ISRAEL SURROUNDED BY THE ARAB SPRING

HOW WILL THE STILL UNFOLDING EVENTS in North Africa and Syria affect the state of Israel?

            As the many thousands of followers of my blog know, I am a supporter of , and a believer in the existence of the state of Israel; and when it comes to writing about Israel I do so as a partisan source adding my humble perspective on the unfolding events of the Arab Spring.

            In answer to my question at the beginning of this piece; well it seems that the American President chooses to think that out of the unfolding chaos of the Arab Spring will emerge a tapestry sympathetic to friendly relations with Israel.

            This I very much doubt. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood is edging its way toward power by declaring its intention to stand for election to a democratically elected Egyptian parliament. The Brotherhood will no doubt use the previous president, Mubarak’s friendly relations with Israel to their own advantage in so doing.

            The Egyptian people do not support the state of Israel and resented their previous president’s relationship with it. They will however support a moderate party to govern them, providing the terms of such moderation include an unreceptive attitude toward the Jewish state. Which means that all the parties contesting Egypt’s future election, will have to accommodate themselves with such a popular will.

            This of course need not prove fatal to the chances of  secular  parties eager to continue with an accommodation with Israel; providing they master the subtleties of political rhetoric, most useful at election time, as we in the West know all too well.

            I am as ignorant of the current situation regarding the political parties in Egypt as I am about the workings of a tsunami; but both may come to the same arrangement regarding their destructive potential when it comes to Egypt. So I am not as sanguine as the American president appears to be regarding the unfolding dramas in the Arab world and their impact on Israel.

IN SYRIA, THE events currently unfolding may presage an outcome even more dangerous to the Jewish state’s existence than those being enacted in Egypt. Even President Netanyahu has proffered the adage - better the devil you know, when it comes to overthrowing Syria’s present incumbent,  Bashar al-Assad.

            Israel is surrounded by enemies, and since 1967 with their victory in the Six Day War, as well as their victory in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Egypt in particular, has sought closer ties with Israel to their mutual advantage. But the Egyptian people resented their leaders association with the state of Israel. To the Egyptian people both the Six Day War and Yom Kippur were humiliations that had to be avenged.

            Of course, the Arab Spring has cast its net far wider than Egypt and Syria. But as far as Israel is concerned, it is how the dice will fall in these two Arab countries that will concern them the most.

            President Obama’s observation of concordance seems over optimistic and somewhat premature. I say this because, if they so manage to take advantage , the Muslim world will have no better opportunity than they have now in trespassing upon not only Israel but the infidel West.

           

IN THE MUSLIM WORLD today, the rising power is Iran. It is Iran that will lead any future attack upon Israel under the flag of Islam.

            Iran has, through Hezbollah, made Lebanon her satellite. Israel’s northern border is now endangered by Iran. Hezbollah’s weaponry is supplied by Iran. According to Israeli intelligence, Hezbollah has some 50,000 rockets hidden within civilian areas of  southern Lebanon ready for use.  Iran is also perfecting nuclear weapons and the missiles capable of carrying them into Israel.

            The West knows this is happening. It is not some kind of misinformation dispersed by Israel. But the West lack the will to act against Iran; and will not consent to an Israeli attack upon Iran’s nuclear capability.

            So Israel has to do what she has had to do since the first intifada and, sponge-like, soak up the animosity of the West’s elites.

BUT WHAT IF IRAN can convince the people of the Arab Spring that they have the means of destroying the Jewish state and returning the Palestinians to what will undoubtedly become once more, over time, what they consider their sand ridden homeland?

            Could the people of Egypt and Syria join what would become a Muslim triumphrate with Iran and do what their ancestors could not do, and rid the Middle East of Jewry once and for all. Such an appeal, given Iran’s military power, might just appeal to enough Egyptians and, if they prove successful against Bashar al-Assad, enough Syrians.

            This scenario hopefully may not come about, but it is a possibility that, if not the American president, then hopefully the Israeli president is considering. There will come a time when the West will come to regret preventing Israel from destroying Iran’s nuclear programme in its infancy, as Israel once did with Syria’s.

                         

REVOLUTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

YOU WAIT DECADES FOR a revolution then seven come along all at once. The Middle East at the moment can be compared to Europe immediately following the First World War, when the kings departed the continent driven by failure and social unrest. Russia became the Soviet Union, while Germany briefly courted revolution; and the Hapsburgs found themselves without a throne to sit on.

            Monarch after monarch paid the price for turning Europe into a blood-bath where some 20 million young men were sent to their graves at the behest of Monarchic feuding.

            Today in the Middle East Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Yemen and Algeria, are all enmeshed in upheaval and nobody has a clear view of any future beyond today for these countries.

            The West in particular nervously awaits the verdict of history in a part of the world where it has so much at stake, and where, if the tide of history turns against it, the West will have to do more than sit on the fence and pray.

            But it is not only the West, but also militant Islam that is trying to decipher the runes on an almost daily basis. For Iran is hoping that the tide will eventually turn in its favour, and it can be at the centre of an Islamic empire bent upon the destruction of the infidel and the Jew.

