Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Fighting ‘Islamic State’ is not the Israeli priority
By Nicola Nasser*
Defying a consensus that it is a priority by the world community comprising international rivals like the United States, Europe, Russia and China and regional rivals like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, Israel, like Turkey, does not eye the U.S. – led war on the IS as its regional priority. Nor fighting
is an IS priority. Israel
The Israeli top priority is to dictate its terms to
to sign a peace treaty with
before withdrawing its forces from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights,
Palestinian territories and Lebanese southern lands. Israel
For this purpose,
Israel is determined to
break down the Syria – Iran alliance, which has been the main obstacle
from realising its goals. Changing the ruling regime in either Israel Damascus
be a step forward. Towards this Israeli strategic goal the IS could not be but
an Israeli asset. Tehran
“To defeat ISIS (The Islamic State in
Iraq and Syria as the IS was previously known) and leave
as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war,” Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the UN General Assembly last September. Iran
Therefore, “it should not come as a surprise that the (Benjamin) Netanyahu government has not yet taken any immediate steps against IS,” according to Amos Harel, writing in Foreign Policy on September 15.
However, information is already surfacing that
is “taking steps” in the opposite direction, to empower the IS and other
terrorist groups fighting and infighting in . Syria
Israeli daily Haaretz on last October 31 quoted a “senior Northern Command officer” as saying that the U.S. – led coalition “is making a big mistake in fighting against ISIS … the United States, Canada and France are on the same side as Hezbollah, Iran and [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad. That does not make sense.”
Regardless, on September 8 Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post reported that
“satellite imagery and other information” to the coalition. Three days later Netanyahu
a conference in Herzliya: “ Israel Israel fully supports President [Barack]
Obama’s call for united actions against ISIS …
We are playing our part in this continued effort. Some of the things are known;
some of the things are less known.”
Obama’s call was the green light for
support Syrian and non- Syrian rebels. Syrian official statements claim that Israel
has been closely coordinating with the rebels. Israel
Israeli statements claim theirs is confined to “humanitarian” support to “moderate” Syrian opposition, which the
U.S. has already pledged to train and arm in Saudi Arabia, Jordan
A significant portion of the $64 billion earmarked for conflicts abroad in the
budget legislation signed by Obama on December 19 will go to these “moderates.” Turkey
have no headaches about whether the “moderates” would remain as such after
being armed with lethal weapons or whether it remains appropriate to call them
But the Israeli “humanitarian” claim is challenged by the fact that
is the only neighbouring country which still closes its doors to Syrian
civilian refugees while keeping its doors wide open to the wounded rebels who
are treated in Israeli hospitals and allowed to return to the battle front
after recovery. Israel
IS close to Israeli borders
The Israeli foreign ministry on last September 3 confirmed that the
Steven Sotloff whom the IS had beheaded was an Israeli citizen as well. In a
speech addressed to Sotloff’s family, Netanyahu condemned the IS as a “branch”
of a “poisonous tree” and a “tentacle” of a “violent Islamist terrorism.” U.S.
On the same day Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon officially outlawed the IS and anyone associating with it.
On September 10, Netanyahu convened an urgent security meeting to prepare for the possible danger of the IS advancing closer to the Israeli border, a prospect confirmed by the latest battles for power between the IS and the al – Nusra Front on the southern Syrian – Lebanese borders and in southern
, within the artillery range
of Israeli forces. Syria
On November 9, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis (ABM), which has been operating against the Egyptian army, released an audio clip pledging allegiance to the IS to declare later the first IS Wilayah (province) in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, south of
On last November 14 The Israeli Daily quoted Netanyahu as saying in a private defense meeting that the IS is “currently operating out of Lebanon … close to Israel’s northern border. We must take this as a serious threat.”
However, “in truth, as most of Israel's intelligence community has been quick to point out, there are no signs that anything of the sort is actually happening,” according to Amos Harel, writing in Foreign Policy five days later.
Moshe Ya’alon told journalists in September that “the organization operates far from
thus presents no imminent threat. Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery, on
November 14, wrote: “The present and former generals who shape Israel 's
policy can only smile when this ‘danger’ is mentioned.” Israel
Israel “certainly does not see the group as an external threat” and the “Islamic State also does not yet pose an internal threat to Israel,” according to Israeli journalist and Associate Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, Dimi Reider, writing in a Reuters blog on last October 21.
