American Jewish leaders: Speak up now or be damned

Isi Leibler 10-22-15

It is now evident that, by and large, the Jewish establishment has adopted a policy of deafening silence in relation to condemning or protesting against the virulent one-sided political attacks and sins of omission by the Obama administration concerning our barbaric adversaries. It is only the outspoken Zionist Organization of America and minor fringe groups that have been directly speaking out against the Obama administration’s intensified anti-Israel rhetoric. Until now, I had a nagging suspicion that the failure of American Jewish leaders to confront the biased Obama administration attacks on Israel was not merely a reasoned strategic approach. But aware of their devotion to Israel and having witnessed their former stalwart defense of Jewish interests, I was reluctant to conclude that fear was their primary consideration. But the ongoing silence by the Jewish establishment in relation to the current disgraceful behavior of the Obama administration, its secretary of state, and State Department spokesmen, is incomprehensible. Today Israeli Jews are confronted by frenzied psychotic young Arabs who have been brainwashed into believing that murdering innocent Jews will deliver them directly to paradise and transform them into glorious martyrs. This barbarism, inculcated by hideous indoctrination from kindergarten and subsequently nurtured in the mosques and throughout Palestinian social media, is creating monsters. It is publicly sanctified by Abbas, who has whipped up a frenzy on the insanely false allegation that Israel is bent on destroying Al-Aqsa mosque and building a Jewish temple on its ruins. The demonic madness is fortified by the heroic profile the Palestinian Authority adopts in relation to the killing sprees and which Abbas refuses to condemn. The perpetrators are also aware that if they survive, the PA will pay them generous salaries in prison and provide pensions for their families. Under such circumstances, one would surely expect leaders of the civilized world to condemn these Arab murders of innocents. But aside from lip service condemning “violence,” world leaders and global organizations have, at best, adopted a sickening morally relativist position in which Jewish victims are equated with their murderers. Until now, the United States took pride in defending Israel and proclaiming its shared values and common democratic Judeo-Christian heritage. Even though there were occasional policy differences between the countries, Israel considered itself a true ally of the U.S., irrespective of whether a Democrat or Republican occupied the Oval Office. Since Barack Obama was elected president, in his obsession to build bridges between the U.S. and Islam, he sought to demonstrate that there is daylight between Israel and America. His Third World outlook also led to his abandoning long-term U.S. allies and groveling to Islamic fundamentalist terrorist states like Iran, mistakenly believing that by appeasing them, they will become more moderate. Over the past month we have witnessed the climax of the U.S. political abandonment of Israel. Obama, who repeatedly condemned Netanyahu for remarks made in the heat of an election even after he had clarified and withdrawn them, has emboldened the Palestinian extremists by failing to utter a single condemnation of Mahmoud Abbas for his vicious ongoing incitement and calls for Jewish blood. Worse still was Secretary of State John Kerry, frequently referred to as an unguided missile, who made a series of inexcusable demented remarks. He refused to apportion the blame for the killings and even hinted that the Israelis had brought the violence upon themselves. He related to “violence on both sides.” Both sides? He claimed that the Palestinian killings had been ignited by Palestinian “frustration” over the failure to negotiate a two-state solution and the “massive increase of settlements over the course of the last few years.” This bears no relevance to the facts as settlement building in the last few years has been dramatically reduced. The frenzied killers are unquestionably motivated by the incitement and lies being promoted insisting that Jews plan to destroy Al-Aqsa. Kerry also demanded that the status quo at the Temple Mount be upheld “in word and deed” knowing fully well that this has constantly been the policy of the Netanyahu government. Such ambiguous statements gives credence to the Palestinian lies. State Department spokesman John Kirby even accused Israel of violating the status quo on the Temple Mount – and thus effectively also fanning the inflammatory Al Aqsa frenzy and called on “both leaders” to combat the incitement which leads to a “cycle of violence.” He was subsequently forced to retract but the damage could not be undone. He also stated that the U.S. had “seen some reports of security activity that could indicate the potential excessive use of force” against the psychotic killers. To top off these outrageous outbursts, Obama made a statement assiduously avoiding use of the term terrorist and patronizingly endorsed Israel’s right to “protect its citizens from knife attacks” from “random violence (sic).” He then spat in our faces by effectively blaming both Netanyahu and Abbas for the incitement. For Israel’s one true ally to descend to such Orwellian depths as to place the Israelis in the same category as religious fanatics operating a killing spree is utterly contemptible, encourages the barbarians to accelerate their murderous activity and thus assumes a share of responsibility for the innocent Jews murdered in the days to come. To compound matters, the White House critiques also serve as a green light for Europe to pressure Israel into making further unilateral concessions which would undermine its security. Under diplomatic constraints, Netanyahu has instructed ministers not to respond to the shameful remarks by the administration and its spokesmen. But such restraints do not apply to American Jewish leaders. In the face of such a reprehensible attitude by the Obama administration to Israel at a time when psychotic murderers have been programmed to kill Jews in the streets, one would have expected the American Jewish community’s leadership to condemn their government and launch public protests. American Jews continuously stress that in the U.S. they can speak out as Jews without fear. Yet when it comes to criticizing Obama, despite the fact that the majority of the nation and both houses of Congress support Israel, a deafening silence envelops the Jewish leadership. I make these remarks in my capacity as a former Diaspora Jewish leader rather than an Israeli. I was head of the Australian Jewish community and Chairman of the Governing Board of the World Jewish Congress and have personally experienced the enormous pressures which can be exerted against a leader to be politically correct and avoid confronting his government when it adopts positions which lack moral compass and harm the interests of the Jewish people. But there is a time when leaders must speak out or be damned. The U.S. refuses to pressure Abbas to cease calling for the murder of Jews and instead engages in moral equivalency, holding victims and perpetrators equally responsible for the violence. No American administration has ever behaved in such an appalling manner toward Israel. Yet the sole response of the Jewish establishment, as manifested by the major Jewish religious movements in conjunction with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is to observe a “Sabbath of Jewish Solidarity.” This reflects the solidarity of American Jews with Israel during these difficult times but it is certainly is not an acceptable response to the administration’s lies and distortions. Unless American leaders speak up now, they will be justly accused of following in the footsteps of the American Jewish leader the late Rabbi Stephen Wise, who in 1944, under pressure from Roosevelt, remained silent when Jews were being murdered by the Nazis. It would be outrageous if a response is being withheld out of a desperate desire to maintain consensus at the lowest common denominator. Likewise, if the motivation is not to distress deluded Jewish liberal contributors or a concern about coveted access to the White House, these factors are simply irrelevant under the current circumstances. Principled Jewish supporters of Israel must speak out and protest now, even if this means dividing the community. If Jews remain silent in the face of the libels directed against the Jewish state by the administration, aside from failing to provide an example for their children, they will be betraying their responsibility as Jewish leaders.