            In all of these countries those people protesting are calling for democracy to be instated and free speech to be its only master. Such an arrangement would indeed suit the West, but it could also suit militant Islam.

            If, through the ballot box, an Islamist party were to be elected , would such a party be willing to relinquish power through the ballot box once its term in office came to an end?

            In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood are making all the right noises in order to be part of the democratic process. For if polls are to be trusted, the Brotherhood would be a formidable opponent for any secular  party to compete with in that part of the world; and if they earn the right to govern and do so with a radical Islamic agenda, they will not want to be removed from power.

            In the Islamic world democracy is little more than a means to an end for the Islamists who seek to bring the world to Islam - just as in the West communism sought the same goal and needed only one election in Russia to govern it for the next 70 years.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD  no doubt sees Iran as  pivotal  in the unfolding events. Like the old Soviet Union, which saw itself as the Sun around which all communist nations were mere satellites; so Iran would like to see the Islamic world.

            Iran’s purpose at the moment is to help Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and al-Queada to take on Israel and the West. But what if the outcome of the unexpected upheavals in the Middle East manage to expand its influence beyond terrorist groups to whole nations and peoples in the Islamic world – what then for the West?

            We in the West have never been weaker than we are today when faced with such a threat from the Islamic world. If the Islamic world managed to speak with one voice (which is what Ahmadinejad wants), and that voice sought the destruction of the West; the Islamic world could conquer. Never in its history has Islam had such a chance to conquer Europe. In the past Europe managed to halt such an expansion in its tracks. But today the Islamic world could not be stopped, if it so desired the conquest of its faith over all others.

            Europe’s frailty of leadership with its opening up of its boarders to some 15 million Muslims; with the prospect of a further 80 million more joining from Turkey if allowed entry to the European community, shows just how strong Islam is in the modern world.

            We in Europe are highly vulnerable if the events unfolding in the Middle East meet the expectations  of the Iranian leadership. In this country, for instance, our politicians, policy wonkers and civil servants, have fretted about how our Muslim population of over two million people would react to racial slurs, charges of Islamism and any reference that could upset their population.

            We have allowed and still allow foreign Imams to teach and preach hatred of the kaffir in our Mosques. While the Mosques have become no-go areas where the law is forbidden to walk  for fear of upsetting the Muslim community. We have allowed such a circumstance to come about because we have allowed over two million Muslims to live among us and now our leaders fear an explosion of resentment and so prefer to bury their head in the sand rather than to confront. Confrontation is anathema to our leaders who still think that Islam can be made docile like the dear old Anglican church and be drawn into our ways.

           

THE EVENTS unfolding in the Middle East are crucial to what the world will look like in two or three decades time. Islam is a proselytising faith that, like Christianity, seeks to convert the world to its way of seeing things. In the past Christianity tried to bring about such conversions by means of force.

            It was a medieval method of advancement that eventually met its match with Reformation – still, Christianity has survived in all of its many aspects, until today.

            But Islam has not been put upon by any Reformation. It has not been so restructured. So it flourishes today in its  medieval  armour. Its whole  presence in the modern world may be antediluvian, but its advancement is real and dangerous .

            The President of Libya , Colonel  Gaddafi , once said that all the Muslim world had to do was sit and wait; demographics would do what was needed as far as the West was concerned. He was of course referring to the millions of Muslims living  in Europe and the West generally?

            The Libyan President may prove to have been somewhat complacent if he ends up like Mubarak. But nevertheless he will have delivered, in a moment of lucidity, a profound  insight to those in  the Muslim world engaged upon the world’s Islamification through violence.

           

           

           

           

           

            

EGYPT ON THE BRINK OF…

THE TRUTH IS NOBODY,  whether politician, seasoned correspondent or academic specialist of the Middle East, knows where the events unfolding in Egypt will lead.

                Western leaders, who have to sound authorative, are as bemused and as ignorant as their civil service advisors are about where this will all end. Predicting the outcome of revolution is like calculating the roulette wheel.

                One thing however is for sure. Waiting upon the outcome must be causing sleepless nights in the corridors of Western power. Of course, the elephant in the Oval Office as well as Downing Street, is the possible rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Egypt once President Hosni Mubarak goes.

                The Muslim Brotherhood are popular with the Egyptian people and would prove disastrous for the West if they were to win any democratic election, if and when President Mubarak departs. If they gained control of the country, what would their attitude be toward Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria?  Would the military allow them to rule if they embraced sharia law and tried to turn Egypt into a theocracy?

                There is no doubt that the West would have liked President Mubarak to stay in power  while pursuing a reforming agenda. But if such a proposition carried any credibility at the beginning of these troubles, it has long since lost both its attraction and any possibility of ever happening.

                However, I believe many leaders in the West have a soft spot for Mubarak’s  former intelligence chief         Suleman who has just been appointed vice-president. From what I have read of this man, he would continue  Egypt’s friendly relationship with the West.