What Netanyahu described as a “serious threat” in the north does not yet dictate any Israeli action against it because “we must assume that Hizballah,” which is allied to
Syria and ,
“does not have its house in order,” according to the Israeli premier. Iran
The presence of the IS Wilayah on its southern border with Egypt is preoccupying the country with an internal bloody anti-terror conflict that would prevent any concrete Egyptian contribution to the stabilization of the Arab Levant or support to the Palestinians in their struggle to end the Israeli occupation of their land, let alone the fact that this presence is already pitting Egypt against Israel’s archenemy, Hamas, in the Palestinian Gaza Strip and creating a hostile environment that dictates closer Egyptian – Israeli security coordination.
going to “interfere” because “these are internal issues of the countries where
it is happening.” Israel Israel is
“informally … ready to render assistance, but not in a military way and not by
joining the ( U.S. - led)
coalition” against the IS, according to the deputy head of the Israeli embassy
in , Olga
Slov, as quoted by Russian media on November 14. Moscow
Israel’s eastern neighbours in Jordan and seem another story. Syria
threatened by IS. We will cooperate with them one way or another,” ambassador
Slov said. Jordanian media has been reporting that more than 2000 Jordanians
had already joined al-Qaeda splinter the IS, al-Qaeda’s branch al-Nusra Front
or other rebels who are fighting for an “Islamic” state in Jordan . Hundreds of them were killed
by the Syrian Arab Army. Syria
The Daily Beast on last June 27 quoted Thomas Sanderson, the co-director for transnational threats at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as saying that
considers the survival of
as “a paramount national security objective.” Jordan
Jordan requested Israeli assistance in
protecting its borders,
would have “little choice” but to help, the Beast quoted the director of
the Israeli National Security Council, Yaakov
Amidror, as saying. Israel
As a precaution measure,
Israel is building
now a 500-kilometre “security fence” on its border with . Jordan
Israel is willing and getting ready to
“interfere” in Jordan, it is
already deeply interfering in ,
where the real battle has been raging for less than four years now against
terrorists led by the IS. Syria
A few weeks ago The Associated Press reported that the IS and the al-Nusra had concluded an agreement to stop fighting each other and cooperate on destroying the U.S. – trained and supported rebels (The Syrian Revolutionaries Front and the Hazm movement) as well as the Syrian government forces in northern Syria.
But in southern Syria all these and other terrorist organizations are coordinating among themselves and have what Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) called “a gentleman’s agreement” with Israel across the border, according to Colum Lynch in Foreign Policy on June 11.
Last October, Al-Qaeda branch in
al-Nusra, was among the rebel groups which overtook the only border crossing of
Quneitra between Syria and
the Israeli – occupied Golan Heights.
has yet to demonstrate its objection. Israel
“Many Sunnis in Iraq and the Gulf consider ISIS a bullet in their rifles aimed at Shiite extremism, in their bid to restore their lost standing,” Raghida Dergham, a columnist and a senior diplomatic correspondent for the London – based Arabic Al-Hayat daily, wrote in the huffingtonpost on September 19.
A political public agreement between
Israel and the Gulf Arabs has developed on a
mutual understanding that the dismantling of the Syria
– Iran alliance as a prelude
to a “regime change” in both countries is the regional priority, without
loosing sight of the endgame, which is to dictate peace with Israel as the regional power under the hegemony.
The IS is “the bullet in their rifles.” From their perspective, the U.S. war on the
IS is irrelevant, for now at least. U.S.
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Israeli role in Syrian conflict brought into the open
By Nicola Nasser*
Overtly, the Israeli superpower of the Middle East has been keen to posture as having no role whatsoever in the four-year old devastating conflict in Syria, where all major regional and international powers are politically and militarily deeply involved and settling scores by Syrian blood.
In his geopolitical weekly analysis, entitled “The Islamic State Reshapes the
Middle East,” on November
25 Stratfor’s George Friedman raised eyebrows when he reviewed the
effects which the terrorist group had on all regional powers, but seemed
unaware of the existence of the Israeli regional superpower.
It was an instructive omission that says a lot about the no more discreet role
is playing to maintain what the Israeli commentator Amos Harel described as the
“stable instability” in
and the region, from the Israeli perspective of course. Syria
Friedman in fact was reflecting a similar official omission by the
administration. When President Barak Obama appealed for a “broad international
coalition” to fight the Islamic State (IS), Israel -- the strongest military
power in the region and the well - positioned logistically to fight it -- was
not asked to join. The Obama administration explained later that US ’s
contribution would reflect negatively on the Arab partners in the coalition. Israel
“Highlighting Israel’s contributions could be problematic in terms of complicating efforts to enlist Muslim allies” in the coalition, said Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow at AIPAC’s arm, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Covertly however Israel is a key player in prolonging the depleting war on Syria and the major beneficiary of neutralizing the military of the only immediate Arab neighbor that has so far eluded yielding to the terms dictated by the U.S. - backed Israeli regional force majeure for making peace with the Hebrew state.
Several recent developments however have brought the Israeli role into the open.
First the latest bombing of Syrian targets near the
civilian airport on December 7 was the seventh major unprovoked air strike of
its kind since 2011 and the fifth in the past 18 months on Syrian defenses.