Isi Leibler may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com

This column was originally published in the and

Islam and the Fall of Europe

By Jerrold L. Sobel, AMERICAN THINKER 10-20-15

{Reproduced from Israpundit.org }

A duality, Islam is first and foremost a political movement ensconced in a religion from which it expresses its imperialist nature through a multi faceted concept known as jihad.  Christian Europe today, among other factors to be discussed later, lacking cognizance of Islam’s millennial ploy of hegemonic control via emigration, is saddled with a demographic birthrate inverse to that of their new emigres.  Europe is in the throes of Islamization. Writes author Bat’Ye’or in her critically acclaimed work: Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.

“The ideology, strategy, and tactics of Jihad has constituted throughout history a fundamental part of Islamic Jurisprudence and literature, since it is through jihad that the Islamic community developed and expanded.”

She highlights a three point historical blueprint used for centuries to secure the fall and Islamization of earlier Christian societies throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe, and how these constituents eventually subdued the majority host populations:

1- As a result of “wars, conquests, temporary peace treaties, terror like practices and alliances” There was a “gradual erosion of resistance within societies targeted but not yet conquered by jihad.”   

2- “Insecurity caused by the constant mass immigration of foreign populations and the subsequent process of alteration and substitution of one civilization by another, hostile to the indigenous inhabitants.” 

