Category: Borders

Posted on

SHOWDOWN IN AFRIN: Will the USA Stop Turkey’s Invasion of Kurdish Rojava?

The Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and their jihadist allies of the Turkish contingent of the FSA are now 5 km away from Afrin City.  As the rest of the Kurdish enclave has quickly been gobbled up by the TAF, Kurdish civilians have fallen back on Afrin City as the Tweet below shows.

The original purpose of the “Operation Olive Branch” as the TAF called it was to “cleanse” the Turkish-Syrian border of Kurdish “terrorists.”  Of course Erdogan loves to call most Kurdish people terrorists.  Now that the TAF and the FSA (Turkish division) have nearly encircled Afrin City, most observers are questioning whether Erdogan is really more focused on genocidal ambitions against all Kurdish people.

With a serious showdown in the offing in the next few days as Turkey begins its seige of Afrin City, there is still hope that the Kurdish leadership in Syria will allow the Assad regime to enter Afrin City to push back on the TAF.

Of course there is still a possibility, no matter how remote, that Donald Trump may decide to take Turkey to task for wantonly attacking a key US ally.  As the siege over Afrin City begins there is dimming hope that the US will make a case to defend the Kurds in Afrin, which would remain isolated from the US backed eastern Rojava located from the Euphrates to the Iraqi border.

If the Kurds allow the Syrian regime to enter Afrin City this would effectively pit a Russian proxy in direct confrontation with a NATO member.  Of course it is a NATO member who is busy decimating  an indigenous people and key ally of the biggest NATO member of all, the USA. We may see a tacit allowance of Russian/Syrian assistance of an American ally in order to push back against everyone’s favorite enemy, Turkey.

Whether or not the USA enters the fray against Turkey or at least supplies direct weapons or supplies to the Kurdish majority SDF in Afrin  remains to be seen.  If they keep stalling then either the Kurds in Afrin will be wiped out or the Russian/Syrian access will pull the Afrin Kurds into their orbit.

If there is any question over the brutality of the TAF and the goals of Erdogan’s “Operation Olive Branch,” the Tweet below and the many similar to it should remind every one of the evil that is being allowed to grow in northern Syria.

Posted on

Israel’s right of self-defense

When I was in elementary school, I was disciplined for hitting another pupil after he hit me. That I remember the details of the incident clearly 60-odd years later is an indication of how strongly I perceived the injustice of it. I believed my action was justified as necessary self-defense to stop an unprovoked attack. The school principal disagreed.

One of the most strongly felt principles in Western morality and jurisprudence is the right of self-defense. It is permissible in most places to kill an attacker when a person feels that his own life or that of a family member is threatened. A person is not required to allow himself to be harmed or killed, even if the action he is forced to take to protect himself would be otherwise immoral or illegal.

There are strong arguments that even convicts have a constitutional right to employ violence in self-defense in the pervasively violent environment of American prisons. Prisons are inherently violent and dangerous, and the authorities are not able to protect the prisoners’ rights given budgetary and other constraints. But incarceration does not include a requirement to commit suicide, which in many cases is what failing to defend oneself in prison means.

There is the well-known Talmudic dictum, “If a man comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first” (Sanhedrin 72:1). And even Islamic  shari’a recognizes a right of self-defense (although a non-Muslim may not be able to exercise it against a Muslim for other reasons).

The right of self-defense is also recognized internationally between states. The UN Charter (Ch. I, Art. 2.4) says that members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” But the last article (51) of Chapter VII, which defines how the UN itself may use force to stop aggression, includes this exception:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. [my emphasis]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Use or Threat of Nuclear Weapons, took note of “the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to self-defence, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter, when its survival is at stake.” The Court argued that in such a case, as long as they are used in concurrence with international humanitarian law (in particular, the principles of necessity and proportionality), even nuclear weapons could not be ruled illegal!

The right of individual self-defense derives from the most basic of human rights, the right to life. And as the UN Charter and ICJ opinion quoted above indicate, international law recognizes also a national right to life.

I believe that the Middle East, like an American prison, is an inherently violent and dangerous place, and that all states – even one unwelcome to its neighbors – have the right to defend themselves when attacked, using whatever means are necessary to do so. Even, when there is no other option, nuclear weapons.

