Israel Shamir Columns - The Unz Review

RSS

Follow @IsraelShamir

« Older Items

Teasers

Israel Shamir Blog View

Teasers

Russia Bids Farewell

• March 25, 2016

• 2,500 Words

• 91 Comments

• Reply

RSS

The massive terrorist attack in Brussels came as a Not So Fast answer to Vladimir Putin’s Mission Accomplished. It appears the world needs more of Russian intervention in the Middle East if the black killers from the desert are to be stopped. Luckily, Russia is not in a rush to leave completely. From what I hear in Syria, the promised withdrawal is rather a figure of speech. Some Russians are leaving, others are staying.

Yes, I am aware that many of our colleagues, gentlemen of the free press, already explained and justified Putin’s sudden declaration. They wrote that Putin had said in September the campaign would last till spring, so being a man of his word he had to live up to his promise. They wrote the Russians had done as much as they could or should, that their mission is indeed accomplished. (This is odd, for the dreadful Daesh and his awful sister al Nusra are alive and kicking). Others said the Russians are clever to go while going is good, that is before the looming joint Turkish and Saudi invasion of Syria. The hostile (to Russia) pens explained Putin’s decision by stiff resistance of the jihadis on the ground (by Nusra at Aleppo, by Daesh at Raqqa), while the most adventurous minds of high conspiracy adepts knew of an ultimatum presented by Mr Kerry and President Erdogan to Putin, saying “Leave right away or we shall seal the Bosporus straits against your ships”.

However, a week passed, and now we know and understand more than we did a week ago. It seems the withdrawal is limited; it is more of a signal than the real thing. Some fighter jets and some soldiers went back to Russia, for they were needed for the big celebrations of the Crimea reunification anniversary on March 17. They were awarded their medals; a link between Crimea episode and Syrian campaign was established in the minds. The declaration had sent a useful signal to Syrians and other Arabs that Russia does not intend to colonise them. Otherwise, the Russians are still in Syria and will remain there for a considerable time, though they will keep a lower profile.

The strategic aviation TU-22M3 has anyway carried out its sorties from its bases in Russia, and now, they say, there is a shortage of targets worthy of wasting a smart bomb a one million dollars’ price tag on. The smuggled oil convoy bombing is over, as well. There is still a lot of oil being illegally carried from Iraqi Kurdistan and from Daesh oil wells, but some sizeable part of this oil traffic is being used by the Syrians to produce electricity and draw water. Bombing it was fun (perhaps), but the Syrians asked to desist.

Why was the declaration of withdrawal made? It was a pointed reminder to President Assad that he has not got all the time in the world at his disposal to make peace with his adversaries. Russians became frustrated by his generals’ delaying tactics. It appears that Syrian top brass had made a totally wrong conclusion, namely, that the Russians will keep fighting for the Syrians until Bashar Assad regains full control over the whole country. This is not so: the Russians are eager to see real progress in negotiations.

“Bashar Assad is flexible, but his generals are not. They think there are just two possible outcomes: victory or defeat. This is not realistic. The generals will get the message as we withdraw” – I was told by a Russian officer stationed in Latakia.

The declaration of withdrawal had been pointedly made in the first day of a new round of Geneva negotiations. It was a tangible proof that Russia did not seek a military victory, but relied upon diplomatic means. The declaration sends more signals to all parties. Turkey would think twice before invading Syria while Russians are supposedly leaving. The Europeans will not accuse that Russia’s bombs are sending new waves of refugees to its shores. The withdrawal is a signal to Iran, too, as this country withdrew the bulk of its forces in Syria and did not agree to the Russian proposal to cut oil production.

Russians do not want to carry the brunt of war on their shoulders. This is what they say to Iranians, and even more so – to Bashar Assad and his people. At private events, the Syrian generals were congratulating each other how smartly they tricked the Russians into fighting for them. The Syrian army shirks the battle, say the Russian officers in Syria, they wait for the Russians to pull the hot potatoes for them. Syrian officers do not heed Russian advisers’ instructions, they do not want to charge into the heat of battle. Sometimes they run away at the slightest enemy threat. Russian advisers were forced to engage the Daesh fighters personally, instead of doing their job, that is to operate advanced military hardware.

The Russians are upset that the Syrians did not pull their weight when it comes to negotiations with the armed opposition groups. The negotiations go in two tracks: one, remote and internationalised, in Geneva, where the Syrian government talks with the groups of emigres through the medium of Staffan de Mistura. Both sides are stalling; and anyway it is not clear how much influence on the ground these emigres have. The second, and more promising track is local. These are negotiations with local armed groups, and there are hundreds of them. More and more of them enter the ceasefire, but each arrangement calls for a compromise, for special conditions and some give-and-take. Until the withdrawal declaration, the Syrian officials weren’t keen on doing this hard work. Why should we bother, when we can defeat them all with Russian help, they said. Now, perhaps, they will put more effort into local negotiations.

The Russians say the Syrian government should do some soul-searching regarding the causes of the civil war. Sure, Saudis and Turks and the US are guilty to a great extent, but there were local contributing factors: clannishness, a heavy-handed security apparatus, the sore lack of elementary democratic arrangements. This has to be changed, and as soon as possible. Syria will never go back to its pre-civil-war form of one family rule, and Assad people should internalise this message as soon as possible. Russian withdrawal declaration should keep them focused.

This does not mean that Russia is likely to agree with the opposition demand of getting rid of Assad. Nothing of this sort. Stiff-necked he surely is, but more pliable man would not survive five years of war. Russian – Syrian cooperation continues unabated, Russians heavily bombed the Palmyra area, and Syrian troops advanced into its old quarries. Conquest (or liberation?) of Palmyra will be a visible achievement for the Syrian army and a gift for Syrian Christians for the coming Easter, as this oldest Christian community in the world had lost over half a million of its members in dead, wounded and destitute refugees.

The situation has been complicated by pro-American Kurds in Syria who had declared their ‘autonomy’. Russians did not like it as it does not agree with the Russian vision of united Syria. For the Turks, creation of autonomous or independent Kurdistan in Syria is a casus belli, a good reason for war. This is likely to provoke Turkish intervention, when things are complicated enough. Turkey went through a bout of a civil war of its own, on its own territory, versus the Kurds. Some sources say as many as 20,000 persons were killed in the war. Independent Syrian Kurdistan will inflame Turkish Kurds, say the Turks.

Russia does not support the Kurdish rising, despite its long historic ties with some Kurd movements. Apparently Russians should be able to make peace with Turkey, and the Turks are willing: they were first to send their condolences at Russian Vorkuta coal mine disaster. Turks are going through reassessment of their Syrian policies, and Turkish newspapers and politicians have been calling for U-turn: for recognition of Syrian territorial integrity and for reconciliation with Russia. I called for reconciliation with Turkey in the Russian media (here it is in English translation), but the responses were muted. The Russian policy-makers weren’t rushing forward. Russia’s strong Armenian lobby pushed for rejection of Turkish overtures for reconciliation, and traditional Russian sentiments from the Tsar days were also rather hostile to Ankara. However, some changes appeared in the rejection wall, and one can hope the bridges between Russia and its great neighbour will soon be mended.

Iranians did not wait for it, but began their peace offensive versus Turkey. They proposed to sort their differences out and to return to the good relations they had before the Syrian misadventure. At the same time, the Iranians withdrew the bulk of their troops from Syria, as they suffered a lot of casualties in the fighting. They continued to finance Syria and arm Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia, a small but able military force.

The enemies of a Syrian settlement are still active. The Saudis had spent over 90 billion dollars on the Syrian civil war and regime change. This is a considerable sum even for the super-rich kingdom. But they are still throwing good money after bad. Encouraged by the Russian declaration, they began to transfer money and equipment to the armed opposition.

The US also keeps trying to turn the tables in its favour, but it seems that the White House is less hostile to Russia than it was half a year ago. European politicians and statesmen in power are mainly pro-American and anti-Russian; even the horrible terror attack in Brussels caused the Latvian Foreign Minister to call for sending more NATO troops to its Russian border (?!). Still, one can notice small signs for change, as Russian economy improves, its rouble is going up versus the dollar and euro, and the Europeans suffer from the loss of Russian orders.

Israel is another enemy-friend, or a “partner”, in Putin’s words. Israel hopes to split Syria into a few mini-states, or at least to ‘federalise’ it, like the Americans. Israel has a good working relations with the radical Islamists of Syria; not a single Israeli or Jewish asset has been targeted by Daesh or Nusra groups who are stationed right by Israeli border, protected by Israeli cannons. At the same time, Israel has good relations with Russia. President Putin is quite soft towards Israel; admittedly not on the level of US presidential candidates, but then, Russia has no AIPAC of its own. (The official Russian Jewish community is an empty shell of Chabad emissaries who amass their fortunes and extol Putin.)

Israeli president Rivlin has visited Moscow last week, after the declaration of withdrawal. He told Putin that Israel regrets Russians are leaving for they were a stabilising factor in Syria. Putin smiled and said they are not going far. Rivlin was worried Russian departure will create a vacuum allowing Hezbollah (he had enough tact to avoid mentioning Bashar Assad) to take positions at Israeli border. – Hezbollah will leave for Lebanon when Syria is at peace, Putin comforted him.

This is a small comfort for Israel, as right now the Jewish state loudly discusses launching a “pre-emptive” strike against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The best friend of the Jews in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies declared Hezbollah “a terrorist group”, and withdrew four billion dollars of aid they previously promised to Lebanon. Having Saudi support on their side and Lebanese displeasure at losing money on the background, Israelis plan an attack on the indomitable Shia warriors.

They did it in 2006 and were beaten off; the Jewish dream of revenge matured into obsessive hatred in these ten years. Israeli army received and spent many billions of dollars just for this purpose (they called it “learning the lessons of 2006”). Now they have learned that Hezbollah had lost 1300 fighters in Syria: a huge number for a small fighting force, and their desire to kill the rest off became irresistible.

Last week, the leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah warned the Israelis they will pay a horrible price if they dare to attack. His missiles, he said, will pour on Israeli doomsday factories, on its stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as well as on their oil and gas installations in Haifa Bay. Such an attack can kill millions, he said, so better don’t you start the war.

This is a sensible proposition given by a sensible man adhering to the hedgehog strategy: do not touch him and he will not bother you. But Israelis have a different mentality. The Jewish State is quite similar to the Islamic State. They trust only weakness and defeat, and aren’t satisfied until their enemy submitted to their mercy, and probably not even then, as the fate of Palestinians proves. It would be good if Syrian crisis is settled soon: now Lebanon is full of the Syrian refugees to the brim, and in case of Israeli attack on Lebanon, they all will have to run somewhere, preferably to Syria.

One can only hope the Russian presence will have a cooling effect, not only on Islamic jihadis, but on the Jewish ones, as well. And Russians had learned something from the Jews who used to say: an Englishman leaves without saying farewell, a Jew says his farewells but does not leave. Now it is the Russian turn: they bid farewell, but remain in Syria.

Update

In my previous piece Russians Ride Fast, I predicted: “I’d expect them to take Palmyra in the course of next few days (consider it a tip).” So it came to pass! Another successful prediction for our readers )) It appears the Russian bet worked, after all. Putin’s declaration to withdraw his troops and jets out of Syria has been intended to signal Assad and his generals that Russians do not intend to be ridden by their Syrian and/or Iranian allies. The Russians do not plan to fight for and instead of the Syrians. This signal has been received and understood. For five weeks the Syrian units stood at Palmyra, failing to give it a push. Now, after Russian “withdrawal”, they pushed forward and re-took Palmyra. It was reported that one Russian officer died at Palmyra, but his name or rank has not been given yet. Still, it proves that coordination and collaboration of Syrians and Russians hadn’t visibly suffered after Putin’s declaration. Russian bombardment of the area (“target softening”) was very heavy, but the decisive impact has been that of Syrian troops who understood they have to fight, not wait.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article first appeared in The Unz Review.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: ISIS, Russia, Syria, Terrorism

The Blessed Bigotry of Mr Trump

Israel Shamir

• March 13, 2016

• 2,100 Words

• 228 Comments

• Reply

RSS

a katz / Shutterstock.com

Only a dumb fish would complain if a man were to say: “I never eat fish, and I do not intend to eat fish”. Only the dumbest fish would condemn the man as a bigot: “What! He does not like us!” And yet, our Muslim American friends apparently emulate the stupid fish when speaking of Donald Trump.

I spoke well of Trump. My Radical Muslim American friend screamed on a list serve: “And what about his racist remarks about Muslims that are akin to those made about Jews not all that long ago? Shall we accept him on that basis as well as his sick stand on overweight women? Do we overlook all that???????????????????!!!!!”

He referred to Trump’s idea to ban Muslims from migrating to the US. Indeed this sounds awful, and the comparison with Jews has been made often.

However, I’ll tell you: if Trump would promise to ban the Russians (instead of Muslims) from migrating to the US, these sensible people would applaud him vigorously instead of calling him a bigot. If he were to send back home all the Russians who migrated since 1990, they would name streets after him. For two reasons:

1) Migration to the US is a serious brain-drain and a problem for Russia – and for all other nations as well. Well-educated specialists, doctors and engineers, technicians and accountants leave their home countries and bring their precious human capital to the US.

2) What’s worse, many important Russians prepare to leave for the US, and whatever they do at home is done for the good of the US, rather than for the good of their own country.