3- The emergence of powerful collaborationist parties economically and politically linked with Muslim Rulers.”

Wars, conquests, temporary peace treaties, alteration of host societies, terror attacks, emigration, gradual erosion.  Sound familiar?

Keeping in mind, this book was first published in 2005, the author is not referencing today’s monumental mass immigration into Europe but those of earlier migrations subsequent to the Second World War.  The intent of this hijra is unmistakable.  It can be traced back to the dawn of the Muslim era and codified by the the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 628 AD.  This one event set the criteria, the pattern for international relations between Muslims and the Kafir  (anyone not a Muslim) to this very day.

The Treaty was between Muhammad from Medina on the Arabian peninsular and another tribe opposed to Muhammad, the Quraish from Mecca.  It was intended to end years of strife and warfare between the two sides subsequent to Muhammad’s banishment from Mecca.  In part It acknowledged: A 10 year truce; allowed for Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca whence originally they came; offered the Quraish the option of conversion.

Hudaybiyyah, quoted throughout the centuries is a traditional source of pride to Muslims; it’s been their rendering for conquest of non-Muslim lands for millennia.  Facing pposition to the Treaty by some within his group, Muhammad allayed fears by promising “great booty” in the near future.  True to his men, not so the Quraish, within two years Muhammad abrogated the treaty and conquered the city. Why is this relevant today?

As the archetype of Islamic conquest, Hudaybiyyah contains all the elements utilized in jihad to sap the strength of an indigenous population until it breaks:  incessant hostility; terror tactics; 10 year truces; mass emigration; exhaustion of host resources.  This tried and true approach will become the death knell for modern Europe.  Consonant with other aforementioned considerations, mass immigration by foreign Muslim populations is once again leading to one civilization, the Muslims, replacing another, Christians, Jews, and all other “non-believers” on the continent.

Permeated with guilt never shared for their Jewish inhabitants, the European Union (EU) is finally beginning to realize they have opened up the gates of their own demise. Efforts have begun to stem this unprecedented avalanche of Islamic immigration.  According to an article in the Gatestone Institute International Policy Council: “Germany’s Muslim Demographic Revolution,”

• “There are 20 million refugees waiting at the doorstep of Europe.”
• Mosque attendance in Germany has doubled.
• Muslim men “routinely take advantage of the social welfare system by bringing two, three or four women from across the Muslim world to Germany and are married by an Imam.” In accordance with Muslim doctrine the wealth of a country is degraded and usurped as:
• The married women demand social welfare benefits, including the cost of a separate home for themselves and for their children, on the claim of being a “single parent with children.

It’s worth quoting in full a requiem by Victor Orban, the President of Hungary:

“For us today, what is at stake is Europe, the lifestyle of European citizens, European values, the survival or disappearance of European nations, and more precisely formulated, their transformation beyond recognition. Today, the question is not merely in what kind of a Europe we would like to live, but whether everything we understand as Europe will exist at all.”

A prescient observation by a man recognizing the handwriting on the wall.  Orban acknowledges the insidiousness of this uncompromising, messianic movement and how it seeks not only eradication of host culture but its history as well.

Across his border, German Interior Minister, Thomas de Maiziere stated on August 19, “800,000 Islamic refugee migrants are slated to enter Germany in 2015; a 4 fold increase over 2014.”….the equivalent  of nearly 1% of its total population.  Orban concluded:

“Many of the migrants are from the Middle East and North Africa, a large number (40%) are from countries in the Balkans, including Albania and Kosovo. This implies that nearly half of those arriving in Germany are economic migrants, not refugees fleeing war zones.”

Germany is not alone and this is not new news.  According to the latest 2015 Pew Research Center research, the demographics of this latest migration breaks down the following way:

With an additional 1.5 million Islamic “refugees” expected to stream across the continent this year; 81%, 35 or younger, the alarm has finally gone off.  The European Commission and Turkey have agreed on a plan to stem the flow of refugees to Europe by patrolling Turkey’s frontier with Greece and setting up new camps, but in lieu of factors already mentioned, it appears too late for Christian Europe to recover.   Indeed all signs suggest the next 25 to 50 years will see the inevitable displacement and Islamization of Europe’s Christian population.  The predominant question to many minds is:  How did this happen?  Who made the pivotal decisions to allow such unrestricted immigration onto the continent?