A lot is packed into the words “when attacked.” For example, in 1973, Israel’s enemies crossed cease-fire lines and attacked Israeli positions, acts that unambiguously constituted an “attack.” In 1967, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers from the Sinai, massed armored divisions on the Suez Canal, announced that they would “annihilate” the Jewish state and “slaughter” us (here is a recording of Radio Cairo threatening genocide in Hebrew), and closed the Strait of Tiran, which in itself was an act of war. Technically Israel fired the first shot on June 5, but from a practical and legal standpoint, Egypt and Syria were the aggressors.

The situation today is not as clear. Iran, operating through proxies, has built an offensive capability in southern Lebanon over the past decade, and now is doing the same in Syria. It has threatened us with genocide and financed terrorists of all stripes. But its buildup has been gradual and it has not yet taken actions equivalent to the expulsion of the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai or the blockade of the Strait of Tiran. At some point the line will be crossed, and Israel will need to take military action.

Unfortunately, the attitude of the international community – as expressed in UN resolutions, NGO reports, media content, and institutions like the ICJ – does not grant to Israel the same right of self-defense that every other nation is given.

Even when Israel has been  attacked, as by the massive flood of Hezbollah rockets in 2006, or the rocket barrages from Gaza in 2008, 2012 or 2014, the Islamic-European-NGO-media axis has defined Israel as the aggressor and even accused her of war crimes for her responses. These accusations, based on cooked numbers and reports coming directly from Hamas, Hezbollah, or other severely biased anti-Israel sources, were even echoed by US President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other administration officials.

Israel’s efforts to reduce collateral damage in these campaigns were unprecedented, and the resultant protection of civilian life and property was far better than the US and its NATO partners have been able to achieve in various recent conflicts. But the war crimes accusations against us stuck nevertheless.

The ICJ, whose very careful and comprehensive opinion on the use of nuclear weapons was quoted above, also produced one in 2004 on the subject of Israel’s security barrier. In this highly politicized opinion, The Court reiterated all of the usual Arab and European talking points, calling the barrier illegal and declaring that Israel must dismantle it, pay compensation to all those “injured” by it, and so forth (fortunately, the Court does not have the power to force Israel to follow its advice).




Israel argued that the existence of the barrier and its location were intended to protect her population from armed attacks. But the Court simply rejected this without any investigation of the facts or attempt to rebut Israel’s claims of military necessity. It misinterpreted Article 51 of the UN Charter, saying that since Israel “controlled” the territories, she did not have a right to protect herself from armed attacks from them. And there were other significant deficiencies. Here is a small part of the criticism leveled against the decision by the one dissenting justice, Thomas Buergenthal (the only American on the Court):

All we have from the Court is a description of the harm the wall is causing and a discussion of various provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights instruments followed by the conclusion that this law has been violated.

Lacking is an examination of the facts that might show why the alleged defences of military exigencies, national security or public order are not applicable to the wall as a whole or to the individual segments of its route. The Court says that it “is not convinced” but it fails to demonstrate why it is not convinced, and that is why these conclusions are not convincing.

The shoddy, negligent reasoning and extreme political bias of this document – compare it to the nuclear weapons opinion discussed above –  is a striking testament to the obsessive treatment of Israel as a pariah state, denied the most basic right of any nation or person, a right that arguably must even be provided to prison inmates: the right of self-defense, and thereby of survival.

I’m indebted to Allen Hertz for many of the thoughts in this post.

Originally Published on Abu Yehuda.

Posted on

AIPAC’s CEO – Picture the perils of “Palestine”

Palestinian statehood & a secure Israel are mutually exclusive goals. This was always the accepted wisdom in Israel – until the discourse was hijacked by the tyrannical diktats of politically correct dogma

 

We must all work toward that future: two states for two peoples. One Jewish with secure and defensible borders, and one Palestinian with its own flag and its own future, Howard Kohr, March 4, 2018.

Last Sunday, in front of 18,000 animated pro-Israel activists, AIPAC’s CEO, Howard Kohr delivered a polished and carefully-crafted address—totally torpedoed about midway through his 25 minute speech by a few seconds of politically-correct claptrap.