Syrian Scientific research centers, missile depots, air defense sites, radar
and electronic monitoring stations and the Republican Guards were targeted by Damascus . Israel
Facilitating the Israeli mission and complementing it, the terrorist organizations operating in the country tried several times to hit the same targets. They succeeded in killing several military pilots and experts whom Israeli intelligence services would have paid dearly to hunt down.
Foreign Policy on last June 14 quoted a report by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki – moon as saying that the “battle – hardened Syrian rebels ... once in Israel, they receive medical treatment in a field clinic before being sent back to Syria,” describing the arrangement as a “gentleman’s agreement.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu in February this year visited this “military field hospital” and shook hands with some of the more than 1000 rebels treated in Israeli hospitals, according to Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF).
Foreign Policy quoted also Ehud Yaari, an Israeli fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as saying that
was supplying the rebel – controlled Syrian villages with
medicines, heaters, and other humanitarian supplies. The assistance, he said,
has benefited civilians and “insurgents.” Yaari ignored the reports about the
Israeli intelligence services to those “insurgents.” Israel
Second, the latest quarterly report by the UN Disengagement Force (UNDOF) to the UN Security Council (UNSC) on December 1 confirmed what eight previous similar reports had stated about the “interaction … across the (Syrian – Israeli) ceasefire line” between the IOF and the “armed members of the (Syrian) opposition,” in the words of Ki-moon’s report to the Council on December 4.
Third, Ki-moon in his report confirmed that the UNDOF “was forced to relocate its troops” to the Israeli side of the ceasefire line, leaving the Syrian side a safe haven zone for the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front, which the UNSC had designated a “terrorist group.”
UNDOF’s commander Lieutenant General Iqbal Singh Singha told the UNSC on October 9 that his troops were “under fire, been abducted, hijacked, had weapons snatched and offices vandalized.”
was the latest among the troop contributing countries to pull out its forces
from UNDOF. Australia
UNDOF and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) operate in the buffer zone of about 80 km long and between 0.5 to 10 km wide, forming an area of 235 km². The zone borders the Lebanon Blue Line to the north and forms a border of less than 1 km with
to the south. It straddles the Purple Line which separates the Israeli – occupied
Golan Heights from Jordan .
The west Israeli side of this line is known as "Alpha", and the east Syrian
side as "Bravo." Syria
Speaking at the
U.S. military base Fort
Dix on Monday, President Obama warned
those who “threaten America”
that they “will have no safe haven,” but that is exactly what is
providing them. Israel
Israeli “interaction” has practically helped the UNDOF “to relocate” from Bravo to Alpha and to hand Bravo as a safe haven over to an al-Nusra Front – led coalition of terrorist groups.
Al-Nusra Front is officially the al – Qaeda affiliate in
Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Committee on Foreign relations on
this December 9 that his administration considers the IS to be a branch of al –
Qaeda operating under a different name. Both terrorist groups were one under
the name of the Islamic State in Syria and Syria (ISIS) and only
recently separated. Whoever accommodates either one is in fact courting the
“The 1,200-strong UN force is now mostly huddled inside
a drab base just inside the Israeli - controlled side of the Golan
Heights. Its patrols along the de facto border have all but ceased,”
the Associated Press (AP) reported on last September 18.
Israeli air force and artillery intervened several times to protect the al-Nusra Front’s “safe haven” against fire power from Syria, which is still committed to its ceasefire agreement of 1974 with Israel. Last September for example,
shot down a Syrian fighter jet that was bombing the Front’s positions, only
three weeks after shooting down a Syrian drone over the area. Israel
This situation could only be interpreted as an Israeli premeditated war by proxy on the UN presence on the
Israel is the most interested in having (UN) peacekeepers evacuated
from the occupied Golan so as to be left without international monitoring,” ’s
permanent envoy to the UN, Bashar al- Jaafari, told reporters on September 17. Syria
The UNSC seems helpless or uninterested in defending the UNDOF mandate on the Golan against Israeli violations, which risk the collapse of the 1974 ceasefire arrangements.
Syrian Foreign Ministry was on record to condemn these violations as a “declaration of war,” asserting that
reserves its right to retaliate “at the right moment and the right place.”
Obviously a regional outbreak is at stake here without the UN presence as a buffer. Syria
Israel’s status from a
“major non – NATO ally” to a “major strategic partner” of the by the U.S. Congress
on December 3 could explain the UNSC inaction. United States
The undeclared understanding between the Syrian government and the U.S. – led coalition against the self – declared “Islamic State” (IS) not to target the latter’s forces seems to have left this mission to Israel who could not join the coalition publicly for subjective as well as objective reasons.
The AP on September 18 did not hesitate to announce that the “collapse of UN peacekeeping mission on Golan Heights marks new era on
Israel – front.”
