High Crimes on the High Seas Part III

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

In the past one hundred years, the Middle East has seen its fair share of meddling from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Russia (and the former Soviet Union). It would be hypocritical of me to deny America’s primary interest in the region -crude oil- has not led to some past misdeeds. While I speak only to America’s reliance on crude, I would speculate that any nation’s interest in the Middle East over the past one hundred years was predicated primarily on oil. A consequence of this multi-lateral international meddling is the ever-present need to prevent any one nation from becoming too powerful, thereby threatening regional stability and the flow of oil to the world’s consumers. A consequential outcome is a dearth of local leadership; the very thing the region needs in order to assure long-term stability.

The following list of once dominant nations in the region have seen their fortunes (monetary and political) ebb through the years; and with them all chances for regional leadership:

• Egypt—waning significance since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood (a precursor to Al-Qaeda), believed to be responsible for Sadat’s assassination, continues to exert its influence by quashing any attempts at moderation;
• Saudi Arabia—no real interest in leadership; quite comfortable with living on its oil-wealth;
• Syria—viewed as corrupted by Iranian meddling and instigation;
• Lebanon—ruled by Hezbollah, a puppet Terrorist State whose strings lay in the hands of the Mullahs in Iran;
• Jordan—content to stay out of the fray. Jordan has since reconciled to having Israel as a neighbor;
• Iran—in spite of the hostage crisis, which ended as Ronald Reagan took office, Iran continues to squander its chances for leadership significance.

Iran has so infuriated the international community that it has lost any credibility it might have had in the region. The Iranians are even at odds with the Saudis; more than 100 Iranian newspapers have been banned in Saudi Arabia. None of the nations listed here possesses the capability or the credibility to effectively fulfill the role of leader of the Middle East. Unmistakably, unless a strong Middle East leader emerges, the Israeli/Palestinian question is not likely to be resolved in the foreseeable future.

Curiously absent from this list is Turkey, which by all appearances has the potential for providing some stability within the [Muslim] Middle East. The central flaw with this wish is Turkey’s desire to join the European Union (EU). Having abandoned its Middle East roots, Turkey has sought a European identity—a pursuit that has occupied most of Turkey’s recent history (since its founding in 1923; following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire). In the interim, Turkey has seen its chances for EU membership diminish. It could be argued that Turkey is more than ten years away from meeting the basic qualifications for EU membership.

This explains why Turkey has seized upon the opportunity to supplant itself into to picture by flagrantly sponsoring and flagging a ship to sail on a military blockade. Moreover, since the conclusion of World War I, Turkey has sought a European identity. Having abandoned its Middle Eastern heritage in favor of courting the Europeans, Turkey appears to be losing hope of ever joining the EU. Furthermore, Turkey would be required to conform to many rigorous standards [such as human rights requirements and women’s’ rights, to name a few] in order to qualify for EU membership. Needless to say, irrespective of European attitudes towards Turkey, the Turks are a long way from being ready to comply with EU membership requirements. Turkey’s quest for legitimacy has led it back to the Middle East, where it hopes to emerge as the de facto leader.

If Turkey’s initial strategy is any indication of how it plans on establishing its dominance (by going after Israel), the world community could be in for far graver events in the Middle East in years to come. U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, has voiced his concerns over Turkey’s growing influence in the Middle East, and in the Balkans. Gates has also expressed grave concern over Turkey’s relationship with Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan vis-à-vis its willingness to become embroiled in local politics.

Turkey’s play for Middle East leadership has a two-pronged strategy: first, normalizing relations with its neighbors (including Armenia—home to the oldest existing Christian community); and second, mounting a credible anti-Israel effort. The anti-Israel tactic is essential if Turkey is to have any credibility with its proposed Middle East constituents. Robert Gates is right on target by monitoring Turkey’s relationship with its neighbors; however, its attitude towards Israel poses far graver consequences. Worst still, should Turkey succeed in normalizing relations with Armenia, this would give the appearance that the Muslims and the Christians have joined forces against the Jews; a prospect I do not relish.

My singular hope here is that Mr. Obama puts aside any personal/ideological differences he might have with Israel and demonstrate his willingness to defend our most loyal and stalwart ally in the region. Anything less would betray the efforts of his predecessors to cultivate a loyal ally and lay the groundwork for any future chances for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Furthermore, an abandonment of Israel would backfire on the United States by putting our other allies on notice that we cannot be trusted to be there in times of need.

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Published December 23, 1776, these words from Thomas Paine [an immigrant at the time] sum up the moral and strategic necessity to stand with our ally, Israel. We cannot afford the shroud of personal ideological fragments to cause us to squander what hundreds of thousands of men and women have fought and died for—FREEDOM—whether ours or Israel’s.

Contact your elected representatives and tell them that you expect the United States to stand with Israel, and any of our allies or you will not stand with them on Election Day.

High Crimes on the High Seas Part II

There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.