After meticulously cataloguing the daunting dangers facing Israel and the nefarious nature of her unscrupulous adversaries—from the Shia “puppet master”, Iran, and its terror proxy Hezbollah in the North to the brutal Sunni Hamas and the assorted Salafi Jihadi renegades in the South—Kohr went on to propose…giving them precisely what they are allegedly clamoring for—at least initially: A self-governing Arab entity in the East, dominating Israel’s densely populated coastal plain, abutting the trans-Israel highway and overlooking Israel’s only international airport.

Mutually exclusive goals: Palestinian statehood and a secure Israel

 

I do not wish to dwell on all the logical inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies and glaring non-sequiturs that marred the second half of Kohr’s impeccably delivered speech. Rather, I shall focus on only one: His call for a state for the Palestinians “with its own flag and its own future” on the one hand; and “secure and defensible borders” for Israel on the other.

 

After all, Palestinian statehood and a secure Israel are mutually exclusive goals. Indeed, this was always the accepted wisdom in Israel – until the discourse was hijacked by the tyrannical diktats of politically correct dogma.

 

Thus, it was none other than Nobel laureate, the late Shimon Peres, who warned: If a Palestinian state is established, it will be armed to the teeth. Within it, there will be bases of the most extreme terrorist forces, equipped with anti-tank and anti-aircraft shoulder-launched rockets, which will endanger not only random passers-by, but every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the coastal plain .- “Tomorrow is Now” (Keter publishers), pp. 232, 255.

This dour caveat was echoed by Israel Prize laureate, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, who also served as Education Minister on behalf of the far-Left Meretz faction: “…Israel, small and exposed, will neither be able to exist nor prosper if its urban centers [and] its vulnerable airport…are shelled…this is the terrible danger involved in the establishment of a third independent sovereign state between us and the Jordan River. – ‘The Pitfall of a Third State’, Haaretz, Aug. 8, 1976.

 

 

These two citations convey, with chilling accuracy, the grave perils to which Israel would be exposed if a Palestinian state were ever established on the commanding hills overlooking the country’s coastal megalopolis, where about 80% of the country’s civilian population and commercial activity are located.

 

These dangers are dramatically illustrated by the following series of photographs, shot from locations inside the territory designated for any future Palestinian state.

 

All taken on January 31, 2018, using a Canon 7D Mark II camera, fitted with a Sigma Sport 150/600 lens, from just east of the Palestinian-Arab villages of Rantis and Al-Lubban, located about 5 km across the pre-1967 “Green Line” (see map), they vividly convey how vulnerable and exposed Israel would appear through the binoculars of any Palestinian “intelligence officer” (a.k.a. terrorist) perched on those heights.

 

 

 

 

 

Ben Gurion Airport hopelessly exposed

 

The following four photographs depict how utterly exposed the installations and aircraft – both on the ground and in the sky – would be to any hostile forces–even lightly armed–deployed on the highlands east of Israel’s densely populated coastal plain.

 

Above: Israel’s only international airport, Ben Gurion – as seen from just east of the Palestinian-Arab villages of Rantis and Al-Lubban (buildings seen in foreground), showing the new control tower, the passenger terminal, the duty-free area and planes docking for embarkation/disembarkation.

 

Above: Israel’s only international airport, Ben Gurion – as seen from just east of the Palestinian-Arab villages of Rantis and Al-Lubban showing numerous civilian planes on the tarmac.

 

Above: A plane taking off from Ben Gurion, Israel’s only international airport – as seen from just east of the Palestinian-Arab villages of Rantis and Al-Lubban.

 

Above: Arkia airliner taking off from Ben Gurion airport – shot from just east of the Palestinian-Arab villages of Rantis and Al-Lubban. (Camera: Canon 7D Mark II with Sigma Sport 150/600 lens).

 

A tempting target: Israel coastal urban sprawl

 

The next five photographs convey starkly what a tempting target the office buildings, prestigious apartment blocks, teeming recreational and entertainment centers and central transport arteries (rail and road) would be if the IDF were to evacuate areas earmarked for a future Palestinian  state.

 

Above: Tel Aviv skyline showing the iconic Azrieli high-rise complex, adjacent to the Ministry of Defense and IDF’s GHQ, the trans-Tel Aviv Ayalon Highway and the busy HaShalom railway station; also seen is Kirya (Ha-Yovel) Tower, with 28 of its 42 floors occupied by government offices, and the nearby Azrieli Sarona Tower, the tallest building in Tel Aviv – as seen from just east of the Palestinian-Arab villages of Rantis & Al-Lubban.