Aron Heller, the writer of the AP report, quoted the former Israeli
military liaison officer with UNDOF, Stephane Cohen, as saying: “Their mandate
is just not relevant anymore.” Heller concluded that this situation “endangers”
the “status quo,” which indeed has become a status quo ante. Syria
Israeli strategic gains
The emerging fait accompli seems very convenient to
creating positive strategic benefits for the Hebrew state and arming it with a
pretext not to withdraw the IOF from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and
Palestinian territories. Israel
In an analysis paper published by The Saban Center at Brookings in November 2012, Itamar Rabinovich wrote that, “Clearly, the uncertainty in
has put the question of the Golan Heights on
hold indefinitely. It may be a long time until Israel
can readdress the prospect of giving the Golan back to .” Damascus
Moreover, according to Rabinovich, “the Syrian conflict has the potential to bring the damaged Israeli – Turkish relationship closer to normalcy … they can find common ground in seeking to foster a stable post – Assad government in Syria.”
The hostile Turkish insistence on toppling the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, the concentration of the IS and other rebel forces in the north of the country and in central, eastern and southern Syria are diverting the potential and focus of the Syrian Arab Army northward and inward, away from the western front with the Israeli occupying power on the Golan Heights.
The protracted war on the Syrian government is depleting its army in manpower and materially. Rebuilding the Syrian army and the devastated Syrian infrastructure will preoccupy the country for a long time to come and defuse any military threat to
extended time span. Israel
On the Palestinian front, the rise of the IS has made fighting it the top U.S. priority in the Middle East, which led Aaron David Miller, a former adviser to several U.S. administrations on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, to warn in Foreign Policy early in September that the rise of the IS would pose “a serious setback to Palestinian hopes of statehood.”
The expected fallback internally of the post – war
of the Syrian historical support for the Palestinian anti – Israeli occupation
movements, at least temporarily. Israel
Netanyahu on Sunday opened a cabinet meeting by explicitly using the IS as a pretext to evade the prerequisites of making peace. Israel “stands … as a solitary island against the waves of Islamic extremism washing over the entire Middle East,” he said, adding: “To force upon us” a timeframe for a withdrawal from the Israeli – occupied Palestinian territories, as proposed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the UN Security Council, “will bring the radical Islamic elements to the suburbs of Tel Aviv and to the heart of Jerusalem. We will not allow this.”
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories (email@example.com).
Friday, November 21, 2014
Gaza bombings rock Palestinian reconciliation
By Nicola Nasser*
It is ironic that the annual commemoration of the death of Yasser Arafat should turn into an occasion for rekindling the flames of internal strife. This was clearly the aim of last week’s bombings that targeted the homes of Fatah leaders in
, as well as the
podium for the commemorative ceremonies of Arafat, who strove to make
Palestinian national unity one of the pillars of his political legacy. Gaza
How desperately those concerned need to be inspired by the political legacy of that great president.
During a visit to demonstrate solidarity with the West Bank
of Al-Mughayyar, where settlers, under
the protective eye of occupation soldiers, set fire to a mosque, Director of
the Ministry of Awqaf (Religious Endowments) Kamel Abu Aliya remarked that his
ministry have documented 20 similar attacks on mosques in the West
Bank since 2011.
In targeting mosques, the occupation is clearly targeting major symbols of national and popular unity. Mosques, by definition, gather people together rather than drive them apart. Inside the mosque all the factions of the national struggle that are at odds with each other assemble as one with their fellow men, in solid ranks with a single heart.
The occupation has never foregone any means at its disposal to drive a wedge into the Palestinian national ranks. This has not changed. So it is ironic that the bombings would become an occasion to present the occupation with the gift of factional polarisation and a war of words, at a time when the factions most need to be united, and that they would serve to turn the national compass away from Jerusalem, on which Arafat had set his national compass until his dying breath.
But here is another important point. Both sides of the dispute — Fatah and Hamas — have condemned the attacks, denied all charges of responsibility and insist on the need to conduct an investigation into bombings as quickly as possible.
If these two factions can agree on these points, what would keep them from agreeing to form a joint fact-finding committee that would include representatives from all other factions (most notably the Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front) and independent figures from civil society that would be committed to publishing its findings in fulfilment of the right of the Palestinian people to know the truth?
Moreover, why couldn’t the creation of a joint committee such as this become a new mechanism for enhancing national reconciliation and ending acrimonious exchanges before they spiral out of control?
In this regard, when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says that he is not interested in “an investigation by them” — referring to Hamas, of course — but does not propose an alternative investigatory mechanism, he is not helping efforts to unearth the truth, which his people are more eager to learn than the two factions whose protracted dispute has exhausted their people.
But the most appalling irony resides in their aversion to turning the finger of accusation in the direction of the ultimate beneficiary from all this — namely, the Israeli occupation authority and its state. A focus on that beneficiary would suffice, in and of itself, to contain the dangerous repercussions of the bombings on national unity and, simultaneously, to expose the truth about the existence of parties who fear their interests would be jeopardised by the end of the rift in both the occupied West Bank and blockaded Gaza Strip.