HATRED AT ITS MOST INTENSE  

It is so important to watch this 5 minute clip from MEMRI to understand the depth of the hatred.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5098.htm

MAKE IT GO VIRAL.

Arlene Kushner writes:

Just in case you imagine that it is only the radical jihadists in Gaza that are supporting terror, I share this as well –which also needs to be publicized widely:

“The Palestinian Bar Association — which receives major funding from the United Nations and European Union — has decided to award an honorary law degree to Muhammad Halabi, the 19-year-old Palestinian [Arab] law student who stabbed two Israelis to death in Jerusalem’s Old City on Oct. 3 before being killed by Israeli security forces, according to a report published by the Middle East Media Research Institute on Sunday.

“The Palestinian Bar Association decided in its meeting today [Oct. 10] to award an honorary law degree to themartyred hero Muhammad Halabi and to hold its next [bar] swearing-in ceremony in [his] honor,” a Palestinian Bar Association statement said.”

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=28833

The Palestinians’ Death Culture Is Responsible for Recent Terror Attacks  OCTOBER 14, 2015  Tibor Krausz

Alaa Abu Jamal was dying to be a martyr — literally. So on Tuesday, October 13, he rammed his car into a crowd of Jewish pedestrians at a bus stop in Jerusalem’s Geula neighborhood, which is home to mostly ultra-Orthodox Jews. He then jumped out and proceeded to hack at two injured Jews with a meat cleaver. This Palestinian Arab terrorist murdered an elderly rabbi and severely wounded other Israelis before he was shot by an alert security guard. The entire attack was captured on a security camera.

What could have driven Abu Jamal to do such a beastly thing? Surely, it couldn’t have been desperation born of poverty and unemployment (the media’s favorite justification for Palestinian terrorism). Abu Jamal, it so happens, worked for Bezeq, the Israeli telecommunications company whose uniform he wore during the attack.

A clue about the Arab man’s true motivation emerged soon enough. Abu Jamal was a cousin of the two terrorists, Uday Abu Jamal and Ghassan Abu Jamal, who murdered four ultra-Orthodox Jewish men and a Druze police officer who came to their rescue at a synagogue in Jerusalem last year. Both terrorists were shot dead before they could kill more Israelis.

In an interview broadcast on Israeli TV shortly after that attack, Alaa Abu Jamal recalled how elated his family was to hear of the killing. “There were calls of joy among us and they passed out candies to the visitors who came and there was support for the two martyrs,” he explained. One of the cousins, 32, had been married with three children, but martyring himself while murdering Jews clearly took precedence over raising his children, who will doubtlessly be encouraged to emulate their “martyred” father. “Thank Allah for someone who dies as a martyr, that’s a great thing,” Alaa Abu Jamal said.

On Tuesday, Alaa decided to accomplish his own “great thing.” His friends and relatives must be passing out candies happily as we speak.

That’s what Israelis are up against: cold-blooded murderers who consider butchering random Jews to be the greatest accomplishment of their lives and a great honor to their family. It’s this culture of death and destruction that has left Palestinian society mired in a medieval mindset of martyrdom. In what other culture do family members celebrate relatives who murder random people? Is this what’s going to be the Palestinians’ unique gift to the world?

Many of the other stabbings have taken place in land that is clearly Israeli territory — from western Jerusalem to Ra’anana to Tel Aviv — so the media’s narrative about Palestinians fighting “settlements” and “occupation” also won’t wash.

The attackers — males and females alike, many of them teenagers — have routinely been described as “lone wolves,” but that’s a misnomer. They have hardly acted alone. Taught to hate Jews through poisonous cradle-to-grave incitement, they have the support of Palestinian society at large. On television channels, in mosques, and on social media, Palestinians have been calling on their brothers and sisters to murder Jews, along with giving detailed instructions on how best to stab them to death.