Winston Churchill

The Israeli-Palestinian question, as portrayed by the American Media, grossly understates the potential consequences to the world community generally, and the Middle East in particular. This flawed portrayal is either a deliberate attempt by the media to mislead the public, or the result of a gross lack of understanding of the historical, [regional] political, ethnic, and geographic underpinnings of the conflict. Consequently, American news consumers are, for the most part, misled as to the true nature of this conflict as they only have the benefit of a single side of the story. Case in point, recent coverage of the attempted breech of the Gaza Blockade was one-sided and grossly lacking in mitigating facts. If this flawed portrayal is indeed a deliberate attempt to mislead, it perverts the historical record and assures that there are only losers in the end.

In order to understand fully, the nuances of the Gaza Blockade vis-á-vis Israel’s reasons for implementing the blockade, and its reasons for continued military vigilance, a basic understanding of the historiography of the conflict is required.

It is important to note that there are myriad disputes in the region that date back for millennia. Much of what is needed to achieve a full understanding of the true nature of the Middle East conflict overall, was likely covered in the typical High School history class. What is lacking; however, are an appreciation for the past, and its significance for man’s future. Voltaire put it best when he proclaimed: “he, who does not learn from the past, is doomed to repeat it.” Simply, the mere regurgitation of historical facts is meaningless if it is not accompanied by a passionate appreciation for its predictive value, and a willingness to act accordingly. To be clear, the social and political history of the Middle East is vast and complex—any treatment here is cursory at best, and intended only to highlight the relevant strategic players and locales.

The depth of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Middle East dates back to the time before Christ at the height of the Roman Empire where Jews were more feared than hated. The best historical evidence points to the Jew’s role of banker/financier to many of the nation states in what we now know as the Middle East. Then, as now, bankers were hated, and in the case of the Jews, even feared. Hatred for the Jews grew from a fear of their potential to become financially powerful thus threatening already fragile leadership structures. In his book “Israel is Real,” Author Rich Cohen lays out a revealing history of the Jewish people and their struggles with bigotry and anti-Semitism through the ages. Cohen also chronicles the Jew’s lust for survival and his willingness to die for his beliefs. The Jew existed then, much as he does today—faced daily with a chorus of enemies plotting his demise. It could be said that conditions in the Middle East today are a mere replay of history; circumstances for Jews and Arabs alike, have not changed much since the reign of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire suffered a lack of tertiary leadership, which hastened its downfall.

In the broad view of the world community, it is not difficult to identify nations that serve the role of regional leaders. For example, the United States provides broad leadership insight for the Western Hemisphere, the United Kingdom does likewise for Western Europe, and Japan for Asia, to name a few. While the accuracy of this list is debatable, it should put into perspective the concept of Regional Leader, and serve also to highlight the significance of such a leader for the Middle East.

When compared with its past, the Middle east lacks a strong leader—such as a nation to whom others in the region can turn for moral and financial guidance on the one hand, and to arbitrate disputes on the other.

more to follow...

Epilogue to High Crimes on the High Seas Part I

I have come to expect politicians (especially those of the Washington, DC variety) to flip-flop on just about any issue without warning. In fact, I am often suspicious of Pols who do not do an about-turn, from time-to-time—especially in the age of instant poll results and active constituent involvement. I was not surprised, therefore, when President Barack Obama made such an about-face in his treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Compared with his last visit to the White House, Mr. Netanyahu met a different Barack Obama; I would even go as far as saying: Mr. Obama and the First Lady were civil to the Netanyahus, and by all appearances, treated them with the respect they deserve.

Why the sudden change of heart? Has Mr. Obama’s position on Israel suddenly change in the several weeks since Mr. Netanyahu’s last White House visit? Well, in keeping with political tradition, the answer to these questions is a profound NO! Make no mistake; Mr. Obama is as shrewd a politician as there ever was; every move [no matter how subtle] is carefully planned. What did change in the President’s views on Israel has nothing to do with the Gaza Blockade, nor does it concern Israel’s “treatment of the Palestinians.” It has everything to do with money. You see, the reality of the Democrat’s reliance on wealthy [American] Jews for fund raising is Mr. Obama’s primary focus, this time around.

I am convinced that President Obama’s position on Israel has not changed; not even to the slightest degree. Mr. Obama still views Israel as a pariah, and one that must be stopped and dealt with accordingly. In his own calculating way, Mr. Obama feels justified with his public condemnation of Israel, while at the same time relying on American Jews to help fund his mission to reduce their homeland down to size. The United States is morally obligated to stand by Israel and to protect and defend her sovereignty. Israel has withstood the front-line assault of America’s enemies in protection of our oil interests. Mr. Obama’s ideological position requires him to smash all such alliances, all in the name of portraying the right image to presumed new friends.

I wonder whether those who elected Mr. Obama, believe they are getting what they were promised. Irrespective of those promises, Mr. Obama’s handling of recent events with Israel serve only to highlight his foreign policy experience. The abandonment of Israel is reckless, and does not bode well for America’s strategic interests in the region. At this pace, the US would be out of allies well before the end of Mr. Obama’s term in office.