These parties are exploited, knowingly or not, by the occupation, and collectively they form a “fifth column” that works to obstruct the process of national reconciliation in order to safeguard their interests.
But even if those who carried out the bomb attacks were Palestinian this does not obscure the identity of the first and foremost beneficiary. This, moreover, comes at a time when the occupation is escalating its aggression against the Palestinian people under occupation.
It is increasing its forces in the
intensifying its repressive measures and moving to augment its budget for
settlement expansion. More significantly, the Israeli government recently
approved a bill of law to extend the laws of the Israeli state to the Jewish
colonies in the West Bank, as is the case in East
Jerusalem and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. In other words,
we are effectively speaking of another Israeli annexation bid.
The history of dissension and strife is repeating itself. A statement by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) urges Fatah and Hamas to exercise restraint and to remain alert to the conspiracies that are being woven against the Palestinian people.
It cautions the two factions against falling into the Israeli trap of igniting Palestinian discord and urges them to give competent agencies and relevant political authorities sufficient time to unearth the threads of the crime.
Yet this statement, which applies perfectly to the current situation, was issued by the PFLP in July 2008 after four Ezz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigade members were killed in a bombing on
beach. At the time, Hamas accused Fatah and the Fatah charged Hamas with
carrying out an “internal purge.” Gaza
Nothing appears to have changed, apart from the fact that today Fatah accuses Hamas of planting the bombs and the latter responds that the attack was related to an internal conflict inside Fatah. In both cases, the occupation power and its government come out innocent!
That rush to judgment and finger pointing before the smoke has cleared is suspicious and raises questions regarding the political motives behind such reactions. One is reminded of a similar case of accusations that were hurled after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri in 2005.
Before his blood had dried some fingers in
pointed to Syria, even
though it was palpably evident that
could not have been behind the crime as it was fully aware that it could only
be harmed by the consequences. Damascus
The same applies to Hamas today. After its long political experience it would realise that it could only stand to lose from the
The hands that carried out the bombings in
might be Palestinian and even Fatah or Hamas hands, but those who issued the
orders could not have been Palestinian decision-makers. Anyone familiar with
the history of Palestinian assassinations knows this. Gaza
The perpetrators may have been motivated by personal interests but the consequences cannot possibly serve Palestinian interests, factional or otherwise. They can only serve the occupation authority and its state, especially as the victim is certainly the Palestinian people and their national unity.
The fifth column that benefits from Palestinian division and that feels threatened by its end is still searching for opportunities to sabotage Palestinian national reconciliation. It must have seen the
bombings as a perfect opportunity to fan the flames of discord, offering a
service free of charge to the occupation (presuming the best possible
intentions under that situation), or not free of charge (presuming the worst). Gaza
It does not take much effort to reach the above conclusion. However, building on it by containing the unpatriotic repercussions of the attacks requires great thought and effort in order to prevent outbursts of factional acrimony or to keep them contained in order to safeguard national reconciliation from collapse.
This is essential to ensure that the reconstruction of Gaza moves forward, to sustain the national unity government and to return the focus to solidifying national ranks in the face of the occupation’s ongoing aggression against the Palestinian people, their security and wellbeing and their sanctities, and behind the political battle that the Palestinian presidency is waging in the international arena.
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories (firstname.lastname@example.org). This article was translated from Arabic and first published by Al-Ahram Weekly on November 20, 2014.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
The endgame of the US ‘Islamic State’ strategy
By Nicola Nasser*
Dismantling what the former US President George W. Bush once described as the Syria – Iran component of the “axis of evil,” or interrupting in Iraq the geographical contiguity of what King Abdullah II of Jordan once described as the “Shiite crescent,” was and remains the strategic goal of the US – Israeli allies in the Middle East unless they succeed first in “changing the regime” in either Damascus or Tehran.
Israel and their regional
allies have been on the record that the final target of their “regime change”
campaign in the Middle East was to dismantle the Syria
With the obvious failure of Plan A to dismantle the self- proclaimed anti-Israel and anti - US Syrian – Iranian “Resistance Axis” by a forcible “regime change” in Damascus, a US – led regional alliance has turned recently to its Plan B to interrupt in Iraq the geographical contiguity of that axis.
This is the endgame of President Barak Obama’s strategy, which he declared on last September 10 as ostensibly against the Islamic State (IS).
This would at least halt for the foreseeable future all the signed and projected trilateral or bilateral Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian pipeline networks to carry oil and gas from
Iran and Iraq
to the Syrian coast at the Mediterranean.
“The growing involvement of Sunni Salafi s in
Iraq (since 2003), among the rebels in Syria (since 2011), and in Lebanon has created a ‘ Salafi Crescent’ … from Diyala [in
eastern Iraq] to ,” he wrote. Beirut
“A positive outcome” of this
Salafi Crescent “will be the decline in
Iranian influence in the region,”
Conspiracy theories aside, the eventual outcome is a sectarian Sunni military and political wedge driven into the Iraqi geographical connection of the Iran-Syria alliance in a triangle bordering Turkey in the north, Iran in the east, Jordan in the west and Saudi Arabia in the south and extending from north eastern Syria to the Iraqi province of Diyala which borders Iran.