Look, for instance, at Mr Andrei Kozyrev, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, and now a happy burgher of Florida. He was a predecessor of mighty Sergey Lavrov and a successor to the iron man Andrei Gromyko, “Mr Nyet”, but he could be called “Mr Da”, Da being Yes in Russian.

A full paid and owned CIA agent in his position would never be able to wreck as much damage to Russia as Mr Kozyrev did. He was the man who brought NATO eastwards, all the way to Russian border. He was the man who withdrew the Russian Army from Germany without any strings attached. He said that national interests (of Russia) are of no importance next to human (read: Western) values. He supported sanctions and the tribunal on Serbia, he stopped Cuban trade and almost destroyed Cuba. He sold his country down the river, and now he lives in the US and advises the government how can they overthrow Mr Putin and institute “regime change”.

It would be nice if Mr Trump were to deport Mr Kozyrev and his ilk back to his Mother Russia. This would teach present-day-Kozyrevs to remain loyal to their country. Russians would applaud the blessed bigotry of the new American president.

What is true regarding the Russians, is also true regarding the Muslims, and all the rest. Immigration is a way to accept turncoats and to pick brains. A good Muslim doctor moves to the US: this means a Muslim country will have to do without a doctor. A Muslim politician moves to the US: this means the man worked for the US benefit for many years.

You know immigration is bad for the receiving country’s workers, but immigration is bad for the donor countries, as well. If I were an American Muslim (and I am neither), I’d vote for Mr Trump because of his promise to ban Muslim immigration. If I care for Mexico, I’d vote for Mr Trump because of his promise to build the wall between the states. Via this porous border the US sucks out most dynamic men and women from Mexico.

Yes, but what about comparison with the Jews? Indeed, the US would be much better off with less Jewish immigration, as well. There would be fewer Nulands and Kagans, fewer neo-cons, fewer AIPAC activists and ADL enforcers. Can you imagine the US without Abe Foxman’s influence? The Hollywood without Holocaust films? The US without the Iraq war, the US without its Israel Lobby? Isn’t it a dream? Isn’t it worth to overlook bigotry for such a goal?

Anyway, bigotry is a new-fangled offence, an offence our fathers were blissfully unaware of. It is an invention of our days. Indeed old sunburned British colonels in India were described as “bigots”, but it was not a strong epithet, rather on the level of “buffoon”. The Jews never are bigots: they do not allow Palestinians even to use the same highways the Jews use in their Jewish state, but they are no bigots, oh no. This social offence is a mortal sin for Gentiles only, for if today a man would refer to a Muslim or a Black as such, tomorrow he may call a Jew – “Jew”, God save us from such eventuality.

There is no harm to be described as a Black, or an Anglo, or a Jew. These are old venerable communities, alas, disintegrating now under the onslaught of mass migration and neoliberal robbery. Each one of them supplied their best sons and daughters for the common good, while their worst sons tried to pinch what they could for their own benefit. Only a silly man would act on cue the moment he hears his community is referred to in less than flattering terms.

I was impressed by Trump hesitating to condemn David Duke, the man whose condemnation is de rigeur because some forty years ago he was a card-carrying member of the Ku-Klux-Klan. Forty years is a very long time, but David Duke is forever barred from participation in discourse for he was a KKK leader, but Yossi Halevy, an ex-member of the Kahane Gang (equally racist) writes for the New Republic. Amitai Etzioni, a tenured professor at George Washington University, called for nuclear world war. David Duke never reached this level of bestiality, but he is excluded from discourse while they are not. Trump is really a strong brave man if he dared to hesitate a second before condemning Duke. Now he can swallow poisonous snakes and drink liquid fire.

Trump said the Muslims danced for joy on 9/11. Well, not only Muslims but all the World outside of the US was pleased with the fall of the Twin Towers. The French thinker Baudrillard penned “We all wanted it.” I wrote about 9/11:

They [the perpetrators] could be practically anybody: American Nationalists, American Communists, American Fundamentalist Christians, American Anarchists, anybody who rejects the twin gods of the dollar and the M-16, who hates the stock market and interventions overseas, who dreams of America for Americans, who does not want to support the drive for world domination. They could be Native Americans returning to Manhattan, or Afro-Americans who still have not received compensation for slavery.

They could be foreigners of practically any extraction, as Wall Street and the Pentagon ruined many lives of people all over the globe. Germans can remember the fiery holocaust of Dresden with its hundreds of thousands of peaceful refugees incinerated by the US Air Force. Japanese will not forget the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima. The Arab world still feels the creeping holocaust of Iraq and Palestine. Russians and East Europeans feel the shame of Belgrade avenged. Latin Americans think of American invasions of Panama and Granada, of destroyed Nicaragua and defoliated Colombia. Asians count their dead of Vietnam war, Cambodia bombings, Laos CIA operations in millions. Even a pro-American, Russian TV broadcaster could not refrain from saying, ‘now Americans begin to understand the feelings of Baghdad and Belgrade’.

They could be anybody who lost his house to the bank, who was squeezed from his work and made permanently unemployed, who was declared an Untermensch by the new Herrenvolk. They could be Russians, Malaysians, Mexicans, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Congolese, Brazilians, Vietnamese, as their economy was destroyed by the duo of Wall Street and the Pentagon. They could be anybody, and they are everybody. Their identity is quite irrelevant as their message is more important than their personalities, and their message is read loud and clear in the choice of targets.

So Mr Trump was not wrong, after all: millions of Muslims, among others, were happy at that day. Surely not all, but he never said all.

If I were a self-conscious American Muslim, one who cares for Islam, I’d say to myself: which candidate, if elected, will do less harm to the Ummah, to the Muslim world? Should I support the lady who was so beastly joyous at watching the horrible brutal death of a Muslim ruler, Muammar Gadhafi? Should I support the lady who will do this week her star appearance at AIPAC conference, pledging to do Israel’s bidding for the next four years? Or, for that matter, should I support Ted Cruz who takes his orders in Tel Aviv, or should I rather support the man whom Cruz accused of being an enemy of Israel?

Surely this was a wrongful accusation; Trump has Jewish sons-in-law; but still, nobody yet accused other candidates of ever failing to do Israel’s will.

In my view, the faults usually ascribed to Mr Trump are really minor. Buffoon? Narcissus? Bigot? Who cares. The next you’ll say his personal hygiene is nor perfect. That he farts in public. Such accusations would be of value while picking a guest to stay over weekend.

We are in front of two huge trials of totally different magnitude. Dirty nails and loud farting do not come close to that. And the next US president will have to deal with that.

The Pentagon asks for a cool trillion dollars to create a brand new generation of nuclear weapons. They call it “upgrading”, but experts say these are new weapon systems, more deadly, more precise and more likely to be used. This is a new Hiroshima in making, and this time perhaps the Russian bodies will flay in the nuclear heat, while the Americans will be incinerated by the new generation of Russian missiles. President Obama, God bless him, did not authorise it yet. We – and I mean the world, not the squeamish scribes – need to stop this program dead. Donald Trump is likely to avoid this folly. For this price, he can call me a kike all day long, if it suits him.

The US administration initiated three programs: TISA, TPP, TTIP; if completed, they will enslave mankind and kill the vestiges of democracy we enjoy. Obama’s Democrats are pushing for it. This is really even more dangerous than the nuclear weapons of new generation. This monster has to be stopped. Donald Trump is likely to do it, for these programs are the epitome of whatever he fought against.

These two items are most urgent and more important than any complaint against Trump. He does not like obese women? Who cares? Let the obese women manage without Mr. Trump’s adoration, if he will stop these evil designs.

President Trump is not likely to continue with the manoeuvres in South Korea, this touchy trigger of a nuclear war. Now tens of thousands of US troops are exercising in South Korea how to kill the president of North Korea. I do not joke and I do not exaggerate. This is the described aim of the manoeuvres, and they drive the North Korea president mad. Coming after the Sony-made and the State Department influenced film describing assassination of him, this is not surprising. If Trump will forget about North Korea, he will be the president I like.

Trump said he will not tear up the Iran nuclear agreement; he will not fight till the last Syrian to remove Bashar Assad. If he will, let him say what he wants about fat women, even the most upsetting things. My aunt, a doctor, used to say there were no fat women in concentration camps, so it can’t be a disease. This is probably sufficiently bad taste.

I am not sure whether any argument will work against billions of dollars the US super-rich spend on their ads against Trump. However, give it a thought: these nasty super-rich are not known for their benevolence. If they are ready to spend so much money to stop Trump, perhaps we need to support Trump?

In any case, we shall be disappointed. Marry, and you will regret it; do not marry, you will regret it, – said the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard. So you can marry, and yes, you can vote for Trump – even if you will be disappointed. Because if you vote for Clinton (or God preserve us, Cruz) you will head into nuclear disaster and enslavement of mankind. Trump is a long shot for sanity, but it is better than a sure disaster.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article has been first published on The Unz Review

• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump

Russians Ride Fast

Israel Shamir

• February 24, 2016

• 2,100 Words

• 130 Comments

• Reply

RSS

javarman / Shutterstock.com

The area around the Central Moscow tube stations looks like Aleppo after an air raid. Ruins, destroyed buildings, bulldozers gathering the shambles. No, Moscow was not hit by terrorists: this is a planned demolition of hundreds of small and not-too-small shacks erected (in defiance of planning law) in the vicinity of tube stations in the notorious Nineties, when the Law was vague and easily bought for ready money. The biggest of them, the Pyramid on top of Pushkinskaya Station, went down this week. The municipal workers promptly removed the vestiges of the collapsed constructions, while the erstwhile owners stared in disbelief.

They were surprised by the city hall offensive against illegally built shantytowns; some of them kept trading till the last moment. They received a warning and a demolition order a few months ago, but they did not believe the city would actually apply the order. They were sure the last moment it will be rescinded. It was not. Hundreds of buildings went down in one night.

This was a shocking reminder that Russian authorities can act, after so much ostensibly empty talk. The Russians take their time to saddle up, but they ride exceedingly fast, said the German Chancellor Bismarck quoting a Russian proverb (he served at the Russian court and knew a thing or two about Russians). So many rulers and rebels did not believe the Russian warnings, lulled by their long saddling up, and they usually lived to regret it.

The Muscovites were pleased by the demolitions: the uncouth structures looked ugly and were on the way for people rushing to and from the underground trains. What’s worse, they reminded everyone of Yeltsin’s lawless time, when the shacks were erected. Denuded of these vestiges stations built by the best architects of Stalin’s era in classical style looked so much better now!

Not many people gave a thought to an additional, non-advertised reason for the prompt removal. Moscow tube stations doubled as air raid shelters in wartime. The illegally built shacks would interfere with this purpose. After their demolition, hundreds of tube stations were readied to receive civilian population in case of an attack.

In the same time, the Russian army and Air Force carried out sudden manoeuvres in the south of the country. The TV news covered the army moves with relish. Though Russia still hopes peace will prevail, its leaders do not take chances. There is a risk of general conflagration started by the Syria proxy war.

Cessation of hostilities

The Russians accepted the US proposal to cease fire in Syria (or rather to end hostilities). They had made a similar proposal a few weeks ago, so this is in line with their thinking. Russians have made huge successes in Syria; they achieved an astonishing and unexpected victory with very few losses.

It was a reputational victory it was as well as a military one. Russia entered the Syrian war at a low point internationally. The EU and the US waged severe trade, finance and diplomatic war (“sanctions”) against the Bear; it was isolated from the West and the South. The ruble was crumbling, society was grim and dissatisfied with Putin’s prudent decision to keep away from Ukrainian turmoil (apart from very limited support of the Russian separatists) instead of forcefully interfering, as Russia had been anyway condemned as the aggressor.

Entry into the Syrian war has been met with disbelief and doubts. Will the Russian army succeed so far away from home? Will the Russian planes fly, will the tanks roll, or, devastated by post-Soviet negligence, will they collapse? Domestic and overseas Cassandras prophesied “quagmire”, “Vietnam”, “Afghanistan” for them, and plenty of coffins for their soldiers. But instead, there were roses all the way. The military performed splendidly. The planes, missiles and tanks proved their worth. The Bashar Assad regime was saved, the rebels are on the run. For the Russians, the end of hostilities would allow them to consolidate their victory.

In every war, as a ceasefire is negotiated, there are voices for “war till complete victory”. I remember myself, as a young Israeli soldier in 1973 war, when Kissinger brought the ceasefire, military observers were upset we weren’t allowed to destroy the entrapped Third Egyptian Army on the East Bank of Suez Canal. Who knew how many of us would die if such an attack were to take place?

The Syrian war is not an exception. The Syrian army stands at the door of resounding victory, bellicose military experts say; the rebels are surrounded at Aleppo, their lifeline to Turkey has been cut, now is the time to eliminate the threat and cleanse Syria from the jihadists. However, elimination of enemy pockets can be a very expensive operation in terms of human lives, especially as we speak of a fanatical and well-entrenched enemy. Terrible suicide bombings in Damascus and Homs proved the rebels are as murderous as their predecessors the Assassins. Only Genghis Khan’s Mongols could (and did) destroy such an enemy. Anyway, Russians preferred to negotiate and create a coalition government including some moderate rebels, thus enlarging the base for Assad.

The last few days before the cessation of hostilities will allow Assad’s army to gain some ground in Aleppo area and to switch to the Southern front. I’d expect them to take Palmyra in the course of next few days (consider it a tip).

