the Barrier's exact route and crossing points through it are often not fully revealed until days before construction commences.^[43] This has led to considerable anxiety among Palestinians about how their future lives will be impacted...The land between the Barrier and the Green Line constitutes some of the most fertile in the West Bank. It is currently the home for 49,400 West Bank Palestinians living in 38 villages and towns.***

It has seemed clear to me that the West Bank is not a "bargaining chip" in an effort to trade land for peace but that Israel informally annexed it decades ago (some of it is even on the Israel side of the barrier wall).   After all, the 1967 War will have its 50th anniversary next year, less than a week away.  The rest of the world pretends the West Bank not to be Israel's but occupied territory, however, Israel steadily keeps building settlements there, in spite of decades of objectons.  I call it "taking over the West Bank one settlement at a time."  And you can see why Israel might want to keep it because the previous boundaries left Israel with a narrow neck of land less than 10 mi. across in its most narrow place.  One argument has been to use the West Bank for defensive purposes and has been used Israel for keeping the West Bank.

(Click on figure to enlarge)

While I understand the Israel need for the West Bank for defensive purposes, I do feel they should treat the Palestinian inhabitants better.  They did leave the Gaza Strip and gave the Sinai back to Egypt in a peace deal after destroying the houses.  So it is clear the West Bank is something different for them.

* https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=112427639902898514#editor/target=post;postID=8607618832097246103
** http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/golan_hts.html
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

WHO FOUNDED ISIS AND WHO CARES ANYWAY?

Of course neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton founded ISIS but who did?  It was Abu Musab al Zarqawi in 2004.*

Though Trump is getting criticized for his language, the more standard Republican reply is more polite but is every bit as faulty as Trump.  They ASSUME that leaving maybe 10,000 troops in Iraq would have stiffened the Iraq military, and they wouldn't have been so easily defeated by ISIL as actually happened.  Maybe but they DON'T know that.  After all more than 10,000 troops were left in Afghanistan, and the Taliban regrouped in Pakistan and came back stronger than ever.  Furthermore, the elected Prime Minister if Iraq, Milaki, wanted us to leave and said if any American troops remained they would have been under Sharia Law.**  You can imagine the uproar the first time a U.S. soldier raped a Muslim woman and was sentenced to death by stoning.  Of course, I suppose we could have just ignored their decision on Sharia Law, but would we then have been occupiers and go in and rescue the soldier?  How popular would that make us?

Republicans also ASSUME that everything would have been all right in Syria if we only had inserted a small force early to overthrow Assad without plans for a successor; however, at the same time they bemoan our helping overthrow Qaddafi without plans for a successor.  Even now, Obama is unable to find a good plan for a successor to Assad in Syria should he be overthrown.  After all G.H.W. Bush resisted pursuing Saddam in Iraq because we didn't know who the successor would be and it might be someone even worse.***

Also when Assad overstepped the Red Line in Syria and used poison gas on his citizens, Obama is widely criticized for not bombing Assad's stronghold as promised.  Obama didn't do it because Assad promised to turn over his outlawed poison gases if he was not bombed.  These critics ASSUME that Assad was a goner if bombed; however, we really don't know that.  I'm sure that we could have destroyed a lot of buildings and probably killed a lot of civilians in the bombing, but it is doubtful if Assad himself would have been killed as he was no doubt secured in some well protected bunker.  I could understand people saying that Obama should have gotten more than "just" getting rid of the outlawed poison gases, but I have never heard this argument.

Seems like whatever you do in the Middle East is wrong.

* http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/who-founded-isis-abu-musb-al-zarqawi-started-the-terror-group.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/08/iraq-and-afghanistan.html
*** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/07/syria-vs-libya.html

SYRIA VS LIBYA

One hears of dreams that if only we had supported the mob in Syria in the beginning, Assad (a bad dictator to be sure) would have been overthrown and all would be beautiful.

Well, we did provide air cover to the mob in Libya that overthrew Gaddafi and look how things are today - a real mess.  In this case we had most everyone in our favor, the Brits, the Arab league, etc.  Now it looks like rival groups are at war with each other, and we have abandoned our embassy there.  Not quite what we hoped for although Libyans seem to have a high regard for the U.S. (54% in a 2012 Gallop poll).*

We did give at least moral support to the mob that overthrew Mubarak (a U.S. supporter by the way).  Is Egypt now much better off than with Mubarak?  You be the judge.  It may be that Egypt will eventually move toward a real democracy, but there sure are "slips twixt cup and lip."