Iraqi Kurdistan is already effectively an independent state and cut off from the central government in Baghdad, but separating Iran and Syria as well and supported by the same US – led anti – IS coalition.
Amid the misinformation and disinformation, the fact is that the IS threat is being used as a smokescreen to confuse and blur this reality.
The IS was conceived and delivered in an American womb. The
– drafted and enforced current constitution produced the sectarian government
that is still trying to rule in .
Sectarian cleansing and exclusion of Sunnis could not but inevitably create its
The IS was the illegitimate fetus born and nurtured inside the uterus of the US - engineered political process based on a constitution legalizing a federal system based in turn on sectarian and ethnic sharing of power and wealth.
This horrible illegitimate creature is the “legacy” of the US war on Iraq, which was “conceived” in the “sin” of the US invasion of the country in 2003, in the words of the president of the Arab American Institute, James J. Zogbi, writing in the Jordan Times on last June 16.
US Senator John McCain, quoted by The Atlantic on last June 23, thanked “God,” the “Saudis and Prince Bandar” and “our Qatari friends” for creating the “monster.”
The pro-Iran government of former Prime Minister Noori al-Maliki was squeezed by the IS military advances to “request” the US help, which Washington preconditioned on the removal of al-Maliki to which Iran succumbed. The IS gave Obama’s IS strategy its first success.
However, al-Maliki’s replacement by Haider al-Abadi in August has changed nothing so far in the sectarian component of the Iraqi government and army. The US support of Iraq under his premiership boils down only to supporting continued sectarianism in the country, which is the incubator of the survival of its IS antithesis.
Moreover, the destruction of the Iraqi state infrastructure, especially the dismantling of
national army and security agencies and the Iraqi Baath party that held them
intact, following the US
invasion, has created a power vacuum which neither the occupation
forces nor the sectarian Shiite militias could fill. The IS was not powerful
per se. They just stepped in on a no-man land. US
Similarly, some four years of a US – led “regime change” effort, which was initially spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood and which is still financed, armed and logistically facilitated by the US regional allies in Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia as well as by allied western intelligence services, has created another power vacuum in Syria, especially on border areas and in particular in the northern and eastern areas bordering Turkey and Iraq.
“We have been fighting alongside al Qaeda, fighting alongside
ISIS is now emboldened and in two
countries. But here's the anomaly. We're with ISIS in .
We're on the same side of the war. So, those who want to get involved to
stop ISIS in Syria Iraq are allied
with ISIS in .
That is the real contradiction to this whole policy,” he said. Syria
The former 16 - year member of the US Congress and two - time US presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, writing in the http://www.huffingtonpost.com on last September 24, summed it up: The IS “was born of Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria.”
‘Trojan horse’ US
The IS could have considered playing the role of a US “Frankenstein,” but in fact it is serving as the US “Trojan horse” into Syria and Iraq. Fighting the IS was the
tactic, not the
On record, Iranian deputy foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said that “the best way of fighting ISIS and terrorism in the region is to help and strengthen the Iraqi and Syrian governments, which have been engaged in a serious struggle” against the IS. But this would not serve the endgame of Obama’s strategy, which targets both governments instead.
Beneficiaries of the IS “Trojan horse” leave no doubts about the credibility of the Syrian, Iranian and Russian doubts about the real endgame of the US – led declared war on the IS.
The United States was able finally to bring about its long awaited and promoted “front of moderates” against Iran and Syria into an active and “air-striking” alliance, ostensibly against the IS.
In Iraq, the IS served the US strategy in wrestling back the so called “political process” from the Iranian influence by proxy of the former premier al – Maliki. Depriving al – Maliki of a third term had proved that there is no unified
– backed “Shia house” in .
has its own influence inside that “house.” US
Installing a US Iraqi satellite was the strategic goal of the
US – led invasion and
in 2003. Instead, according to Doug Bandow,
writing in Forbes on last October 14, “Bush’s legacy was a corrupt, authoritarian, and sectarian state,
friendly with Iran and Syria, Washington’s prime adversaries in the Middle
East. Even worse was the emergence of the Islamic State.” Iraq
This counterproductive outcome of the US invasion, which saw Iran wielding the reigns of power in Baghdad and edging Iraq closer to Syria and Iran during the eight years of al-Maliki’s premiership, turned the red lights on in the White House and the capitals of its regional allies.