However, the ceasefire turned out to be an elusive goal, at this stage. The rebels hesitantly agreed to “cessation of hostilities” but with so many preconditions that it just made no sense. The government forces were not keen to stop the fighting as well, while the wind of success filled their sails. The Russians have no intention of stopping operations against the “terrorists”; the US agreed with them, but who are the ‘terrorists’ and who are the “moderates” has to be hammered out in the negotiations. The UN SC declared Daesh (ISIS) and al Nusra (the Syrian offshoot of al Qaeda, the Nusra Front) “terrorists”, so far, so good, but it is not so simple as it seems. There are hundreds of small organisations affiliated with them, from Abdullah Azzam Brigades to Jamaat Abu Banat (this last one “operates on the outskirts of Syrian cities Aleppo and Idlib, extorting funds from and carrying out kidnappings and public executions of local Syrians” says the UN terrorist list). Should they be protected under ceasefire terms?

The “moderate” (or Saudi-endorsed) rebels say yes. They want to include the Nusra affiliates in the ceasefire arrangements, for without al Nusra, they would be lost. This is not acceptable for the Syrian government and for its Russian allies. Reluctantly, the Americans attempted to include al Nusra in the scheme, at least in Aleppo. We shall see soon how this puzzle will be resolved, if at all.

The Moscow clearance of access to tube stations had more to do with a danger of war with Turkey. Turkey entered the war, albeit in a limited way, by shelling Syrian Kurds. The Russians braced themselves for an armed confrontation with Turkey, but only as a response in case of a full-scale Turkish invasion. This military preparedness (which included airlift of heavy weapons to the Russian air base in Armenia) and NATO statement (saying they will not fight if Turkey were to initiate belligerency) helped to undermine the Turkish resolve. The Russians went to the UN SC asking to censure the Turks; so they did, but in a statement, not by a resolution, as the Russians wanted. Still, this statement cooled off Turkish minds, and it seems their desire to invade and to take a stand at Aleppo evaporated. The Saudi troops did not materialise yet, as I expected (see my previous report).

So, the Syrian war is far from over, but there is a good chance that by March 1^st some ceasefire arrangements will take place on the ground. If the rebels grasp the chance and enter serious negotiations for a coalition government, peace is possible. If they come to Geneva armed with the old mantra “Assad must go”, this opportunity will be wasted. Even if (and it’s extremely unlikely) Russia would agree to sacrifice Assad for the sake of peace, it has no means to deliver. Assad is a strong man and a powerful leader. Russians can’t possibly depose him. So Assad is a given, like it or not. In my view, he is a good leader for this time.

There are two notable changes on the scene: one, more realistic view of Syrian conflict had made its way into American mainstream media. Publication of two pieces by Stephen Kinzer in the Boston Globe called On Syria: Thank you, Russia! and The Media are misleading the Public on Syria was a revolutionary event of first magnitude. For the first time ever, the mainstream American reader learned that “For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.” Kinzer came to a powerful conclusion: “We would have been more secure as a nation, and might have contributed to a more stable world, if we had followed Russia’s foreign policy lead in the past”, namely, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Indeed the world would look different. Perhaps we may connect these publications to a new American mood that manifested itself in primaries’ vote for Trump and Sanders.

The second notable change is the clear position of Israel against a ceasefire in Syria, against Assad and for Daesh and the Nusra. For long time this position had been obscured by Israeli observers and politicians. Israel has been pleased with Arabs killing each other. Now, as the end of war is seen on the horizon, Israel spoke up. Amos Harel, a leading Israeli military observer with high-grade access, made it clear: “the war in Syria has largely served Israel’s interests. The ongoing fighting has worn down the Syrian army to a shadow of its former capabilities. And Hezbollah, Israel’s main adversary in the north, is losing dozens of fighters every month in battle. Israel has been quietly wishing success to both sides and would not have been against the bloodletting continuing for a few more years without a clear victor” Now, after successful Russian intervention, Israel states openly that “an Assad victory would be bad for Israel” and it calls upon the West “to send real military aid to the less extreme Sunni rebels”.

Thus, the will of Israel, and of Israel Lobby in the US, directly contradicts the will of people as it was lucidly expressed by Stephen Kinzer. You can follow the lead of your Israeli Lobby, or you can have peace and security, but you can’t have both, it is that simple.

Israel Shamir can be reached at israel.shamir@gmail.com

This article was first published at the Unz Review

UPDATE

A friendly field commander of an armed anti-Assad opposition organisation near Aleppo faxed me a copy of a document he signed with the Russian army representative regarding the ceasefire. He added that he thinks now is the right time, or well after right time to bring peace to Syria. Fight to complete victory will be the fight till the last Syrian, he said. Better Syria with Assad than no Syria and no Assad. They are worried about American plan B to dismember Syria, like they dismembered Vietnam, Korea, Germany and now Iraq. This adds some urgency to the peace plan.

Here is the document (attached), saying

Request to enter the ceasefire regime

I, the commander of such-and-such armed unit located in such-and-such area (see map attached) am ready to join the process of settling the armed conflict in Syrian Arab Republic. I guarantee that my unit will cease fire on March 1 and will not shell or shoot the government troops. I shall allow monitors and observers to enter our disposition. I shall allow humanitarian aid to be delivered to civilians at the area of my disposition.

Syrian Arab Army will cease attacking my unit from March 1st. As long as ceasefire regime lasts, the Russian Air Force and Syrian Air Force will not bomb my unit. Government bodies will not interfere with delivery of humanitarian aid to my disposition. My representatives will take part in work of the Joint Committee for monitoring ceasefire.

In case of disagreements I shall convey the problem to the Joint Committee.

I attach the map of my disposition.

Commander X

As we can learn from the document, the consignees recognise the Syrian government. Provided in April there will be parliamentary elections in Syria, there is a fair chance of success.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Syria

A Syrian Breakthrough

Israel Shamir

• February 11, 2016

• 1,800 Words

• 82 Comments

• Reply

RSS

The Russians and their Syrian allies have cut the main supply line of the rebels to the north of Aleppo, the Azaz corridor. In our last report, we wrote about the Azaz corridor, “a narrow strip of land connecting Turkey to the rebel forces in Aleppo. Though it has been narrowed down to four miles in some places, the Syrian [government] Army can’t take it, despite the Russian aerial support. For the success of the whole operation, it is paramount to seize the corridor and cut the supply lines, but there is a heavy political flak and military difficulties. At the last Lavrov-Kerry meeting, the American State Secretary six times implored his Russian counterpart to keep hands off the Azaz corridor. The Americans do not want to see Russian victory; besides, the Turks threaten to invade Syria if the corridor is blocked.”

Now the deed is done, the corridor is blocked. It was not a great battle that we would expect, instead a minor move towards a few Shia villages, but the corridor was so narrow that it was enough. My correspondents in the area tell of rebels running towards the Turkish border. They are followed by many civilians, afraid of the final battle for Aleppo which is probably coming – unless the rebels will vaporise and disappear. If and when Aleppo and the whole Aleppo district will be taken by the Syrian army, we would be able to congratulate Putin and Assad – and Syrian people – with a great victory.

Until now, despite a few months of fighting and bombing, the Russians and the Syrians had few few spectacular achievements to show for their efforts. The warfare has been anything but a blitzkrieg, instead house after a house; small villages changing hands. Now things began to move, with Syrian army coming to the Turkish and Jordanian borders and cutting off the supply routes of the diverse rebel groups. The surrounded Islamists in Aleppo pocket still can fight for a long time, but it seems they have lost much of their fighting spirit.

The Saudis unveiled their plans to send their crack troops to Syria, ostensibly “to fight terrorists”, but as a matter of fact, to prevent their defeat and to safeguard a part of Syrian territory under Salafist control. This could be a dangerous development, and President Assad promised that unbidden guests will go back home in coffins. However, the Saudis have no troops to send: their army is stuck in Yemen and has quite a hard time there fighting the indomitable Ansar Allah. Even there the Saudis have to rely upon Colombian mercenaries. If they will send the remainder of their forces to Syria, their homeland will remain exceedingly vulnerable for any unexpected development, be it an Ansar Allah counter-offensive, Iranian intervention or a large-scale Shi’a rising.

The Russians raise alarms that a Turkish invasion into Syria is imminent. Russian media is foaming at the mouth about the perfidious Turks; a veritable Two Minutes Hate ritual (vide Orwell) on the state-managed TV channels being repeated a few times a day. The idea is to scare Turks stiff so they will not move while the operation in the North lasts. On the other side, the Russian opposition draws frightful scenarios of Janissaries slaughtering the Russian boys on the Syrian terrain. The Turkish media also tries to instil fear in the Russkies by saying what they can do.

If you ever dived among the Red Sea coral, perhaps you encountered a peculiar fish called Abu Nafha in Arabic, a sort of blowfish. It turns into a balloon to scare off its potential enemies. This tactic is not limited to aqueous kingdom. The Brits are the best at it, and they unleashed a veritable panic campaign to undermine the Russian morale.

In a quick succession, they broadcasted a few films on the BBC. They began with Putin as mega-oligarch, the richest man on earth, with forty (or four hundred?) billion dollars in his pocket. This was a favourite topic of Stanislav Belkovsky, a corpulent Russian Jewish opposition writer, who produced a few books about Putin in the best tradition of gutter journalism. He described the Russian president as a super-rich latent homosexual who wants to escape from Kremlin and enjoy peaceful indolent life in the warm seas. Mind you, he wrote that before Putin’s comeback in 2011. If Putin was so keen on retiring, he had a good opportunity to do it, instead of running for a new term of presidency.

Now BBC blew the dust off this book and made a film about corrupt, rich and lazy Putin. The US Treasury acting undersecretary Adam Szubin immediately confirmed: yes, we know for sure that Putin is fabulously rich and exceedingly corrupt. Bill Browder, once Russia’s largest foreign investor, sentenced in absentia to a long jail term in Russia for his tax evasion and other tricks, said to CNN: Putin has US $200 billion. He keeps it on his offshore accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere, revealed Browder. As if it is possible to keep a large fortune hidden from the eyes of intelligence services! If Putin would have money hidden abroad, it would be confiscated or frozen by the US, years ago. You do not have to be a genius to know that: you can’t hide big money. A few million dollars, yes. Not even tens of millions.

Such allegations seem a necessary part of a black PR campaign. Whoever they dislike is always described as the richest man in the world. Even such modest man as the Belarusian president Lukashenko did not escape this fate, let alone Putin. They called Muammar Gaddafy “fabulously rich”, and Saddam Hussein, too, but somehow nothing was found after their death, ever. Once, a ruler could keep riches in his strong room, modern money is just a licence issued by the US, and this licence can be revoked anytime.

Putin’s friends and colleagues grew rich, true. There are many stories in Putin’s Russia that remind of the rise of Halliburton and Vice President Cheney, of Enron and Blair’s deals. Putin encouraged his supporters to build their own wealth in order to counteract the immense strength of the oligarchs. Russia is not cleaner than its Western “partners”. She is not a corruption-ridden mafia state she is depicted by her adversaries. Capitalism is capitalism, and it is ugly enough without exaggerations.

The British masters gave a voice to a Russian defector who said Putin is a homosexual and a paedophile. Who needs proofs for such allegations! Anyway, the Daily Mail illustrated this report with a picture of Putin kissing a small boy amid crowds, as the politicians are wont.

The most scary instalment in the British intimidation campaign was the mockumentary The Third World War: Inside the War Room. It appears like a real news report: Russian residents in Latvia demand autonomy, as they were disenfranchised by the nationalist authorities. The government sends troops against them. Russian humanitarian convoy brings them food and medical first help. NATO decides to send reinforcements. Very soon there are nuclear bomb exchanges, and the world goes down. I must admit this film can frighten anybody, worse than Freddie Kruger did.

It seems that much of this campaign of fear is connected with the ongoing battle for Aleppo. The US and its allies do not intend to enter the mettle, and it is a good news, but they try to scare the Russians so they will let the rebel enclave be. Meanwhile the Turks did not cross the border, though the reports say so, somewhat erroneously. A Turkish Islamic philanthropic body called IHH arranged for refugees a large camp near the border crossing, on the Syrian side. I know the IHH, and I have visited them a few years ago in connection with their humanitarian work in Gaza. This action does not amount to intervention, and hopefully it will not go any further. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Ahmed Davutoglu said that the Turks will fight for Aleppo, but probably they will not dare without Western support.

Turkey can open a new supply line to Aleppo, this is just a technical problem. From the west, Aleppo region borders with the former Syrian province of Antakya (Antioch of old), or Liwa Iskenderun, in Arabic. The French colonial masters passed the province to Turkey in 1939. Now it is called Hatay. The rebels recognise Hatay as a part of Turkey, while the Syrian government views it as an occupied territory, like the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Theoretically, the Turks could supply the rebels via Hatay, but there are no good roads, only old country roads unsuitable for large bulk transports. And probably there is not enough time left to build a new road. Still, keep this possibility in your mind.

A new campaign in the Western media speaks of – you guessed! – genocide the Russian bombings amount to. Cruise-missile liberals and their favourite newspaper, the Guardian, already published a few articles in the same weepy tone they used agitating for invasion of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would like to call for ceasefire, but only after the rebels agree to lay down their arms and participate in elections. Otherwise, a ceasefire will just prolong suffering. As the first attempt to restart negotiations in Geneva ended before it actually began, the sides took a timeout until February 25. If by that time the Russian bombing and the Syrian army offensive will install some good sense into rebels’ heads, they still will be able to find a place in the parliament and in the government. And then a ceasefire will come in anyway.