 

Above-Enlarged: The Azrieli high-rise complex, adjacent to the Ministry of Defense and IDF’s GHQ, the trans-Tel Aviv Ayalon Highway and the busy HaShalom railway station; also the Kirya (Ha-Yovel) Tower, with 28 of its 42 floors occupied by government offices, & the Azrieli Sarona Tower, the tallest building in Tel Aviv.

 

Above: Tel Aviv skyline showing the luxury apartment complex, Park Tsameret, adjacent to the trans-Tel Aviv (Ayalon) highway and the busy Savidor Central railway station – as seen from just east of the Palestinian-Arab villages of Rantis and Al-Lubban.

 

Above: Enlarged: North Tel Aviv skyline showing the luxury apartment complex, Park Tsameret, adjacent to the trans-Tel Aviv (Ayalon) highway and the busy Savidor Central railway station.

 

 

Above: North Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Bnei Brak sky-line showing the Reading Power Station chimney, adjacent to the Tel Aviv Port recreation area, and the 4 BSR Towers, which house many upmarket law firms, medical facilities, hi-tech offices and numerous busy restaurants– as seen from just east of the Palestinian-Arab villages of Rantis & Al-Lubban.

 

The imperative to “think ahead”

In the opening minutes of his address, Kohr observed: “…there have been many threats [to Israel]; many more ready to make them. So it is our purpose and mission to always think ahead, prepare for any possibility…”

 

And indeed we should.

 

One of the “possibilities” we should “prepare for” is the (highly plausible) prospect that any land vacated by Israel and the IDF will fall into the hands of vehemently hostile elements – as happened every time Israel has relinquished territory to Arab control—whether in the North in South Lebanon; in the South in the Gaza Strip, and even in Sinai, now descending into the depravity of Jihadi brutality…

 

Of course, once Israel evacuates the strategically vital highlands of Judea-Samaria to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian state “with its own flag and its own future”; there is no way that Israel can have “secure and defensible borders”—for there is no way it can ensure that they will not fall into the very hands of those who Kohr so excoriated in his speech—including elements controlled by the terror “puppet masters” in Tehran.

 

So we should all heed Kohr’s wise counsel and make it “our… mission to always think ahead, prepare for any possibility…”

So should Kohr!

Posted on

[Premium] Donald Trump Must Choose Between Turkey or the Kurds

As the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) draw closer to Afrin City, Kurdish fighters trained by the USA are streaming from eastern Rojava into Afrin to help defend their Kurdish brothers from the Turkish invaders.  The Trump administration’s indecision on taking an increasing belligerent Turkey to task for its unlawful invasion of Kurdish autonomous territory has had the following effects on the complicated and chaotic situation in Syria.

  1. The SDF/YPG fighters that had been close to finishing off ISIS in eastern Syria are now abandoning their posts in order to defend Afrin from Erdogan the ultimate antagonist to the Kurdish people. This has allowed ISIS to regroup and ultimately hand the task over to Russia/Iran.
  2. By showing indecision on Afrin the Trump administration has forced the Kurds to look elsewhere for support, including Russia and Iran.
  3. The continued lack of decsion regarding Afrin places the entire US stabilization project from Manbij to eastern Rojava in doubt.

While Turkey is a member of NATO, there is an increasing need for the Trump administration to confront Erdogan head on.  Afterall, Erdogan’s Turkey funded and supported ISIS from the earliest days.  If Trump does not take Turkey to task now he risks losing the Kurdish YPG units that make up the bulk of the SDF.  While its true ISIS is almost finished the Kurds, like the PUK of Iraq may opt to ally with Iran in order to stop the blood letting in Afrin.

The Trump administration has to decide between an increasingly belligerent Turkey who happens to be still a NATO member or a stable Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) that will ultimately act as a buffer between Western Syria and Iran.  The irony is that the Obama administration originally supported the creation of ISIS as a mini caliphate with Erdogan’s help in order to block Iran. We all know the results of this.  The Kurdish areas are achieving the same result without turning the area over to a deadly terrorist group.

Posted on

[WATCH] Gaza: Let Their People Go




The above video features Martin Sherman speaking about the most realistic and humanitarian solution for the former Israeli enclave of Gaza now in the hands of a brutal Jihadist terror group, Hamas.