Al-Maliki, whom Bush had designated as “our guy” in
administration facilitated his premiership in 2006, turned against his mentors. Baghdad
closer to the Syrian and Iranian poles of the “axis of evil.” Consequently he
opposed western or Israeli military attack on Iraq , at least from or via the
Iraqi territory. In Iran Syria,
he opposed a regime change in Damascus, rejected
direct military “foreign intervention” and indirect proxy intervention and
insisted that a “political solution” is the only way forward in ’s western
Arab neighbor. Iraq
Worse still was his opening Iraq up to rival Chinese and Russian hydrocarbon investments, turning Iraq a part of an Iran-Iraq-Syria oil and gas pipeline network and buying weapons from the Russian Federation.
Al- Maliki had to go. He was backed by
to assume his second term as prime minister in spite of the , which
backed the winner of the 2010 elections for the post, Ayad Allawi. The US had its
revenge in the 2014 elections. Al-Maliki won the elections, but was denied a
third term thanks to US pressure. US
The IS was the
instrument to exert that pressure. US Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit to US Baghdad on last June 23 warned that was facing
“an existential threat.” Iraq
It was a
brinkmanship diplomacy to force al-Maliki to choose between two bad options:
Either to accept a de facto secession of western and northern Iraq on the lines of Iraqi Kurdistan or accept
conditional military support. Al-Maliki rejected both options, but he had paid
the price already. US
The turning point came with the fall of
second largest city of
to the IS on last June 10. Iraqi Kurdistan inclusive, the northern and
western Mosul Iraq, including most
of the crossing points into Syria
and Jordan in the west, were
clinched out of the control of Baghdad, i.e.
some two thirds of the area of .
Al-Maliki was left to fight this sectarian Sunni
insurgency by his sectarian Iran-backed Shiite government. This
was a non-starter and was only to exacerbate the already deteriorating
Al- Maliki and
Iran were made to
understand that no US
support was forthcoming to reign in the IS until he quits and a less pro-Iran
and a more “inclusive” government is formed in . Iraq
The creation of the IS as the sectarian Sunni alternative against
Iran’s ruling allies
in Baghdad and Damascus
was and is still the
tactic towards its strategic endgame. Until the time the US strategy succeeds
in wrestling Baghdad from Iran influence back into its fold as a separating
wedge between Iran and Syria, the IS will continue to serve US strategy and so
far Obama’s strategy is working. US
“America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance,” Garikai Chengu, a research scholar at Harvard University, wrote in http://www.counterpunch.org/ on last September 19.
As a doctrine, since the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate early in the twentieth century, western powers did their best to keep Arabs separated from their strategic depth in their immediate Islamic proximity. The
Syria – alliance continues to
challenge this doctrine. Iran
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories (email@example.com).
Friday, October 03, 2014
Palestinian-U.S. relations head for stormy times
By Nicola Nasser*
Washington’s response to the speech that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivered at the UN General Assembly last September 26 confirms that the bilateral Palestinian-U.S. relations are heading for stormy times.
The U.S., which opposed Abbas’ plan to seek a UN Security Council resolution to end the Israeli occupation within a defined timeframe, not only cautioned him against proceeding with any such plan but also issued an official statement condemning the language he used to express the Palestinian people’s opposition to the continued occupation and the ongoing war crimes that Israel is perpetrating in the territories it occupied in 1967.
“Abbas’ speech today included offensive characterizations that were deeply disappointing and which we reject,” U.S. State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement on last September 27, which criticised Abbas’ speech as “provocative,” “counterproductive” and undermines “efforts to create a positive atmosphere and restore trust between the parties.”
Clearly, Abbas bent before the onslaught of the winds of American rejection. He “submitted” his plan to the General Assembly but he did not ask to bring it to a vote in order to secure an international resolution that would strengthen his hand when he submitted it to the Security Council. It is also noteworthy that while he called for a deadline to end the occupation he omitted the three-year timeframe that he had previously stipulated.
There is no serious Palestinian opposition to Abbas’ plan to internationalise the search for a political solution to the Palestinian struggle to end the occupation of
West Bank and .
It would be extremely difficult to come up with a Palestinian who would argue
against replacing Gaza
sponsorship with UN sponsorship of the process of reaching a negotiated
settlement with the Israeli occupying power. Indeed, this direction is
supported by a near unanimity of Palestinian opinion, including among resistance
factions that have given Abbas a chance to put his strategy to a last test
without obstructing his manoeuvrability. US
But Abbas’ plan signifies that he has thrown in the towel on his reliance on
sponsorship, which in turn means confrontation with . Clearly, he will not succeed in
neutralising the Washington U.S. by
merely bowing before its opposition to his plan or by asking for approval.
Certainly, he should not hold out any hope that U.S. will not use its veto to defeat
his proposed resolution in the UN Security Council. Nor will he placate the Washington by
deferring Palestinian applications to join international treaties and organisations,
such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of
All the indications are that the U.S. will campaign against the Abbas plan and continue to insist on brokering a solution that it has been unable to produce during the more than two decades in which it monopolised the sponsoring the negotiating process with the Israeli occupying power.