Israel kept itself a very low profile regarding the Syrian war. They hoped, as the Jewish saying goes, that the work for the righteous Jews will be done by the evil-doers like Daesh. Now this hope is being severely tried by events on the ground. And Israeli politicians began to speak loudly of what a disaster the defeat of Daesh will be for the Jewish state. The first one was Yuval Steinitz who said that loud and clear, he was followed by others. However, this information (Israel supports Daesh) has been hidden from readers of the US – and Russian media. In both great states, people are made to believe that Israel is horrified by Daesh and prays for its annihilation.

The Russian success in Syrian war could not be achieved without President Obama’s cautious neutrality. Perhaps he deserved his Nobel Peace Prize, after all. An American president could turn this excellent Russian adventure into sheer hell, even without going to war. Let us give praise where it is due: Washington quietly allows the Russians to save Syria, despite Israeli wailing and Saudi shrieks.

The defeat of war-mongering Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire is the sign that the American people want peace, peace in the Middle East and peace with Russia. Now this is within the reach.

Israel Shamir is based in Moscow and can be reached at israel.shamir@gmail.com

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Syria

God Bless You, America

Israel Shamir

• February 10, 2016

• 600 Words

• 6 Comments

• Reply

RSS

New Hampshire is wonderful news. After many years of frustration, we see the America we would want to bless: an America that rejects the money-making machine of Wall Street and the death-churning machine of Pentagon. Both leaders of the Presidential race are good—Sanders for the Left and Trump for the Right are great, exactly what is needed, and now let the best man win, for foreigners either of them will do fine. Both are non-interventionists, both want to fix America rather than interfere overseas. People rejected the war-mongering candidates of the establishment, and that is what matters.

It is good to see Left and Right struggling for the good of the country, instead of forming a shapeless centre and hanging there. Both the Left and the Right are good and needed by society, just as the left leg and the right leg are needed for standing up. The Right is the conservative force, good for nature and tradition. The Left is the moving force of society, the guarantee of its liveliness, of capacity for change, of social mobility. A society without its Left would rot; a society without its Right would collapse. The Left provides movement, the Right guarantees stability.

In New Hampshire, American people defeated the pseudo-Left and the pseudo-Right, and gave a chance for the real thing. It is good to see Mme. Clinton defeated by the old socialist, and Mr. Bush by the bragging and brash dealer. They felt high and mighty, like aristocracy born to rule, but the Republic has healthy democratic instincts. It is good to see that both leaders reject bankers’ diktat, both want to give Americans good socialised health care, both disagree with the way America went until now.

It is good that democrats rejected identity politics, that young American women said ‘no’ to the feminist witches who tried to ride on the sister solidarity. It is good that republicans weren’t scared by the media machine that called Trump “a new Hitler”.

Both candidates are bad for Israel Lobby. Sanders is for peace in the Middle East and for the Palestinian rights, Trump is for spending money at home. Sanders is of Jewish origin, Trump has a Jewish daughter, and these connections may smooth the liberation of America from the Lobby.

Both candidates are good for the US-Russian relations. Trump or Sanders – the Russians will love them. Trump or Sanders – the danger of the Third World War will move away.

Russians are very willing to play ball with America. The Russian success in Syrian war could not be achieved without President Obama’s cautious neutrality. An American president could turn this excellent Russian adventure into sheer hell, even without going to war. Let us give praise where it is due: Washington quietly allows the Russians to save Syria, despite Israeli wailing and Saudi shrieks.

Russians’ positive attitude to the US was made obvious during the recent visit of Henry Kissinger to Moscow: he was received as a special ambassador of American elites, though it is possible this was just a visit of an old gentleman to a place he is remembered.

It goes without saying that New Hampshire primary is not the presidential election, and the Establishment and the Lobby have a lot of time to recover, to besmirch the present leaders, or even kill them like they killed Huey Long. Any one of these good men can disappoint in future, like Barack Obama has disappointed.

But now I want to bless you, America: your heart is in the right place. You are not the monsters your present Establishment wants you to be. Whatever happens, we shall remember that.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump

Moscow Snowbound, Litvinenko Poisoned, and the Syrian War

Israel Shamir

• January 27, 2016

• 2,900 Words

• 124 Comments

• Reply

RSS

TOP NEWS: Feeling Pinch of Oil Collapse, Some Russians Take to Streets, reported The New York Times. Indeed, at that time thousands of Russians were queuing in Central Moscow. The enormous line snaked around in the park, despite frost and snow. People stood three and four hours, braving winter weather: old ladies in furs and gentlemen in greatcoats, young people in anoraks, all sort of Russians from Moscow and from provinces. Do you think they were queueing for a fire sale to buy discount products or to change their depreciating roubles for dollars or whatever these desperate people were supposed to desire? Nope. This was the queue for the retrospective exhibition of Valentin Serov’s paintings, a Russian fin-de-siècle painter, in the New Tretyakov Gallery.

Valentin Serov (1865-1911) is a Russian equivalent of Edgar Degas or Edouard Manet or perhaps of James McNeill Whistler, hardly the names to steer Western masses from midwinter slumber. His art is figurative, embedded in Russian classical tradition yet aware of new trends of his time – he was an Art Nouveau founder – but still impeccably humane. Serov is a very Russian painter of the kind despised by the modern conceptual connoisseurs of art who prefer a Warhol’s tin, a Hirst’s shark or a Pussy Riot’s scream. The queue was not a fruit of a successful spin campaign – this was quite a low profile operation. Rather, it was a manifestation of the unpredictable Russian revolt against the Brave New World, on a par with Russians’ rejection of the gender politics, their open celebration of their Christian religiosity and their disapproval of migration, legal and illegal.

They can’t understand why the Germans invite Syrians, why the US judge sentences a woman to years of jail for sex with 17-year old boy, why officials have to officiate at gay marriages, why people must hide their crosses. The whole modern setup of the West annoys them as much as it perhaps annoys you.

En masse, Russians are traditional in their attitudes; and their country drifts further away from the Atlantic consensus under the sanctions. The pro-Western Russians, a.k.a. “liberals” (the term is quite misleading as they admire Pinochet and Thatcher, NATO and Israel) are flabbergasted by their fellow countrymen’s backward preferences. For them, Serov is a low-brow painter for rednecks; Tretyakov Gallery is too demotic. The Moscow Jewish Museum of Tolerance is their preferred exhibition venue. In a typical response, a prominent “liberal” artist and journalist Xenia Larina wrote that the only line she liked was the one for the just opened McDonald’s in Moscow 1990 “as this symbolised our admittance to the civilised world”, in her words. Putin visited the retrospective, thus sealing its fate in the “liberals” eyes, as he can’t do anything right in their view. “This is the 86% queueing,” they say, referring to the high rating of the president.

Probably this is not the way the Russians were supposed to take to the streets, according to The New York Times, but they are unpredictable. It is not that they do not feel the pinch of oil prices falling and rouble going down. They do, and they complain about prices of vegetables, but meanwhile they take it in their stride.

Jews back to Russia?

One of the best and most famous paintings of Valentin Serov did not make it to the retrospective. The Abduction of Europa has been abducted and carried away to Europe. For decades, it was presented in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, but in roaring Nineties, a Jewish oligarch Vyacheslav Moshe Kantor managed to get his hands on it and carry it abroad. This was a small thing for him: he managed to get hold of a sizeable bit of Russian industry, as well. Now, he lives in Switzerland and fights the anti-Semitism(!) he so much increased. He has even his own European Jewish Congress – such grand-names-but-few-members bodies are established by every self-respected Jewish oligarch.

He did not return the painting, nor did he loan it to the exhibition to be shown, but he himself made his way to Moscow, to Putin. He complained about European anti-Semitism, and VVP invited European Jews to migrate to Russia, to escape Hitlerite hordes prowling on Champs-Élysées.

Many European Jews moved to Russia in 1930s, among them Menachem Begin, the Israeli Prime Minister, and my father. They escaped Hitler, and found a safe refuge in the Soviet Russia. So the idea is not that crazy as it sounds. In a private conversation, Putin promised Netanyahu to accept Israeli refugees if the things will go badly for the Zionist state.

However, this is quite unlikely eventuality. Meanwhile, the Jews are not endangered anywhere, though they are a source of danger for their neighbours in Palestine. European Jews are doing fine, despite Israeli attempts to scare them into Aliyah, immigration to Israel.

Putin does such odd meetings and declarations as he really wants to be friends with Jews. The problem is, he meets the wrong Jews. Moshe Kantor is the least popular Jewish oligarch, greatly disliked by Jews of all walks of life. There is no positive publicity in such encounters.

Putin has even less success with Russian Jews. The Russian Jewish community practically disappeared in Soviet days. There are descendants of Jews, but no community. Putin thought he needs one, so he invited the Chabad Hassids to organise the communities. They came from New York and from Europe and began to create Jewish communities. They know how to do it: a lot of modern Jewish communities all over the world are new creations of Chabad.

The Hassids made a lot of successful real estate deals. Now the Jewish communities of Russia are very rich and prosperous; they own vast tracts of expensive land. Just in Moscow they have over thirty synagogues and communal centres, the biggest Jewish museum in the world, and a new centre in Moscow’s Beverley Hills, Rublevka. They lack just one thing: they have no Russian Jews. They all gone to Israel, or abandoned the faith of their fathers.

This does not stop the Chabad Hassids from building more synagogues and importing more and more pious Jews from abroad. They carry out their missionary activity, trying to bring descendants of Jews back to faith, in the meantime enriching themselves. They are politically neutral; they never speak against Putin. They present photo ops, sitting around him in their fedoras. Who knows, perhaps in some fifty years they will rebuild the Russian Jewish community. Meanwhile it seems an exercise in futility, at best.

Completely outside this artificially constructed community, there are very active political Jews, doing usual Jewish things: public relations, banking, finances, television. Some of them are Putin-friendly, even sycophantic towards the President. If you ever watch a truly obsequious till nausea film on Putin, chances are it is a Jewish production. On the other hand, other descendants of Jews are active in the opposition, both on the left and on the right. None of them needs the Chabad-created communities.

Litvinenko

I was contacted by Israeli Army Radio, as a Hebrew-speaking journalist in Moscow. What do I think about British justice accusing Vladimir Putin personally of Litvinenko’s murder? What do people of Moscow think of their President being a murderer?

People of Moscow do not believe the story, said I. Putin kills nobody, at least since he became President. Litvinenko was a very minor figure, an FSB (Russian FBI) operative dealing with organised crime in a provincial city, until his defection. He was not likely to have access to any of Putin’s dark secrets, provided they exist. His accusations were previously vented, and none of the accusers have yet succumbed. For this reason, the Russians do not take the British allegations seriously.

Thank you, that will be all, the radio anchor person hastily stopped me. Would you know of a Hebrew-speaking person in Moscow with a different point of view? Of somebody who is sure Putin bumped him off?..

I will never become a successful foreign journalist, alas. I always say and write what I think and what I see, independently of what the editors want. In the long gone 1990, during my previous stint in Moscow, I was asked whether Jewish pogroms are coming anytime soon. In my reports, I denied that, though my writing brethren from the Newsweek and the Times duly filed storm warnings. I did not observe anything of this sort. The only danger for a Jew in Russia in 1990 was in over-consumption, as that was the time when all the Jewish oligarchs came to prominence.

Alas, such observation was not conductive to a good career in Russia reporting. Successful foreign journalists in Moscow were always doomsayers, like the infamous Luke Harding who reported of the bloody KGB rule and mafia state, and he has been promoted to the very top of his profession. But I’d rather stick to truth, in the interests of my readers.

Coming back to Litvinenko, the Russians are not in the world league for political assassinations. President Obama kills more political enemies by his drones in a month than the Russians do in their lifetime. Israeli leaders lead the league: they kill every political figure that does not take their orders. Perhaps you remember Khaled Mashaal assassination attempt in 1997 that ended with a huge fiasco? Mossad agents posing as Canadian tourists sprayed poison into his ear, in the Shakespearean fashion, but were caught red-handed. In 2004, they allegedly poisoned Yasser Arafat by the same radioactive substance Litvinenko was supposedly killed with.

For this reason, some people in the Russian-Jewish circles subscribed killing of Litvinenko to his erstwhile patron, the demonic billionaire Mr Berezovsky. He had the reasons, and he had the means, as he had first class access to Mossad killing tools.

Still, no British judge ever attempted to censure an Israeli Prime Minister for an assassination, or for kidnapping, like when Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped under orders of Mr Shimon Peres.

Anyway Mr Litvinenko’s ghost does not disturb the Muscovites’ beauty sleep: he was not a figure people were aware of, even when he was alive.

Syrian War

The Syrian war is going well. So many things could go wrong, but meanwhile the Russian army is happy, and relations with the Syrians are next to perfect. The army is happy because they have an opportunity to use all their bright new toys. The spirit of the expeditionary force is high. The Syrian climate is much better than central Russia; there are many pretty Syrian girls who are friendly with Russian pilots and marines. Latakia is peaceful; restaurants are open. They even plan to bring the famed Russian circus to cheer the troops. Damascus is peaceful, too. In central Damascus you are lulled into a false feeling of security. You may forget about the war but for intermittent sounds of explosions from far away.

The real warfare is concentrated around the Azaz corridor, a narrow strip of land connecting Turkey to the rebel forces in Aleppo. Though it has been narrowed down to four miles in some places, the Syrian [government] Army can’t take it, despite the Russian aerial support. For the success of the whole operation, it is paramount to seize the corridor and cut the supply lines, but there is a heavy political flak and military difficulties.