They’re allegedly acting in defense of the al-Aqsa Mosque, which is — of course — under no threat from Israel. The meme of al-Aqsa being attacked by Jews dates back at least to 1929, when the odious Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (one of Hitler’s closest allies) used the same excuse to incite murderous violence against the Jews of the British Mandate.

Nearly 100 years later, the spirit of the mufti is alive and well. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (who many claim is a “moderate”) frequently echoes him. “We bless every drop of blood spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah,” Abbas said recently on the Palestinian Authority’s official television channel. Peace in our time? It looks as though for many Palestinians, “peace” will come only when all the Jews are dead. The Grand Mufti would be proud.

Understanding Syria... this is input for your consideration, not answers

Understanding Syria

At one time my official duties required me to study the delicate mosaic of Syria….. a complex set of balances. Now, all I can do is offer you competing views as to the current situation and what the United States should do about it.

Below are two articles with very conflicting views and thus very conflicting recommendations as to US actions. 

 1.“Putin's model of success” by Jackson Diehl,

published Oct. 12, 2015. This article is reproduced as it appeared in Jewish world review a very useful republisher  of key articles. The publisher,Binyamin L. Jolkovsky, is dedicated and diligent and Jewish world review should be a must-read for anyone interested in the Middle East.  

2.     “Russia's Syrian entanglement: Can the West sit back and watch? “ Pavel K. Baev | October 9, 2015. This article is  reproduced as it appeared in Brookings' publication and is more likely the official understanding/position of the Obama administration.  

1.     Putin's model of success 

By Jackson Diehl  Published Oct. 12, 2015

Western officials who pronounce themselves puzzled about Vladimir Putin's intentions in Syria are missing some big clues. There is a clear model for the campaign Russia is pursuing on behalf of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a legacy that is Putin's pride: Chechnya.

The Muslim republic in the North Caucasus and the decade-long war that Putin launched there in September 1999 have mostly been forgotten by the outside world since the dictator installed there by Putin, Ramzan Kadyrov, consolidated control in the late 2000s. But the Kremlin regards it as a "good, unique example in history of (the) combat of terrorism," as Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's prime minister, put it. Chechnya, Medvedev said last year, is "one of the business cards of Russia."

What are the components of this winning formula? First, define all opposition to the prevailing regime as terrorist, indistinguishable from the most extreme jihadists. That enables a fundamental political aim: to eliminate alternatives. In Syria today, moderate and secular opposition forces arguably are getting harder to find. That wasn't the case in Chechnya in 1999. The country's nationalist president, Aslan Maskhadov, had won a democratic election, defeating an Islamist opponent by 59 to 23 percent. His predecessor, Dzhokhar Dudayev, was so secularized that he was unaware how many times a day Muslims pray.

Russia killed them both, along with every other moderate Chechen leader it could find, both at home and abroad. One was murdered in Vienna; another in Dubai. When Western leaders pressed Putin to negotiate with Maskhadov and other secular moderates, he invariably responded angrily. "Would you invite Osama bin Laden to the White House . . . and let him dictate what he wants?" he demanded of one group of Western visitors.

It should be no surprise that Russia's first Syria bombings have been aimed at the remnants of the moderate opposition. It's not just that they are backed by the United States; they represent a viable alternative to the Assad regime, and so, under Chechnya rules, must be eliminated. "He doesn't distinguish between (the Islamic State) and a moderate Sunni opposition that wants to see Mr. Assad go," President Barack Obama said after meeting Putin at the United Nations. "From their perspective, they're all terrorists."

The first stages of the Russian military campaign in northern Syria have followed a familiar pattern. Heavy bombing and shelling of civilian areas preceded scorched-earth sweeps, just as in Chechnya. According to a report on Chechnya by the International Crisis Group, "war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by (Russian) troops" included "indiscriminate shelling and bombing, secret prisons, enforced disappearances, mass graves and death squads." One common tactic, the report said, was "taking insurgents' relatives as hostages, subjecting them to torture or summary execution and burning their homes."