On September 23, 88 US senators signed a letter urging U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to take prevent “negative developments at the UN General Assembly, UN Human Rights Council, and the International Criminal Court that could derail any prospects for the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Senator Rand Paul refused to sign this letter. He wants Washington to cut off “all aid to the Palestinian Authority until the conditions in Senator Paul’s Stand with Israel Act are met,” according to his e-mail statement to The Washington Post that day.
Warning Abbas “that
willingness to cooperate with him will continue to depend on his willingness to
return to the negotiating table with the Government of Israel and avoid
unilateral measures,” the senators were keen to sustain the usual U.S. “carrot-and-stick” policy, in this case by “enabling the Palestinian
Authority to move toward becoming the Palestinian governing authority in .” This was their
bribe to him. Gaza
But any policy of confrontation with the
U.S. means that Abbas must reject all bribes,
which would inevitably come at the cost of sacrificing the Palestinian
In addition, in a confrontation of that sort, Abbas would risk losing Arab support in view of the Arab consensus to ally with — or at least not oppose — the
in the war it has declared against ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and ). Therefore, the resistance
and Palestinian national unity will be the only foundation on which President
Abbas can rely in the confrontation. Syria
In this context, the Arab League’s declared support for the Abbas’ plan lacks credibility and cannot be relied on when it comes to confronting the
In fact, in the event of a confrontation, the likelihood is that this support
would dwindle and fade and turn into an American tool to pressure the PA
presidency into bowing to U.S.
This confrontation is foreshadowed by preliminary chapters of the same, especially since 2011 when the
defeated the Palestinian drive to obtain UN recognition of as a member state. The following
year, the Palestine U.S. was not able
to prevent the UN from recognising
as a non-member observer state. But Palestinian memory has not forgotten how
the Palestine U.S. undermined
Palestinian accomplishments, such as the International Court of Justice
recommendation regarding the separating wall designed to annex another chunk of
the West Bank, and the Goldstein Report. The
Palestinians remember very well how the U.S. obstructed dozens of international
resolutions in support of Palestinian rights and how it continuously prevented
the international community from sponsoring any just negotiating process that
might end Washington’s own monopoly over what it fraudulently calls the “peace
process,” in which the U.S. has never been an honest broker.
The US-Palestinian confrontation was inevitable, even if much delayed. Palestinian leaders from both the resistance and the negotiating factions always tried to avert it. The Palestinians never chose confrontation; successive
administrations however were constantly bent on forcing it on the Palestinian
If President Abbas, who for decades placed his faith in U.S. good will, has finally reached the conclusion that it is futile to continue to depend on the U.S. and that now is the time to stand up to Washington and turn to the international community to sponsor his negotiating strategy. His decision will receive the unanimous support of the Palestinian people. However, if he backs down, he will undergo the most important test of his political career, as he will come face-to-face with the people’s judgment of the credibility of his strategic choices, which have never obtained a national or popular consensus.
The choice of confrontation also entails the need to press forward in creating and setting into motion the mechanisms for implementing the reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas, as well as the need to respond quickly to the overwhelming Palestinian demand to apply for the membership of international treaties and organisations.
But above all, it requires safeguarding the resistance in all its forms and developing it in quantity and quality until its scope is expanded to embrace all the Palestinian people, wherever they may be. Confrontation means refusing to allow Ezz Al-Din Al-Qassam to be assassinated twice!
Even if the inconceivable occurred and the U.S. acknowledged the will of the international community in support of Palestinian rights, refrained from using its influence to stop Abbas’ plan and even refrained from wielding its veto in the UN Security Council, there remains the perpetual risk that the UN resolution would amount to no more than a paper victory to add to the pile of Palestinian paper victories, since any such political victory requires a national force to translate it into a reality on the ground in the occupied territories.
If the Palestinian presidency does not respond to these needs and demands, which receive the full support of the Palestinian people, he will find himself once again singing outside the his national flock.
Regardless of whether or not there is a confrontation with the
these needs and demands are national requirements that must be promoted,
enhanced and developed, because they are indispensable if Palestinian popular
will is to succeed in liberating its land and translating “paper” victories
into real victories on the ground. U.S.
The Palestinians have learned an important lesson from their enemy. The Palestinian national movement has dozens of international resolutions in its favour. This is something the Zionist movement never possessed throughout its history, apart from that one non-binding partition resolution, 181, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1947. But this one resolution the Zionists had translated into reality on the ground and then expanded on it through the exercise of overwhelming military force. This is the power that Palestinians are being prevented from possessing today, just as has been the case in the past.
May God bless late Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel-Nasser who always said that what has been taken away by force can only be regained by force. History has proven him right and events have shown that the course the Arabs and Palestinians took after he died — which headed in the opposite direction to his — was gravely wrong, indeed sinful.
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories (firstname.lastname@example.org).
This article was first published and translated from Arabic by Al-Ahram Weekly on October 3, 2014.