At the last Lavrov-Kerry meeting, the American State Secretary six times implored his Russian counterpart to keep hands off the Azaz corridor. The Americans do not want to see Russian victory; besides, the Turks threaten to invade if the corridor is blocked. The Kurds could help the Army cut the corridor, but they do not rush to enter such a bloody and dangerous confrontation. They prefer to sit tight and wait for somebody else to do the job.

The Kurds are afraid of the Turks just across the border and do not want to upset them too much. They do not feel they have much to gain from President Assad’s victory. Syrian Christians told me the Kurds go into their territory and shoot at the Daesh forces, thus causing Daesh’s ferocious retort to the Christians. This is the sectarian reality of Syria, where only the Syrian Army fights for the whole country.

The threats and requests would not stay the advance of the Army, but taking the Azaz corridor is a formidable task anyway. The rebels are dug in; the Islamists use suicide bombers to stem the army offensive. They created deeply entrenched defensive lines and the Russian-Syrian coalition forces advance very slowly, if at all.

The Russians say that the Syrian soldiers are tired, and they do not want to fight hard. The Syrian Mukhabarat (Intelligence Services), a very important independent player, believe that Russia and Iran are committed to preserving Syria, so let them fight. This attitude seeps into the Syrian army. They, like the Kurds, prefer to sit tight and wait. Young men in danger of being drafted prefer to go to Germany or Sweden – this is the first war in history where such an option exists.

In some places the Russian specnaz (airborne, special troops and marines) dislodged the rebels, took their positions and transferred them to the Syrian Army, but the army failed to hold the positions and retreated at the first enemy shelling.

An Iranian brigade made a try and suffered very heavy losses. Some Iranian units were decimated, and since then the Iranians prefer to act as military advisers. They still have many casualties, including high-ranking ones. Iran spends some ten billion dollar a year on Syrian war, according to some sources.

The Russian ground forces are estimated at some two thousand soldiers and officers; they are needed for the defense of the Latakia area. It seems that the Russians and Iranians would have to bring more troops to win the war, but meanwhile it is not going to happen.

The Russian bombing campaign has been successful in one way: it convinced many rebel units to sue for peace. Before the bombs, they were all against any dealing with Assad government; now, they are for settling the conflict peacefully. As I wrote in my previous reports, the real purpose of Russian aerial operations is to force a peaceful solution on the rebels. Well, on some rebels, as the Daesh and an-Nusra appear quite immune to persuasion.

The Russians and the Americans do not fight Daesh too much, as if they are afraid to destroy the force they used to justify their involvement. The Syrian army attempts to advance in Palmyra were repelled by Daesh. The Daesh counteroffensive in Deir al Zour has been accompanied by a mass slaughter of civilians; the army stopped it but could not advance. So the political solution seems to be imperative for conclusion of the war.

Dealing with the armed opposition goes on two levels: local and international. Locally, Russian commissars meet with local rebel commanders and try to convince them to switch sides. Internationally, Russian diplomats argue with their counterparts from the US, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia about the agenda and personalities for the forthcoming conference.

I have met with a Russian representative who concluded his tour of duty meeting the rebel commanders. He told me that the rebels trust Bashar Assad but do not trust his officers and intelligence agents. There is much bad blood between the rebels and the Army officers. The rebels ask for Russian intermediaries and even for Russian officers to accompany them. Otherwise, they say, Assad forces will renege on promises. They often ask for money to change their allegiance. It seems that (aside from the Islamist fanatics) the rebels look for a way out of the war.

On the international level, there is hard bargaining between Russia and the rest. Moscow is a hub for negotiations: all Middle Eastern rulers and European high-ranking diplomats visited Moscow recently to discuss Syria.

Among them, there was the Emir of Qatar, who was very polite and gentle with the Russian president. He promised to attend to Russian interests in Syria. Putin presented him a fine falcon, but did not give in on his support of Assad.

There were more rumours of Russians demanding that Assad retire. These rumours usually appear in Russian opposition newspapers. From what I learned from Russian high-ranking personalities, these are just rumours created to saw distrust between the Russians and the Syrians. Russia stands by Assad, at least until the Syrian people will elect another ruler.

The conference on Syria was supposed to get together on January 25; at writing of these lines, it did not convene yet. It is not clear who will come. The Turks object to the Kurdish presence, Saudis reject some Moscow-approved persons, the US basically supports the Saudi list.

The greatest chance for peace lies in exhaustion. The Syrians are tired of war, and the Russian involvement convinced the rebels they can not win. Now they are trying to make a deal, but this is also a time-consuming operation.

However, until now the Russians have no reason to regret their decision to save Bashar Assad. Syria is more fun than the Eastern Ukraine, and the climate is better.

Israel Shamir is based in Moscow and can be reached at israel.shamir@gmail.com

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Litvinenko, Russia, Syria

Greedy Eyes of Saudi Sheikhs

Israel Shamir

• January 6, 2016

• 2,100 Words

• 53 Comments

• Reply

RSS

Once in a blue moon, this writer’s view coincides with that of the New York Times leader. It has happened now. The Saudi predilection for gore is not easy to stomach. The House of al Saud chose to celebrate the New Year, Christmas and Nativity of the Prophet Muhammad by shooting (or chopping heads, or whatever is their wont now) some forty-seven persons, conveniently described as “terrorists”. One of the condemned to death is the Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh who terrorised the Saudis by curating their exhibition at Biennale of Venice, by writing free-thinking poetry, letting his hair grow long and smoking tobacco. Another of the executed men was the Shiite Ayatollah (Bishop) Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, “a vocal critic of the regime and champion of the rights of the Shiite minority in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, but not an advocate of violent action”, in words on the New York Times. He languished in jail since 2012, was beaten and tortured and eventually killed.

His horrified coreligionists in Iran torched an annex of the Saudi embassy, while the Saudis broke diplomatic relations with Iran. So did their satellite Bahrain: this tiny statelet with its Shia populace and Sunni rulers, a home for the US Fifth Fleet, had been invaded and occupied by the Saudi troops in 2011. (UAE, Kuwait and Sudan downgraded their missions). It appears that the Saudis “counted on the fierce reaction in Iran and elsewhere as a distraction from economic problems at home and to silence dissenters”, says the NYT. Amazingly, they wanted to push their country to the brink of war, as if two ongoing wars in Syria and Yemen are not enough for them.

Being painfully aware that they can’t fight their real enemy Iran alone, they called for the Arab league and for their phony “anti-terrorist Islamic NATO”, a “military bloc” they had declared. Leaders of the “Islamic bloc” countries learned from newspapers that they were supposed to fight Daesh terrorists under the Saudi banner. The mass executions and the Iranian response perhaps may re-formulate this coalition of the unwilling into the anti-Shia front the Saudis had originally wanted. Daesh is their friend and offspring; the latest beheading shows there is no big difference between the twain. Meanwhile Iran is a sort of democracy, which they loathe.

However, I want to share with you insights from a Russian freelance scholar with a military background who runs the limited distribution Triple-R (Russian Ranger Reports) on Yemen and Saudia. He proposes a different reading of the map.

In his view, this was no coldly planned action, but rather spontaneous spite. Prince Mohammed ibn Salman, the king’s son, hates his main competitor for the throne, Interior Minister Prince Mohammed ibn Naef (whose father the powerful Prince Naef recently died, undermining his son’s chances for the throne) and he arranged for execution of Sheikh Nimr in order to entangle Prince ibn Naef in the conflict with local Shias. He took from him his National Guard, leaving him with next to nothing in case of trouble. Perhaps. But wars happen for even smaller reasons, and the recent developments in Saudi Arabia call for a shrink, not for a military or political analyst. We forgot in our age of reason that absolute monarchies act for very human reasons, and what could be more human than madness?

Something is wrong in the thick heads of Saudi sheiks. Instead of serenely enjoying their good fortune, they let the delusion of omnipotence lure them to their perdition. Freud connected this feeling with anal erotism, and it should not come as a surprise to any careful reader of T.E. Lawrence. Indeed any woman could cure a man of such delusion, but in strictly separated sexual life of the Saudis such encounters occur too late in life.

God knows they had a lot of luck. Once the feudal lords of a remote strip of sand called Nejd in the heart of the Arabian desert, they pried away Hijaz with its major prize of Mecca and Medina from the Hashemite descendants of the Prophet. They made an alliance with the US financiers and the military; they turned their oil into heaps of dollars, palaces, jets.

The Muslims of this world received no benefits from the Saudi money heap. Rather a curse than a blessing, their petrodollars destroyed everything they touched. The Saudis had sent their prince Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan, and ruined the country. Their money (and American weapons) devastated Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somali, Libya, Syria, Yemen. Now they undermine Niger, Chad and Nigeria.

Have no doubt: the big bad West, NATO and Pentagon together would never be able to ruin the Muslim world without the Saudi connivance.

They appointed themselves defenders of Sunni Islam, but they helped the US to destroy the mightiest Sunni state of all, Iraq of Saddam Hussein and rejoiced at Saddam’s fall.

They caused the collapse of the democratically elected Muslim government of President Morsi of Egypt and installed the military dictator in his stead (he turned out less obedient than they expected). I do not exaggerate: Morsi’s fall was a result of a conspiracy arranged and paid for by the Saudis. They used the methods previously applied against the last Soviet government of Russia, namely they created artificial shortages of food and petrol, they sent hired thugs to cause insecurity. Once Morsi was removed, as by the wave of a magic wand the shortages and thugs were gone. The Saudi-sponsored Salafists supported the military coup and gained at the Muslim Brotherhood’s banishment.

They did not help the most oppressed Sunni Muslims, the Palestinians of Gaza, when they suffered the brunt of an Israeli blockade and shelling. Oh yes, they promised (“committed”) billions for Gaza reconstruction, but none of these promised billions were delivered. The Saudis are very generous with their promises, but stingy with actual payments. (I learned it first hand: a Saudi newspaper reprinted my essays from Palestine during the Intifada; they promised to pay, but they never did.) They spend their money on the import of luxury and weapons, and on the export of their extremist ideology (in religious guise) to other Muslim countries and communities.

The Saudis acted nasty for many years. An outsider, I was astonished to learn that they are hated even more than Israelis by the average Arab, be it Palestinian, Egyptian or Lebanese. But they grew in nastiness with every year. They (and their terrible dwarf twin Qatar) conspired with NATO against Libya, and ruined this country. Afterwards, they shipped Qaddafi’s vast arsenal of weaponry to Syria via good services of their friends in Turkey. They were the engine behind the war in Syria and they prevailed upon Erdogan to enter this war. However, until recently they preferred to act on the sly.

They have got an Israeli complex, a complex of a pampered child who is allowed and encouraged by his adoring parent (the US) to tear off the wings and legs of living creatures. Nothing would force the US to condemn the Saudis – or Israel. Existence of the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is the sterling proof that the Jewish Lobby is not the only reason for the US Mideast policy and is not the single source of general nastiness in the region.

The Israeli complex is a feeling that one can do anything and everything. Such kids end in jail, and this is mentality of the KSA rulers. Their mad plans go astray because the plans are too big while their abilities are too limited. Being mentally unable to recognise their limitations, they blame their failures on Iran. Iran has its own problems, but Iran is not infatuated with the Saudis as the Saudis are obsessed with Iran.

The diplomats stationed in Saudia told me of Saudi lack of interest for the Palestinian cause, or for Daesh. For them, there is only one problem in the world: Iran. This unites them with Israel, where Iran is the main obsession of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Israel and Saudia are the great Semitic couple, a marriage made in hell. Of the two, Israel is relatively sober, while the Saudis are temperamental, passionate, given to fantasies, unable to plan.

I noticed their abnormal (in medical sense) attitude when the then head of Saudi intelligence Prince Bandar came to Moscow and tried to bribe President Putin. He offered fifteen billion dollars for the delivery of Syria. Putin politely declined, though this incident caused many a Russian official to twitch his eyebrows: it painfully reminded them of Yeltsin’s days when such offers (with a much cheaper price tag) were gratefully accepted. (In other ex-Soviet countries their offers are snapped up sight unseen. Bulgarians sell their weapons to Daesh, while the Ukraine supplies professional military men for Saudia.) Prince Bandar remained brooding for a few days more in the Moscow Lotte Hotel, getting deadly drunk every night and causing a big strain on Russian security.

The Russians try their best to be friendly with the Saudis. If you think that after the long litany of their transgressions the Russians would plainly hate Saudis’ guts, you do not understand the game. They desire to keep the channels of communication open. It has to be a direct hostile action, like the downing of their jet, for the Russians to switch to outright hostility, and the Saudis never went that far.

The Russians are not a timid exception. Nobody wants to upset the Saudis. They got away with their citizens’ involvement in 9/11. They can commit any barbarity, and nobody would object. From this angle, they are perhaps second to Israel, or even second to none. In 1981, Israel fought tooth and claw against President Reagan’s decision to sell AWACS aircraft to the Saudis, and lost. (This was the only case of Israeli losing until the recent Iran nuclear agreement.) Actually the only senior Western statesperson who dared to give Saudis a piece of her mind was the Swedish Foreign Minister, the indomitable Margot Wallström; and she also read riot act to the Israelis, making them scream “Holocaust!”