I'm reminded that, in the Desert Storm war against Saddam Hussein to push him out of Kuwait at the request of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, President G.H.W. Bush did not press the battle to overthrow Saddam because you don't know who will take over.  It could be someone even worse.  True we did sort of think that the generals would push him out.  But the religious and ethnic complexity of Iraq may defy solution without a ruthless dictator.  I guess I belong to a growing number of people who feel we should let Iraq split into their more natural constituencies.  But if we should allow this, I suspect that the Sunni's and Kurds would push ISIL out of their areas.  Whether the Shia could do the same for their area remains to be seen.

And is Mali much better which has been hit by the rebound of the Arab Spring?**  Only Tunisia where the Arab Spring started seems to have some sort of order.***


* I find it a bit disturbing that Gaddafi promised to give up weapons of mass destruction if we stopped working to overthrow him.  He gave up weapons of mass destruction, but we helped overthrow him anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
*** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arezo-yazd/turning-the-tide-three-ye_b_4610148.html

I'VE HEARD THIS TUNE BEFORE.

OK, there is this unpopular government we tried to prop up that has an insurgency, thousands of government troops (one estimate is 90,000 police and troops) just melted away before the onslaught.  I'm plenty old enough to remember Vietnam that had a similar story and the minority eventually won, or did they.  Vietnam (or at least southern Vietnam) seems to have become a valued trading partner.

The case of Iraq and Syria may be different in that the insurgency , called ISIS,* seems to be Sunni religious fanatics bound to establish Islamic sharia law.  As I write this, the insurgency is advancing on Baghdad.  We'll have to see how the government troops react there.

Will ISIS try to take over the entire Iraq area, including the Kurdish area and the majority Shiite area?  Will Iran feel compelled to enter the fray to support the Shiite area?   And to what extent will the U.S. re-enter the fray? We'll just have to see.

*ISIS stands for Islamic State Of Iraq and al-Sham (Syria and Lebanon) said to be an al-Qaeda group: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10892898/Iraq-crisis-Q-and-A-Who-or-what-is-ISIS-Is-it-part-of-al-Qaeda.html

WHY WE ARE CAREFUL IN SYRIA

There are numerous examples now of the difficulty in conversion of nations that have long been under dictatorships to any sort of democracy.  Certainly Egypt is a good example where they have elections and then in maybe six months have the winning party overthrown by the mob.  Certainly a part of the problem is in the poor economics of these countries, including Egypt.  Recall that the original mob overthrow of a dictator had American sympathies (West friendly Hosni Mubarabk), but is the country really better off?

We did even more in backing the mob to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya, after we had promised not to try to overthrow him if he gave up nuclear weapons, which he did.  We did not put "boots on the ground" in Libya, so far as I know, except for "trainers," but we did give the mob air cover as well as training and other war materiel.  The problems of Libya are much more than the Benghazi incident,* much loved by some American politicians.

This increased engagement has come at a continuing cost. When the US and other allies intervened in 2011 to aid in the ouster of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, for instance, it helped set off a chain reaction that led to a security vacuum destabilizing that country as well as neighboring Mali. The latter saw its elected government overthrown by a US-trained officer. The former never recovered and has tottered toward failed-state status ever since. Local militias have been carving out fiefdoms, while killing untold numbers of Libyans—as well, of course, as US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in a September 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, the “cradle” of the Libyan revolution, whose forces the US had aided with training, materiel and military might.**

Another case where we have supported the mob against the government is, of course, the Ukraine where there have been two revolutions within 10 yrs, ousting legitimately elected leaders.  The Ukraine might have done better if they had broken into two counties like Czechoslovakia did as voting patterns in the Ukraine elections are quite clear.  But as in Egypt, a large part of the problem is in the poor economics of the Ukraine.

Thus I think we have been wise in Syria not to precipitously support the revolutionary parties (note plural) against the dictatorial government.   Should they overthrow Assad, then the real civil war would start between the islamists and the secularists.  As the islamists have more fervor, it is supposed that they would win resulting in another Iran type government, though the Iran government may be slowly evolving into a more democratic government representative of the people.

* In response to trying to prevent more diplomatic attacks, we have finally, quietly, developed rapid response teams in the military to counter extremist and al Qaeda attacks on our diplomatic posts:
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/05/african-war-on-terror.html
** http://www.thenation.com/article/179883/how-benghazi-birthed-new-normal-africa?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20%28NEW%29%2020140515&newsletter=email_nation_tuesday

THE BREADBASKET OF EUROPE IS NOW A BASKET CASE

The title of this piece, that regards Ukraine,* is not original with me, but I couldn't resist using it.  But I am getting increasingly upset with certain politicians who insist on undermining our President in foreign relations.  Prominent, of course, is senile John McCain who seemingly never saw a war he didn't like; however, when pressed by Charley Rose as to what should be done over the Soviet, I mean Russian, occupation of the Crimea said that the first thing he would do is to freeze the foreign assets and visas of the Russian oligarchs, something that Secretary John Kerry has mentioned as a possibility.