In short, Assad's forces and their Lebanese and Iranian allies may have to step up their already-notorious brutality to match Putin's tactics in Chechnya. But they may have expert help: Kadyrov has asked Putin to send his 20,000-member personal army, known as the "kadyrovtsy," to Syria. The state propaganda outlet Russia Today quoted him as saying he wanted "to go there and participate in special operations."

Kadyrov and his relationship with Putin offer another lesson to those wondering whether Putin is prepared to dispose of Assad - a prospect that Obama has repeatedly bet on. The Chechen strongman is, if anything, more sinister than the soft-spoken Assad; Kadyrov is known to do his own killing and torturing on occasion. He has solidified a cult of personality in Chechnya, extorts tribute from every business and citizen, and brazenly orders hits on his critics, from journalists and human rights activists to Russian politicians. Many believe him responsible for the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, gunned down near Red Square last winter.

Putin's response has been to offer Kadyrov not just tolerance but full protection. The Crisis Group reports that senior Russian security officials tried to undermine the Chechen by arresting his gunmen for the Nemtsov murder. Putin rebuffed them, awarding Kadyrov a medal immediately after the hit. "Unless President Putin's reputation is seriously damaged by his protégé, the rules of the game are unlikely to change," concluded the report. The same rules will apply to Assad.

Obama's principal response to Putin's new offensive has been to predict that the result will be "a quagmire." But Putin has heard that before. For years Western leaders warned him that the war in Chechnya was unwinnable, that the only solution was political. Putin nevertheless persisted through a decade and more of bloody fighting that cost Russia at least 6,000 military casualties and Chechnya uncounted tens of thousands. The result was the pacification he now trumpets as a "calling card." Don't expect him to give up anytime soon on a similar result in Syria.

 ***********

2.     Russia's Syrian entanglement: Can the West sit back and watch?  Pavel K. Baev | October 9, 2015 

• 
  

For observers who are confined by the boundaries of conventional strategic sense, every day of Russia’s military intervention in Syria brings fresh surprises. Indiscriminate strikes against Turkey-backed and CIA-trained opposition groups (which could not possibly be mistaken for ISIS) were followed by deliberate violations of Turkey’s airspace, and then by the spectacular cruise missile salvo from warships in the Caspian Sea. More astonishing turns are almost certain to come, prompting more reevaluation of the power projection capabilities that Russia brings to bear in this high-risk enterprise.

Good morning, Latakia

The intervention, which President Vladimir Putin preferred not to announce in his address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 26, could become an exemplar of achieving maximum political effect from very limited application of force. The three dozen or so combat planes deployed to the hastily prepared airbase outside Latakia perform 20 to 30 sorties a day. That would not have made much of a difference in the U.S.-led air campaign against ISIS that has been going on for more than a year. What makes a difference is targeting opposition groups of various persuasions that were not anticipating such treatment. This tactical surprise is by definition short-term, and in order to continue making a difference—and for the campaign to really resonate—Russia needs to escalate. 

The intervention...could become an exemplar of achieving maximum political effect from very limited application of force.

This will be very hard to accomplish. The composite air regiment on the no-frills airbase includes fighters and helicopters of at least five different types. That creates a logistical nightmare, since all supplies have to be shipped by the several naval transports from Novorossiysk and Sevastopol. Several transport aircraft can add only so much to this stretched supply line, so the intervention has to be aimed at achieving some tangible results as soon as possible. The deployment to Latakia of a squadron of Su-25 light fighter-bombers and a squadron of Mi-24 attack helicopters indicates that the main task of this force is not medium-range strikes on high-value assets (on which Russia has scant intelligence data) but close air support. Such a high-risk mission only makes sense if the government troops and Alawite militias launch an offensive operation, most probably aimed at securing the Latakia province from the attacks from the north, where the Nusra Front has been active.

A key condition for such an offensive is that the government forces—together with Hezbollah troops—can stabilize the front around Damascus, where Russian squadrons dare not to show up. Damascus remains the center of gravity in this mutating civil war, even if Latakia is of particular importance as the home-ground for the Assad Alawi clan. What makes control over Damascus more precarious than ever is the possibility that Russian intervention would compel various opposition forces—who until now have focused on fighting one another as eagerly as they fight the government—to unite against the “infidels”.