The Saudis visibly became too big for their boots when they attacked Yemen in an act of unrestrained open aggression against a neighbour. And this war is not going well. While everybody paid attention to the mass beheadings, on New Year’s Day, at midnight sharp, when you perhaps toasted your friends, the Saudis (meaning Prince Mohammed ibn Salman) unleashed the biggest ever air strike on Sana and other cities. They bombed the international airport and air base Dailami, the Expo Apollo business centre, the native villages of Ali Saleh, ex-president of Yemen. Such a New Year’s present… And at the same time, the Saudi forces with their Moroccan troops were beaten at Haradh border crossing, and the Houthis entered Saudia and took positions on the Saudi side, in a few miles from the border.

In short, general nastiness and cruelty are not a sufficient substitute for fighting abilities. The Saudis are not great fighters. They can bomb luckless Yemenis, but they cannot deal with Iran. Iran has many more troops, more tanks, more experience, a bigger population. However, the Saudis have an enormous military budget, over US$56 billion as opposed to US$6 billion for the Iranian war chest. This probably means that Iran and the Saudis will not start the war of their own volition. None is strong enough to defeat its adversary.

Iran may hope that internal problems of the KSA will cause its disintegration with a little help from the outside. Saudis may hope to get Israeli support. In the US, there are strong pro-Saudi and pro-Israel forces who were trashed but not eliminated by Obama. So the chances for war are slim, but not nil.

The Russians do not intend to intervene. They are busy fighting successfully in Syria; they helped the government forces to retake Homs and Aleppo. The Russians offered their mediation facilities to settle the Saudi-Iranian conflict, but probably it will bear no fruit. Putin prefers a bad peace to a good war, and this is what he has suggested to the Saudis and Iranians.

It is a pity Saudis do not understand that their problem is not Iran. They have just run out of their luck and of their resources. They can’t fight two wars and sell their oil for peanuts (intending to undermine Iran and Russia) and cut down their welfare programs and incite the Shia rebellion by beheading that beloved preacher. If they weren’t obsessed with spreading their aggressive ideology, they could live wonderfully well, and hundreds of thousands men and women in Tripoli, Aleppo, Aden and Grozny would be still alive. But those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iran, Saudi Arabia

Putin Blues

Israel Shamir

• December 23, 2015

• 2,700 Words

• 130 Comments

• Reply

RSS

plavevski / Shutterstock.com

Heavy darkness befalls the North; the sun rarely emerges from between the clouds. This year, Russia has noticeably less street illumination, and the spirits are anything but festive. Only the whiteness of the snow and Christmas trees break the gloom and remind us of the forthcoming low point of the cosmic wheel, Yuletide, when days starts to wax and nights to wane. As this stellar event foretells the Nativity of our Savior, this is a period of hope after a very difficult year, all over the world.

Putin supporters are unhappy

The Russians keep guessing what President Putin will tell them in his traditional televised address to the nation at the break of the New Year. He should say, this year is over, and we shall all cheer, people propose. Even the most optimistic ones are disappointed by lacklustre economic performance, and they blame the government of Prime Minister Medvedev and his liberal monetarist team. Meanwhile Putin rises above the blame game, but the government is less and less popular.

As the Rouble drops, even the rather pro-Kremlin mass-circulation newspaper KP (full disclosure: I write an occasional column for the KP) published a call for the economy and finance ministers to resign or to be fired. There is a very little chance that Mr Putin will take this advice and clean his government stables.
He could beef up his credit by dumping some (or all) of his ministers, but Putin is stubborn and unusually loyal to his colleagues. No accusation has ever convinced him to dismiss a man of his team. His former defence minister Mr Serdyukov has allegedly been involved in some shady dealing, while Serdyukov’s paramour and assistant amassed millions by selling prime MOD assets to her cronies. Still, Putin did not dump him, and saved him from jail. (He had to resign to become a CEO, while she served a few weeks in prison, at most).
Last week, the opposition leader Mr Navalny aired some heavy charges against Attorney General Chayka. For his defence, Chayka said that the man behind the campaign is the notorious Mr Browder. Browder is an American crook who managed to appropriate many high-quality Russian assets for pennies during Yeltsin’s privatisation. Eventually he was forced to part with his loot and he has been sentenced to many years of jail in absentia. Browder is slime, no doubt, but it is a weak defence for Chayka. Still, Putin refused to drop Chayka or even to initiate an independent investigation of his alleged crimes.
Putin stands by the most hated politician of Yeltsin’s era, Mr Anatoly Chubays. The Financial Times called him Father to the Oligarchs. After leaving the government, Chubays has been appointed to lead the RUSNANO, a state-owned corporation notorious for its embezzlement and waste. Putin saved him many times over from prosecution.
Putin went, hat in hand, to Yekaterinburg for the grand opening of Boris Yeltsin’s Memorial Centre (price tag – nine billion roubles) and referred kindly to the loathed late President who appointed him his successor. People were furious seeing their president enjoying himself among the carpetbaggers of Yeltsin’s regime.
Can you imagine Fox TV transmitting Russian propaganda? In Russia, a major chunk of Russian media, state-owned or subsidised by the taxpayer, transmits pro-Western and anti-Russian agenda, alleged the eminent film director Nikita Michalkov, a staunch supporter of Putin, in his video seen by over two million viewers in a few days. He called upon Putin to assert his line and banish the enemies within, but state TV refused to broadcast the video.
Putin’s recent press-conference provided a chance for more criticism. Beside the points mentioned above, the journalists asked why state enterprise CEOs are paid millions of dollars a year, while everybody else is called upon to tighten the belt. They asked why the Russian Central Bank keeps buying US bonds and supports the US Dollar at the expense of the Rouble. They asked why import substitution does not work etc.

These are protests from the pro-Putin crowd, from people who supported his takeover of Crimea and his entry into Syrian war. They could bear some deprivation, but they are upset by Putin’s condoning thieves, by his apparent cronyism, by his oligarch friends. Until now, the critics avoided attacking Putin, but these are the early swallows. Dr Stepan Sulakshin, the head of a Moscow think tank, publicly accused Putin of knowingly leading Russia into further degradation.

This bubbling dissatisfaction of Putin’s supporters may yet turn more dangerous for the president than the 2011 Fronde of his hipster enemies. Meanwhile, head-strong Mr Putin does not wish to yield ground, sacrifice some of more hated ministers and CEOs, or attune internal policies to public expectations. Perhaps he is right, and things are not what they appear, but justice must be seen, not only done.

Talking Turkey with Israel

The Turkish friction caused by Erdogan’s decision to shoot down the Russian bomber is another source of Putin’s blues. He had spent a lot of effort nurturing relations with Turkey. All this effort went down the drain. There are multimillion projects, from a gas pipeline to tourism. All that was cut down at once. Putin’s plans to deliver gas to Europe bypassing the hostile Ukraine collapsed. This is a huge setback for the Russian president.

The rhetoric between the leaders became acrimonious. Hotheads in Russia speak of seizing the Bosporus and Dardanelles, of turning Istanbul into Constantinople and planting the cross on the ancient St Sophia church. The Turkish president threatened to occupy Russia within one week – with help of NATO.

Turkey’s choice is a result of its over-involvement in Syria. With so much investment, Erdogan was loath to see Syria gone. While his decision to down the Russian jet was rather extreme, the relations already were tense.

Putin’s trip to Erevan and his condemnation of “Turkish genocide of the Armenians in 1915” was an unnecessary provocation. No other world leader did it, but Francois Hollande of France who flew in for two hours and proceeded to Baku, the capital of Azeri Turks thus levelling the playing field. I actually called upon Putin to avoid this step, but the strong Armenian lobby insisted on this trip.

Afterwards, there was a supposed leak (in reality: a fake) of a harsh and insulting conversation between Putin and the Turkish ambassador. I checked with the Ambassador and other sides. It was a fake, but this fake has been spread in millions of sites and posts.

However, the $64,000 question is about Syria: will it become a vassal state to the reconstituted Ottomans or will it remain a sovereign state with strong ties to Russia. Russia thought it has a stronger hand as an invitee of the Syrian legitimate government; Turkey denied Bashar’s legitimacy.

The rift between Turkey and Russia became a fact. Its main beneficiaries were the US – and Israel. For the last five years, the relations between Israel and Turkey were hostile, since Israeli commandos massacred nine peace activists on board the Turkish vessel Navi Marmara. In face of the Russian threat, the Turks agreed to make peace with Israel.

Israel is involved in the conflict more than it admits. The Russians has published their evidence of Daesh oil being smuggled to Turkey by Turkish companies. This caused a lot of indignation in Russia and elsewhere. How do they dare to buy stolen oil and finance the terrorists!

The Russians forgot to mention that the smuggled oil goes to Israel. Israel is the main buyer of oil produced by the Kurds and by Daesh. This was reported and corroborated by the FT and by Al Araby al Jadeed. The Russian media avoided the topic, as Putin cherishes his good relations with Netanyahu.

Last week, Israelis attacked suburbs of Damascus and killed some Russian allies, Hezbollah fighters. Again, Russians took it quietly. None of indignation caused by downing of the bomber seeped into the Russian media.

Israel supports al-Nusra, declared a terrorist organisation by the UN. This is not a secret: recently the Daily Mail published a report glorifying Israeli soldiers saving lives of the Islamist fighters. Thousands of wounded guerrillas received medical assistance in Israeli hospitals and went back to fight Bashar.

Israel has a good working relations with Daesh, too. I was told that Daesh troops entered the Palestinian camp al Yarmuk being equipped with long lists of Palestinian activists. They were assembled and publicly executed. The Palestinians think that Daesh received the names from Israeli secret service and acted upon their request. Moreover, Daesh never ever attacked a Zionist target.

Putin – and Russian media did not say a word on that. Perhaps Putin is right; Russia does not need such a strong enemy as Israel, since Israeli leaders can say “Jump, Uncle Sam,” and Uncle Sam will ask “How high?” However, they could tone down their indignation regarding Turkish oil smuggling, Turkish help to the guerrillas and other Turkish misdeeds.

Israel is objectively an enemy: it is an enemy of Russia’s allies Hezbollah and Iran; it wants dismemberment of Syria in order to keep Golan Heights for good; it prefers a Somalised Syria to a healthy and strong one. But Netanyahu plays his hand cautiously despite his feeling of invulnerability.

The Israeli attack on the Damascus suburbs took place despite the Russian C-400 operating in Syria. Experts say the C-400 has been placed in Latakia and it can’t effectively protect the skies above the Syrian capital, while the C-300 purchased by the Syrians and located in Damascus has been hit by Israelis. Meanwhile, the Israeli Air Force is training at avoiding and coping with a C-300 in Cyprus, as that country has a C-300 of its own, recently bought from the Russians.

Putin has nothing to gain from confrontation with Israel; Israel prefers to have its way without fighting the Russians. Perhaps, sooner or later, the Israeli and Russian Air Forces will joust; but meanwhile both sides prefer to postpone that moment.

Putin hopes Erdogan will give up on Syria. This is not an easy task, but not an impossible one, either. For that, Putin must work with President Obama – or with the next American President.

Putin vs Western Leaders

It is often said that President Obama is a weak leader. I do not think so. He is a wily and sophisticated player. He voids every agreement his country made with Russia. There were, and are agreements galore: from Minsk to the recent UN SC resolutions. At first (and second) sight, the agreements follow the Russian line. Otherwise, the Russians would not sign them. However, after a while Obama offers a different interpretation. I would not like to argue against him in a court of law. He is as tricky as any lawyer.

Did he give up on the “Assad must go” mantra? It is not clear. He, and his Secretary of State John Kerry sometimes say that he may stay, but quickly contradict themselves and insist on his departure. They introduce new and peculiar ideas daily. For example, they say “Only Sunnis may deal with the Syrian crisis”. This strange idea inspired the Saudis and they even claimed they organised a huge coalition of Sunni states to fight Daesh. Needless to say, within a few days this “coalition” vanished like dew under sunrays.

However, at the bottom line, Obama plays by a Cold War script against Russia. Like a drunkard accuses others of heavy drinking, he accused Mitt Romney of “Cold War thinking”, and warned Putin of his “Cold War thinking”, but as a disciple of Zbigniew Brzezinski he hardly can think of anything else. Even Pentagon generals complained about this matrix of his mind, says Seymour Hersh.

There is nothing Putin wants less than a new round of the Cold War. He is not a new Soviet leader. People who dream of a new Stalin are barking up a wrong tree. One may regret it, and many Russians do regret it, but Putin has no great plans of social rearrangement. His ambition is more modest: he wants Russia to be independent, prosperous, great, and equal to other great nations like it was in 19^th century.

Last week I was at the St Petersburg Cultural Forum, a gathering of artists, curators, and art ministers from 40 countries, and it was clear that Putin’s Russia is much more interested in its pre-revolutionary past and in the 19^th century in general, than in 20^th or 21^st century art. They performed a lost play by Puccini, they reconstructed Petipa ballets, they read Tolstoy. They rebuilt palaces, they fixed old theatres, even the pre-revolutionary circus had been returned to its old glory inclusive of its old well-forgotten name and the royal circle. So many restaurants bear names reminding everyone of the Tsar times.

There is a wind of nostalgia in Russia, and it is for Russia of Leo Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky. Putin has ordered that the remains of the White generals, philosophers, artists be brought back for burial on the Russian soil. Soviet and Communist memories are suppressed. Recently, Prime Minister Medvedev called for another bout of commemorations for Stalin’s victims. I am not sure that this is a wise policy; perhaps it would be better to let past to take care of itself. But here we are: Putin and his crowd are old-style liberals, not social reformers. They do not want to raise the banner of revolt. They want to fit into the world as it is, but as equals.