I'm also disappointed in Lindsey Graham, Senator of South Carolina, for his comments making fun of the President in a serious international incident, as, at times, he has shown some statesmanship.  Supposedly the reason he is doing this is because of his Tea Party challenge in his reelection bid.  Unfortunately, this puts his reelection ahead of his country.  He seems to think that we should have bombarded the leader of Syria even after the promise of getting rid of the poisonous gases.  Unfortunately, there are no good solutions in Syria as if  Assad is overthrown the real civil war will begin with the likelihood that the country will become a conservative Muslim state like Iran.   As awful as the situation is in Syria, perhaps the best state is a status quo.

At the age of 82, I do remember some things in the lead up to WW-II, and the Russian occupation of the Crimea to "protect" the Ukrainian citizens of Russian heritage reminds me a lot of the Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland** to protect citizens of German heritage at the very beginning of WW-II.  I don't recall any news about threats to the Russian speaking peoples anywhere in Ukraine.  And Putin does seem to be trying to generate an excuse for more occupation of Ukraine by having some of his soldiers shoot over the heads of some Ukrainian troops:
But not every scene was so calm. Video showed more than 100 unarmed Ukrainian troops trying Tuesday morning to return to Belbek air base north of Sevastopol, only to have Russian forces fire warning shots over their heads.***

As the situation in Ukraine is still in flux, I have little more to say at this time.

History of Ukraine:

Crimea has had a long and complex history but more recently for more than 300 yrs it was a part of Turkey, then in 1783 became a part of Russia, more or less, and then of the Soviet Union.  Mysteriously, Kruschov gave the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.  Speculation is that he was drunk at the time.  Crimea has spent little time as an independent nation though it was called the Autonomous Republic of  Crimea.  It became recognized as a part of Ukraine by Russia in 1997.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea).

Eastern Ukraine has been largely Russian since late in the 17th century.  In 1991, 75% of ethnic Russian said they no longer identified themselves as Russian and 55% voted for Ukrainian independence.  Many Russian speaking Ukrainians bemoan the fact that Russian is not an accepted official language of Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine)

Western Ukraine likewise has a complicated history and was a part of Poland most of the time for several hundred years which ended in 1939.  After WW-II, Ukraine became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with some independence from the Soviet Union.  West Ukraine is largely west looking.  Though the country is largely of the Eastern Orthodox religion, around 4 million Roman Catholics are present, mainly in western Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Ukraine; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine)

* http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/bread-basket-europe.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia
*** http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/

NO LEAST BAD CHOICE

I think our president is at a loss as to what to do about the use of poison gas in Syria now that the Brits have backed out from any type of military action.  Curiously the news programs don't mention why the President has changed his mind on military action in Syria.  The President definitely has backed off on his call for regime change, for now anyway.  After the Arab League sounding as it they are on board of some punishment of Assad, they have backed off.  The United Nations is not on board.  So it seems like it is just the French and now maybe us to do something about Assad's use of poison gas..

So now it appears like our president has cold feet about his "red line" over the use of poison gas and has turned the matter over to Congress.  Although Technically, poison gas is outlawed in war by the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (not signed by Syria), as if you can make war humane, it overlooks President Reagan's overlooking the poison gas used by Saddam Hussein on several occasions in the Iraq-Iran War and on his own people as well.*  In spite of a stronger prohibition by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (also not signed by Syria), most of the world does not seem to care if poison gas is used.

So what will Congress do?  It seems like a limited attack on Syria as punishment may be approved by the Senate, but what about the House? (1)  The House seems to oppose anything the President proposes. (2) There seems to be a drift among Republicans back toward isolationism (led by Rand Paul), something missing since the Solid South of the Democratic Party joined the Republican Party as the Southern Strategy. (3) The President's own party is not keen on an attack. Therefore my guess, and it is only that, is that the House will not approve any action against Syria.  Time will tell.  If this is the case, the prohibitive actions against the use of poison gas against your own people and probably in war in general will be null and void.  As C. Northcote Parkinson once said about the League of Nations, "The buildings of the League of Nations were  finished in 1938 and so was the League of Nations." (Not an exact quote.)

Although there are non-sectarian forces fighting against Assad, the el Qaeda forces seem to be more effective.  I guess the thought is that if there is a regime change, then there will be another war between the non-sectarian forces (Free Syrian Army) and al Qaeda.  And what role will Hesbollah play in such a circumstance?

* (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran); http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/01/world/poison-gas-viewed-as-uniquely-horrible/#.UiUT09uF9rw