Sapogi in the sand?

The burning issue for the coming days is whether the lack of meaningful results from the air strikes would prompt the Russian leadership to deploy ground forces. This would follow the “mission creep” script typical of ill-conceived interventions. Putin’s denials of such plans only increase suspicions that under the guise of “volunteers,” units of special forces and then regular battalions would engage in a ground offensive. 

Two obstacles stand in the way of such rapid deployment. Firstly, despite the effective ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, the best troops in the Russian army remain concentrated in or near the Donbass war zone. The approaching autumnal draft cycle will deliver the usual sharp decline in the combat readiness of the ground forces, as the better-trained half of soldiers in every unit goes home and raw recruits fill the ranks. Secondly, transporting and supplying tanks and heavy weapons for even one battalion tactical group of about 1,000 soldiers would be an extremely hard challenge for the already-stretched capabilities for strategic air- and sea-lift. In domestic military exercises such as Tsentr-2015, troops and equipment were moved around primarily by rail. There is obviously no such connection to Syria.

[G]round forces...would follow the “mission creep” script typical of ill-conceived interventions.

Putin also knows that placing Russian military boots (or sapogi) in the Syrian sands would be very unpopular, and no amount of propaganda spin placed on the telegenic air strikes can secure a shift in public opinion. The Russian High Command can certainly try some other means of delivering strikes, for instance by the air-launched cruise missiles from the Tu-160 strategic bombers cruising at a safe distance from the battleground. A nuclear submarine can deliver a salvo of long-range cruise missiles from the Mediterranean, primarily in order to show the versatility of Russian power projection. But the role of ground forces most probably will remain limited to immediate protection of the Latakia base.

Calibrating counter-moves

For the United States, avoiding the temptation to over-react is still the key guideline. It stands to reason that the best response, when your opponent is sinking deeper in a blunder of its own making, is not to interfere. This past summer, the Russian Air Force had a dismal record of crashes caused by poor maintenance, and the high stress of the Syrian air campaign is certain to bring more of those. A series of terrorist attacks may shatter the security of the Latakia base, which makes it a very attractive target indeed. Rebels may also use Katyusha missiles for hitting the over-crowded airstrip. 

It makes perfect sense to let such disasters arrive in their due course, but there is one significant exception to this indifferent approach: Turkey. Turkey is deeply upset with Russian direct support to the Assad regime, outraged by the violations of its airspace, and threatened by the air war so close to its borders. Statements of support from NATO headquarters are not enough; at the very minimum, the decision to withdraw the batteries of Patriot surface-to-air missiles must be cancelled. When Estonia and Latvia came under Russian pressure last year, NATO gathered the resources and political will to bolster their security—and Russian air provocations on the Baltic theater have practically ceased. Turkey has every right to expect nothing less.

Finally, the United States and its allies could deliver a series of airstrikes on the Hezbollah bands around Damascus. That would be less confrontational vis-à-vis Russia than hitting Assad’s forces. Hezbollah has already suffered losses in the Syrian war and is not particularly motivated to stand with Assad to the bitter end, away from own home-ground in Lebanon. (Israel would appreciate such punishment, too.) 

Moscow will be hard-pressed to find a way out of its Syrian adventure. Order will not be imposed through force by dictators in the Middle East. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet shows there is another, and ultimately more effective, way. As order continues to erode in Syria, it wouldn’t be wrong for leaders in Washington to just let the Russians entangle themselves. But the United States has allies to worry about, too.

Pavel K. Baev
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe

Pavel K. Baev is a research professor at the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) and nonresident senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings. Before joining PRIO in 1992, he worked at the Institute of Europe in Moscow. His current research includes Russian military reform, Russia's conflict management in the Caucasus and Central Asia, energy interests in Russia's foreign, and security policy and Russia's relations with Europe and NATO.