The problem is, there are people who are hell-bent on hegemony and full-spectrum dominance, and they are not likely to allow Russia to go its own way. They want to impose their rules, and set in place their docile rulers. That’s why the very modest intentions of Putin meet so much resistance in NATO and the Pentagon, in the White House and in Westminster. What’s worse, these people already control the mainstream politics of many countries, from the US to Japan, to France and Sweden. It does not matter which of the mainstream politicians win elections, the result is the same.

Putin’s (and Russia’s) hope lays in politicians outside the controlled mainstream. Donald Trump is a good example. Putin is not particularly interested in US internal politics and in Mr Trump’s unusual proposals. This is an internal matter of the US, and Putin steers clear of it, like he wants the US to steer clear of Russia’s internal matters. For him, what is important, is that Trump’s America would not try to dominate the world and impose its agenda. The moral question whether Trump’s ideas about Muslims or Latinos are lofty or base is a question for the American people to decide. Putin and many other foreign leaders want America’s non-interference in their internal affairs.

The rude Mr. Trump seems to be the candidate least likely to push the button for nuclear suicide of mankind. Much less likely than nice Mrs Clinton who could nuke Russia because Russians do not celebrate gay marriages. Remember, her nice husband bombed Belgrade because the nasty Serbs did not allow for the secession of Croats (or was it Albanians?)

Trump – or any straightforward decent politician who does not take orders from the Masters of Discourse – would be able to play ball with Mr Putin, by classical rules of international law. Trump and Putin could return the concept of sovereignty to its privileged position. This would end many wars. The war in Syria began when Mr Obama and Mr Hollande said “Assad must go”. By the classical rules, no state may interfere in the affairs of another sovereign state. From the Russian point of view, the war in Syria is first of all a war for sovereignty and against global Imperial vassaldom.

The Russians want to light their Christmas trees and wish Merry Christmas and go with their women and children to a Christian church without being scolded by the Obamas and Clintons of this world for insufficient political correctness and failure to mention Kwanzaa.

That’s why it is important for all of us if we may hope to reach peace, this Christmas or the next one.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: New Cold War, Putin, Russia, Syria

From the Airliner to the Bomber

Israel Shamir

• November 27, 2015

• 2,500 Words

• 113 Comments

• Reply

RSS

Three important events influenced the course of the Syrian war in the course of last month: the Metrojet flight 9268 crash in Sinai October 31, the Paris attacks on Friday November 13 and the downing of a Sukhoi 24 on November 24, 2015.

The Metrojet

The Metrojet crash was not deemed an act of terror to start with. First accounts concentrated on the poor state of the charter plane, on the lack of proper maintenance, on its previously troubled record (a tail strike it had suffered some years earlier), on a possible engine failure. The reports were confusingly contradictory. The pilots had asked permission for emergency landing, – no, they hadn’t. The airliner violently steered off the course, rapidly changed its altitude a few times, – no, it did not. There were no traces of explosives – there were traces of explosives all over place.

In a course of a few days, the whole body of conspiracy and anti-conspiracy versions grew around the crash, both in Russia and elsewhere, for instance an explosion of hydrogen-filled diving cylinder of a sort regularly used by Sharm el Sheikh divers.

I noticed an interesting coincidence: there was the Blue Flag air exercise of Israeli and American air forces in the vicinity of the crash area. The crash occurred within 30 miles of the Israeli border, and Israel happens to use its drones to kill its enemies in Sinai. The exercise included “firing simulated weapons against fictional enemy missile launchers, convoys and aircraft”, according to the official report. What if some of these weapons weren’t “simulated”? I would not suggest intentional destruction of a civilian Russian liner, but friendly fire is not unheard of. A missile could go astray. The Blue Flag was supposed to last until November, 3. However, after the Metrojet crash, it was claimed that the exercise was over October, 29.

An Israeli news site asked the Army spokesman when the exercise was finished, and received the answer: November, 3. The site asked again, while referring to the Russian liner crash. This time, the answer was: October, 29. This discrepancy is not a proof of anything; and anyway, this version gained little currency. However, it was expanded by an American site and later by a hard-core radical Russian site (they accused me of “cover-up” for balking at considering Israeli ill intent). I do not think this is the true explanation; just another version in absence of the truth established.

For a long while the Russians denied the crash was caused by enemy action and looked for a technical failure, though the UK and the US suggested a terror attack. Daesh (ISIS) claimed they downed the airliner by a missile and they published a video of this alleged feat. This claim was met with scorn, as MANPAD missiles can’t reach the airliner altitude. It was said that soon Daesh will claim the Sinking of the Titanic.

The Russians mourned their dead, and their campaign in Syria continued with some successes on the ground, while the West continued to condemn it for going against ‘moderate opposition’ and paying lip service to the war on Daesh. The Russians insisted they were fighting Daesh “or other similar groups”.

Paris

The Paris attacks changed the game. 130 persons were killed, and the attack was claimed by Daesh. This was not a sophisticated action; the total outlay was around €7,000 ($7,500) while the damage was in billions and budget allocations to security industries were in trillions. Daesh claimed the responsibility, while al Qaeda never claimed 9/11 for itself. This time there was a great surge of empathy and mourning all over the world, and nowhere was it stronger than in Russia.

The Russian people feel so much about France and about Paris – probably as much as the Americans of Scott Fitzgerald’s generation. Paris is the place good Russians – like good Americans – go to when they die, rephrasing Oscar Wilde. Mayakovski, the great Russian poet of 1920s, famously said: I’d love to live and die in Paris, and quickly added: if there weren’t Moscow. This love of Paris and France has been a trademark of a Russian nobleman since 18^th century: Pushkin’s generation learned French before mastering their own tongue. Russians love to feel European, and France is the only country in Europe they really care for.

In France, there were calls for vengeance, and the Russians seconded them. They would love to go to war in a coalition with the French, as they did in the WWI and WWII. Paris attacks fitted Putin’s Destroy Daesh campaign like a glove. At that time, 18 days after the crash and 4 days after the Paris attacks, the Russians declared their air liner was downed by the Daesh. Many previous claims regarding the crash were disowned, reports reinterpreted and made to suit the new version. Instead of the West versus Russia, a new formation began to form, that of Russia and France versus all the rest.

Daesh behaved like a good sport and accepted the responsibility for the Russian crash on the next day. They also adapted their version: previously they said they downed the liner with a missile, now they agreed with the Russians and said they did it with a Schweppes can. Nobody queried how did they manage to squeeze three pounds of TNT equivalent into a soft drink can. The Russian-French coalition against Daesh began to take form.

Russian TV broadcast the French Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle rendezvousing with the Russian Missile Cruiser Moskva off Syrian shore, a poignant symbol of two great European nations doing their joint work against the barbarians.

For a short while the Russians forgot that they had come by the Syrian government’s invitation to fight for Syria, while the French considered President Assad a worse plague than Daesh. They poured bombs on the Daesh-held territory, and the Russians penned “For Paris!” on their bombs.

Nowadays many pro-Western Russians feel “white”, as they became infected by the racist rhetoric of the West after the Soviet collapse and were subjected to an influx of Central Asian migrants. They also imported European Nationalist discourse bewailing Europe and France deluged by coloured migrants. In their minds, the Arab refugee wave and the Paris terror attacks merged into one battle in the clash of civilisations.

The Israeli connection of influential Jews amidst Russians added some anti-Arab prejudice. A top Russian blogger and a citizen of Israel, Mr Anton Nosik, flaunting his Israeli connection, called to kill the women and children of Syria. He also accused the very moderate Russian Muslim Mufti of financing the bombing of the Metrojet liner. Mr Michael Weller, a best-selling writer, published a racist screed against the dark-skinned Arabs who swamp and engulf Europe. Both genocidal calls were published by the most pro-Western, ultra-liberal and anti-Putin Echo Moskvy site. The head of Mossad called to bomb Syria like Dresden was bombed. In Dresden, perhaps up to half a million civilians were killed in a bombing attack by the British and American air forces, well described by Kurt Vonnegut. To be on the safe side and not to miss a piece of action, Israel bombed the Russian allies in Syria: the Syrian army and their ally Hezbollah.

At that time, President Hollande of France went to the US trying to build the grand coalition against Daesh.

The Bomber

The spirit of Russia’s cooperation with the West was at its peak when a well-aimed air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16 fighter downed the Russian Su-24M tactical bomber. According to the Turks, the bomber had lingered for some 17 seconds in Turkish airspace and was been downed one mile inside the Syrian territory. According to the Russians, the bomber didn’t cross the Turkish border at all. In any case, this was a deadly planned ambush.

This was an illusion-shattering event of great magnitude, the end of a brief season that began with destruction of the Russian airliner, continued with the Paris attacks and ended with the pilots of the Russian bomber parachuting into the hills of North-West Syria. During this silly season, the Russians tried to convince the world and definitely convinced themselves that the grand coalition of 1941-1945 came back to life, and they are fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the French and the Americans against their joint enemy. Just one missile, and the sweet dream scattered, like the unfortunate Sukhoi bomber.

The downing was not a surprise for me, nor should it be for you: I actually warned you, my reader, it was coming a full month before it occurred. On October 19, 2015 I had been warned by my Turkish correspondents of the Shamireaders group. I passed this warning on October, 22: “Erdogan plans to pull Turkey to the brink of war with Russia. Erdogan has given orders to shoot down Russian planes operating in Syria while claiming they have intruded into Turkish air space.” I published this warning in a leading Russian newspaper, too, a few days earlier.

The downing was a terrible shock for the Russians as they did not expect an attack from the Turkish side. They were carried away by their own rhetoric. They spoke endlessly about the need to fight terrorists, and convinced themselves everybody was on the same page they were. The Turks disabused them. Naturally, the Turks and their NATO allies stood up against the Russians. The Russian claim that “we all should fight Daesh” had propaganda value but not an operational one, and they learned it this painful way.

The Arab newspapers say that President Erdogan obtained President Obama’s blessing for the operation when they met at G20 summit in Turkey. They also say the timing was chosen to derail Mr Hollande’s mission. We do not know whether this is true, but the US and other NATO members expressed their limited support for the Turkish attack. France did not demur, yet. The NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg “expressed solidarity with Turkey and support of Turkey’s territorial integrity”. The US decision to sanction a Russian businessman for dealing with Bashar Assad reminded everyone that for the US the main enemy in Syria has been, and is the legitimate government of Syria, while the Islamic State (Daesh) is an unruly ally.

The Turks carried out their premeditated attack on the Russian bomber because they are protecting Daesh. They are Daesh’s regional minder. Last week, Daesh authorities in Raqqa discontinued usage of the Syrian lira as a legal tender on their territory. From now on, it is Turkish lira that will be used in the new Caliphate. The Turks buy the bulk of the oil produced by Daesh, though some quantity of this oil apparently finds its way to Damascus as well. It is difficult to blame Bashar Assad’s government for its attempts to recover some of its oil from the Daesh thieves, even paying ransom for it. However, such an excuse can’t be made regarding the Turks. It is said that Erdogan’s son is personally involved in buying the stolen oil, but whether it is true or not, oil is transported to Turkey.

We should recount the reasons for the Syrian war so that the present events to make sense. It is not that the people of Syria decided to rise against the tyrant. The Syrian war has been initiated by the West in 2011 in order to overthrow Bashar Assad and his regime in a mopping-up campaign against the states that sided with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. We know that much from the Wikileaks cables of the US Embassy in Damascus. France supported the move from its own neo-colonial reasons as Syria was its former protectorate. Syria’s neighbours had their own reasons to support the US-led campaign.

Israel wanted to Somalise Syria, to cause its defragmentation in full agreement with its Yinon Plan. It wanted to place a Sunni entity between its enemies Iran and Hezbollah, as well. Qatar wanted to build a gas pipeline to Turkey via Syria, and Bashar Assad did not agree. The Saudis wanted to eliminate Bashar, as he was friendly to Iran. They did not want an Alawite like Assad to rule an Arab Muslim country. Turkey’s Erdogan wanted to place a moderate Islamist in Damascus in his endeavour to recreate the Ottoman Empire. Together with Qatar, he intended to build the gas pipeline. Together with Saudis, he wanted Muslim Brotherhood to unite the Arabs. Besides, Erdogan wanted to back a winner, and he was convinced that the fall of Assad was just a matter of weeks.

Four years have passed, and their reasons are still valid for them, even more so. These countries had spent a lot of money. They felt they were close to their goal. Enter Russia, and Assad’s regime got a new lease of life. Turkey was more annoyed than the rest as it carried the brunt of military effort: it housed the refugees, supplied fighters with weapons. The Turks were upset that the Russians had cut the lifeline to Daesh by bombing transports; they wanted to protect various Islamist groups, some of them their ethnic kith and kin, while others their ideological and religious allies. The furious Turks attacked the Russian plane in order to express their anger. They hoped that NATO would prevent Russia’s violent response, and ideally would carry out military operations against Russia thus relieving Syrian rebels.