When Terror Is At Your Doorstep

by Noga Gur-Arieh

Stone-throwing Palestinian youths stand next to a fire during clashes with Israeli police in Sur Baher east Jerusalem on Oct. 7. Photo by Ammar Awad/Reuters

I want to talk to you about fear. The kind that paralyzes you when, in the midst of a working day, you hear ambulances from outside the window, and everyone's phone starts beeping with Breaking News alerts, saying 5 people were stabbed, only two streets away, by a terrorist with a screwdriver.

This is when fear takes over, after a week of horror, with back-to-back terror attacks, when it happens right outside your window. First, you make sure everyone you know (and who live nearby) is okay, and not planning on walking home alone. Then, you wish your co-worker, as they leave the office to go home, to "stay safe," instead of "have a lovely weekend." And you can't work, and you can't think, because what you read about in the newspaper just got real.

You think about the dozens of families who lost their loved ones, who were merely walking down the street, in seconds. Their whole world turned upside down. And you can't help but think: "what would it be like if tomorrow, it's me, or someone I know?" You want to console, but you can't find the words, so you turn outside, trying to use every little bit of online power you have, to spread the word and make sure people know what's been happening here, so that they can put pressure on their leaders to stop encouraging terrorism by keeping silent.

Sadly, it doesn't happen. The attacks do get global coverage, but the kind that no one would be okay with if it happened in his or her country. "Palestinian shot dead after terror attack killing two." (True, but what did he do to deserve being killed?! Maybe committed that terror attack?) "3 killed in attack" (An act of God? How were they killed? Who attacked them? Why?) And then, you hear that UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon condemn the attacks, but did not say a word about the victims - Jewish Israeli who were brutally murdered, just for being Israeli Jews.

After a week of attacks, they're still being framed as "lone wolves who attack out of despair from the 'occupation'." But it's really not that. It is a wave of terror, perhaps a third Intifada even. It's just a new age of terror attack. The kind that looks "better" in the eyes of the media. Softer ("Just" 1-5 murdered,) and seemingly unorganized.

There you are. Sitting at the office, trying to plan your safe way home, thinking of the worst, and reading reports that make your guts turn inside out.  This is fear, true fear, of the possibility that it'll never end, because it is, in the most twisted way, being backed up by important figures and media outlets. Not literally, but in a way that leads the way for more, with no attempt to stop it.

Then, the fear mixes with rage, and all you want it so scream to the world: Stones can kill. Screwdrivers, too. And Israelis are under a wave of terror attacks. Ideology, despair, boredom- the reason doesn't matter. All that matters is the result. Terror must be called for what it is, firmly and confidently, with no hesitation.

This experience of uncertainty, of fear from the possibility of a next time, of the shock and the worrying that threatens to stop your heart from beating-all feelings we're already familiar with, and could never get used to.

May the memory of the victims be of blessing. 

AP Reporter Challenges State Department on Double Standards for Civilians Killed in Combat (VIDEO) http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/10/07/ap-reporter-challenges-state-department-on-double-standards-for-civilians-killed-in-combat-video/

OCTOBER 7, 2015 

State Department spokesman Mark Toner squirms as he answers the AP reporter’s question about U.S. double standards in relation to Israel. Photo: Screenshot.

The Associated Press’ Matt Lee tripped up State Department spokesman Mark Toner on Monday for appearing to hold the Israeli military to a higher standard than that of the U.S.

The challenge on the part of the journalist came in the wake of last weekend’s tragic U.S. air strike in Kurduz, Afganistan, which hit a Doctors Without Borders facility, leaving 22 dead.

Lee questioned Toner over a 2014 State condemnation of an Israeli strike over Gaza, which hit a U.N. shelter, saying that the U.S. was “appalled” by such “disgraceful shelling,” and that “the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.”

Toner tried to address Lee’s question by stating that the airstrike in Afghanistan was clearly unintentional, and that Lee should give him “a pass” until the investigation is carried out. At this point, Lee reminded Toner that the U.S. condemnation of the IDF strikes was issued before an investigation.

Lee asked whether the U.S. would call last weekend’s air strike “appalling and disgraceful,” to which Toner deflected and stressed the importance of carrying out an investigation.

Watch a video of the exchange below:

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/10/07/ap-reporter-challenges-state-department-on-double-standards-for-civilians-killed-in-combat-video/