The US approved of this action for an additional reason. They wanted to test Russian resolve and its military preparedness. It is impossible to assess correctly an enemy’s strength except in battle. This is especially true regarding Russia. There were various reports alleging the military weakness of Russia. We remember that in 1930s, Imperial Japan had made a few armed incursions into Soviet Russia. These incursions were beaten off quite convincingly, and Japan preferred to sign a non-aggression treaty with the USSR. In the west, the Soviets weren’t successful in their Finland war, and Hitler concluded Russia would be easy prey. In 2008, Georgia tried to attack Russian forces. The then Georgian president Mr Saakashvili boasted his army would reach Moscow without meeting strong resistance. His forces were thrashed in a few days. Turkey is much stronger than Georgia, and a limited Russian-Turkish war would provide a much better assessment of Russian military might.

The Russians are well aware of this reason, and this is why they used their cruise missiles and strategic long range bombers in Syria. They wanted to impress the US generals so they wouldn’t provoke a battle.

The Russians were quite upset by NATO supporting Turkey. They hoped the Europeans would be grateful that the Russians were fighting for Europe against Daesh. This did not happen, though the Russians actually bombed Daesh in a furious campaign of revenge “for Paris”. Still they decided to postpone their response for the bomber. Putin does not want to fight Turkey, if it can be avoided; even less he wants to fight NATO. Probably a limited response should be expected. Delivery of S-400 to Syria provided the means. A Turkish plane on a mission to bomb Kurds in Syria or Iraq is likely to bear the brunt of the Russian response.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article has been published first at the Unz Review.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: ISIS, Paris Attacks, Russia, Terrorism, Turkey

Autumn in Palestine

Israel Shamir

• November 15, 2015

• 2,200 Words

• 28 Comments

• Reply

RSS

Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com

Autumn is beautiful in Palestine: overripe blue-green figs, unpicked pomegranates pecked by birds, heavy grapes turn red. Now is the olive harvest time, and the burghers of Bethlehem and its twin city Beth Jala (everyone owns a plot with olive trees) bring heavy sacks full of green and black olives to the local oil press equipped by the latest Italian machinery. They watch like eagles over their olives from the moment they come to a moving band and until greenish viscous oil pours out from the pipe on the other end. This is a very important time for them: this precious liquid (costing from $8 to $15, depending on the exact origin) is a staple food for the Palestinians.

In the same time, a few hundred yards away, in a fashionable café Bonjour the students of Bethlehem University frolic around big wooden tables and smoke their waterpipes. It is a mixed crowd, relaxed boys and cheerful girls. The girls don flamboyant and coquettish headscarves that frame their pretty smooth faces. These Islam-prescribed scarves do not have to be black and grim. The boys, tall and gracious, sport casual wear of the latest cut. They came from all corners of Palestine, from Jenin in the North to Hebron in the South, and even from the remote Gaza to this hospitable and liberal city. They speak perfect English with foreigners, this new generation that grew in the relative prosperity of recent years.

Meanwhile busloads of tourists and pilgrims proceed into the ancient basilica erected by St Constantine above the cave where the Virgin gave birth to Christ. This still is a Christian city, even more so is Beth Jala, its neighbour. The Christians and Muslims live together, as they did for fourteen hundred years, since Islam came here, a model of cooperation and friendship.

Just a mile away from the Church and the café, Israeli soldiers shoot tear gas grenades at small kids, black smoke of a burning tyre laced with white smoke of tear gas. They already had their kill of a day: a passer-by was frightened by the stray dogs and run away, but they shot him in the back and killed him. An elderly woman in a car was killed, too: the soldiers said she drove too fast and endangered them. Fearless kids of the Aida refugee camp throw stones at soldiers, though a new Israeli law stipulates no less than two years of jail for this offence. There is no punishment for killing kids.

The perfume Bethlehem wears is the scent of tear gas, its music a symphony of gunfire, muezzin’s calls and church bells. But the people pay less attention to this low-volume violence than they did in 2002, when all were mobilised to the struggle.

Some things changed in Bethlehem: bright young things in jolly cafes, SUVs, supermarkets, nascent middle class. Some things remained as they were years ago, that is the church, olives and soldiers. Of them, the Jewish soldiers appear the most anachronistic relic, Herod’s men stuck in the past amidst blossoming modernity. They are out of place and out of time.

It was not so obvious years ago, when all of Palestine was a wonderful relic of old times, with old men riding donkeys, girls fetching jars of water from the spring and boys picking olives. Then, Palestine felt immemorial, unchanged since the days of Christ, a living past. Jewish soldiers were also a part, a cruel part of its past. I loved the backwardness of Palestine, and would wish it remained forever like it was when I first came here fifty years ago.

But the world changed. Palestine woke from its slumber, too. Its cities grew tenfold, industries prospered, a new generation grew up. They travel abroad, study in the US and Russia, visit the Gulf. Instead of a donkey or a battered Peugeot, they go around in new SUVs. And the permanent Israeli siege seems to be out of place, like an interfering supervision of spanking schoolmaster for an adult, or of a prison warden for a free man.

The Israeli army hangs around the city, controlling its exits and entrances, with the enclave of Rachel’s Tomb fully enclosed by walls and blocking the main street and the road to Jerusalem. The enclave is stuck like fishbone in the throat; it is a place of frequent friction, for here the soldiers are actually inside the city. Aida refugee camp lies next to it, adding willing youngsters to the inflammable mixture. However all Palestinians, young and old, rich and poor, are extremely dissatisfied with the present conditions of permanent house arrest.

There is no feeling of general uprising on the Palestinian street, not yet. But nobody I asked was ready to bet whether the present wave of unrest will surge into a new intifada (uprising) or will it die out. Much depends on the Israeli government of Mr Netanyahu, and they do not mind some escalation.

The Jews want a small controlled Palestinian uprising to provide a plausible and visible reason to kill young activists. For them, uprisings and suppressions are like mowing a lawn, something to be done every ten-fifteen years. As a new generation grows up and the horrors of previous suppression are forgotten, that’s the time to jumpstart a new uprising and to kill the active and the best. Only placid and obedient stay-at-home should survive. This scheme worked before, but in the very volatile situation in the Middle East, this may be dangerous. That’s why the signals are mixed.

Real improvements in the Palestinian economy and its integration in the global trade made Palestinians not too keen to try. The last four years were quite good for them. The Palestinians could be envied – in comparison with the neighbours, with the civil war in Syria, with the harsh military dictatorship in Egypt. Palestinians live better, and they are not eager to die. Moreover, there are open and loud voices calling to stop suicide attacks. “Palestine needs you alive, – wrote a Palestinian activist in Ramallah, – Rage. Rebel. Flood the streets and the roadblocks. But don’t die.”

They try a “smart resistance”, in words of Jonathan Cook, a wonderful young British journalist who settled a few years ago in Nazareth, married and ‘gone native’. He is one of the reliable Palestine watchers, not subdued or bribed by the Israelis. We met in a pleasant restaurant in Nazareth; the venue was full – the Palestinians of this Galilean city are doing well on tourism. They opened many small hotels, and seem to be rather content.

They were also under Jewish military rule until 1956, but not anymore. In a way, Nazareth could be a model for Bethlehem and other Palestinian cities. Integration has more attraction than a new partition. Palestinians of Nazareth would not like to become subjects of the PNA (Palestinian National Authority) in Ramallah.

The idea of integration (One State solution) is mooted for years, since I made it public in 2002, but it did not move forward a single inch. This is true about the generally accepted Two State solution, as well. Politically, things do not change at all. For years, there are no negotiations, and it seems nobody believes in their renewal. Violence leads nowhere, and non-violent resistance also brings no fruits. Not in vain, Netanyahu promised there will be no Palestinian state while he is at the helm.

However, it is a mistake to consider him as the only obstacle to peace. Netanyahu is surely awful, but so are other Israeli politicians. He is not worse than the Zionist Left, former Labour now called the Zionist Union. He actually eased many restrictions; there are now much fewer roadblocks than there were during Labour rule; now Palestinians over 50 can travel all over the country without a permit. Young people can get a working permit and work in Jerusalem, earning a bit more money. Labour was and is strictly against integration. They are for separation; for all practical reasons they support Netanyahu. They are more interested in gender agenda, gay rights and women empowerment. Palestinians are of little interest for them.

The Zionist Left is hostile to Bashar Assad and to Russia; they love Tony Blair and Mme Clinton. A left-of-Labour luminary Nitzan Horowitz attacked Putin in terms you’d expect to hear from an American neo-Conservative. Putin is a “macho” (probably the worst word in the gay Zionist lexicon), he is an ex-KGB. “It is the primarily the United States and the U.S.-led Western coalition that is bombing Islamic State targets. Only a small portion of the Russian assaults have been against ISIS targets. By chance? By accident? No. And no. Putin is mainly attacking the moderate pro-Western Syrian opposition groups”, writes Horowitz.

Palestinians do support the Russian offensive in Syria. The students hope Putin will save Palestine, too. They admire this strong man of Russian politics. But Putin is not keen to make Israel an enemy. The Russians do work in Palestine; building culture centres, taking young people to study to Russia. They work with the PNA and with Abu Mazen, the man vilified by the Israelis as the inciter to violence.

Abu Mazen is not a very efficient or a popular ruler. His term of office ran out years ago, but he still sticks to the president’s chair. The Israelis do not allow new elections; it seems he is not very keen on it, either. His grip on his own party, the Fatah, is weak; many Palestinians prefer Hamas, the Palestinian offshoot of the Egyptian Ikhwan, the Muslim brotherhood, who are perceived as honest, clean, non-corrupt and caring for the poor. Abu Mazen and his milieu are neo-liberals; the wealthy grow rich, the poor stay poor. While strong on nationalist rhetoric, they are not concerned with social justice. The talk about poor and rich divide is a taboo in Palestine.

The nationalist agenda is in decay, too. Palestinians are annoyed by Abu Mazen’s declaration that “security cooperation with Israel is a sainted and untouchable tenet”. They consider him weak, inefficient, and – for some – even an Israeli puppet. Netanyahu undermined his position, and now Abu Mazen probably is not able to do much. His diplomatic game in the UN goes on, slowly and rather successfully, but it is not translated to the facts of the ground. “We hate Abu Mazen”, say the bright young people in Bethlehem and the street urchins fighting the soldiers in one voice. The intifada will be not only against Israelis, but against the PNA, as well, people tell me.

The Palestinians need, want and deserve freedom of movement, jobs, decent life, end of discrimination, basic equality with Jews. Their situation pushes some of them, the more desperate ones, into suicide attacks of Jews. They have no weapons, so they use knives. Such attacks usually end with death of the attacker. This mini-intifada of knives, or of el-Aqsa, is still a single-man (or woman) fight. No political movement stands behind this housewife or that kid with a kitchen knife. Remember, that during the Intifada of 2002, Fatah and Hamas supported the rebellion; not so now. Only in the second month of the upheaval, the Palestinians used guns in a few ambush attacks.

Netanyahu tries to push them to insurrection. At first, he sent his bulldozers to uproot millennia-old olive trees off the church land near Cremisan Monastery. The land will be used for a new Jews-only settlement. The Jewish fanatics burned the Church of Loaves and Fishes at the Sea of Galilee shore, and naturally they were not found. The settlers burned alive a Palestinian family – an eight month old baby, his elder brother and parents – in Duma village and they weren’t detained either, though their identity was known to the authorities. The Jewish government permitted to shoot at Palestinian children from Ruger 10/22 sniper rifle and casualties grew, notably a Bethlehem kid Aboud Shadi.

Aunts aren’t gentlemen, wrote P G Wodehouse. Jews aren’t, either. The idea of fair play, or some rules, of sportive behaviour even at war is totally foreign, “goyish”, for Jews. They are after results; for them, the goal always justifies the means. They use ambulances to get close to their targets. A few days ago they came to a Hebron hospital disguised as a Palestinian family accompanying a woman giving birth. While inside, they snatched a wounded man from his bed and shot his relatives dead.

They really do not care for sanctity of hospitals or churches, of children and women. There was a Christian hospital to the South of Bethlehem; the Jews established a fictitious Swedish church to buy the hospital and the land. Afterwards, the “Swedish church” disappeared while the building was transferred to the settlers. The man behind it was the infamous Mr Irving Moskowitz, the US Bingo king, but this thieving deal was approved by the Jewish state.

The Palestinians are too nice to do such nasty things. But in the end, God will not allow injustice to win. Jewish karma will make them pay for their evil deeds. Pity that so many people will suffer until things are settled.

First published in The Unz Review

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel/Palestine

« Older Items

About Israel Shamir

Israel Shamir has written extensively on public affairs, primarily relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict and Russia, including three books, Galilee Flowers, Cabbala of Power and Masters of Discourse available in English, French, German, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Norwegian, Swedish, Italian, and Hungarian.

He describes himself as a native of Novosibirsk, Siberia, who he moved to Israel in 1969, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war, afterwards turning to journalism and writing. During the late 1970s, he joined the BBC in London later living in Japan. After returning to Israel in 1980, Shamir wrote for the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, and was the Knesset spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party (Mapam), also translating and annotating the cryptic works of S.Y. Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winning writer, from the original Hebrew into Russian.

His perspective on the Israel/Palestine conflict was summed up in The Pine and the Olive, published in 1988 and republished in 2004. That same year, he was received in the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem and Holy Land, being baptised Adam by Archbishop Theodosius Attalla Hanna. He now lives in Jaffa and spends much time in Moscow and Stockholm; he is father of three sons.

Personal

Classics

The Fateful Triangle: Russia, Ukraine and the Jews

Israel Shamir

• 114 Comments

• Reply

The French Spring

Israel Shamir

• Leave a Comment

Winnie the Pooh on Immigration and Race

Israel Shamir

• 2 Comments