                He is seen as a moderate who is also respected by Israel, which has had many dealings with him in the past on Mubarak’s behalf.  Suleman’s contribution to the stability of the Middle East, it seems, cannot be underestimated, and the West would breath a lot easier if it was dealing with ‘President’ Suleman.

                But alas, the people correctly associate  him with Mubarak and would therefore reject him if given the chance through a secret ballot. Which brings us to Mohammed ElBaradei, the Nobel peace laureate who the people do see as a credible opposition leader.

                The trouble with Nobel peace laureates, is that they either lack credibility (Kissinger) or are trusting idealists who are vulnerable to drowning in the choppy  waters of political power. I am as ignorant of Mr  ElBaradei’s  qualities or qualifications to run Egypt. I know nothing of his party, or even if he has one; if not who would he appoint as president to help him govern?

                Mr ElBaradei, if he becomes the people’s choice, will have to form a government with… who? Will the Muslim Brotherhood have a role to play?

THESE ARE DESPEATE TIMES indeed for the West as well as Israel. I believe that Egypt’s fate has a greater significance for the West than had the fall of the Soviet Union. Egypt has been pivotal in orchestrating peace in the Middle East for the last 30 years. Mubarak was trusted by Israel as was Sadat before him. Both leaders knew that an accommodation would have to made by the Arab world with the state of Israel; even if, at times, it meant putting the Palestinian cause on hold.

                Those like Mr ElBaradei  give priority to the interests of the Egyptian people whose condition has fallen into dreadful decline during the Mubarak years ,while we in the West look and have to take cognisance of the big picture.

                The big picture for the West is this. If  Egypt were to fall into the hands of an Islamist party hell bent, like communism, upon the belief that their religion must encompass every acre of the planet, then the West will have a battle on its hands.

                Israel will have to contend with an invigorated Islamist Egypt as well as Hamas and Hezbollah. Added to this mixture would be Iran and Syria with al-Quaeda and the Taliban    stirring the pot in Afghanistan.

                With so many followers of Islam now living in the West, a Muslimist Egypt would represent the best opportunity for the Islamic world in 500 years to advance their faith into the West.

                As a Western citizen I obviously feel for the Egyptian people and truly believe that were    Mr Suleman to be allowed to govern transitionally until Egypt once more found its way by some kind of democratic mandate, then this would be the best outcome for Egypt and the world.

                Mubarak is estimated to have had stored away some $20 billion according to  the Daily Telegraph. He should depart and leave his vice-president to seek a democratic way forward for the Egyptian people. Let him keep his loot as many a dictator has been allowed to do in the past. He may have served the interests of the West well, but was it because he, like the West, believed that the interests of the Middle East was best served by an understanding with Israel, or was he more interested in the West’s money?

THE PRESENT CRISIS will be resolved one way or another, as the West awaits its fate. A fate which will determine whether military conflict with Israel will replace the uneasy concordant between Egypt and the Jewish state.

                The possibility of military conflict between the West and Islam is what the Western leaders most fear. They do so partly because, especially in Europe, Muslims have been encouraged to take up residency. In Britain for instance the current Muslim population will double over the next  30 years to 5 million. While in the rest of Europe there are currently some 15 million Muslims with the prospect of a further 80 million joining them from Turkey.

                In Europe this advance has been due to ‘moderate’ politicians who believe in a Multicultural society. This enterprise has lead to the creation of the apostate among leading European politicians. The German Chancellor, Angela Murkel has recently owned up to Multiculturalism’s failure in Germany.

                In this country the outcome of Egypt’s revolution is perhaps more eagerly awaited than in most other Western nations. If, for instance, Mr  Suleman leads an interim administration until elections can be held, then the UK can breathe a sigh of relief until the Egyptian people have their say through the ballot box.

                What would then be considered a favourable outcome for the UK with 2.5 million Muslims in residency on its shores is indecipherable . But no doubt whatever the outcome, our Foreign Office will paint as pretty a picture as ever appeared from the palette of Monet… in order to safe- guard our cultural diversity.

                 

                

Then come Luvvies lets rally

THE GUARDIANISTAS AT THE BBC are threatening to strike during the Tory Party conference if there is no compromise over their pension entitlement. The BBC wants to scrap its final salary pension scheme, as so many millions have had to do in the private sector.

            I hope the unions do as they have promised and black out coverage of the Tory’s annual jamboree. It will be the perfect reflection of the staff’s leftist sympathies and confirmation, if one were needed after the Director General’s admission last week, of the corporations ‘earlier’ liberal bias.

            The BBC acts like a colonial power both in its attitude and outlook. First of all it perceives itself as a force created by nature, if not by God - they do however feel themselves to have an almost Divine Right to exists as did our ancient monarchs.

            The institution has grown fat on the public tit in the past due to the largesse of the British public via the political parties who have used it to cajole and threaten it at every opportunity when the license fee comes up for renewal.

            There has however, now been a two year freeze put on further increases to the licence fee by the Coalition. This has lead to various warnings from the BBC about the renewal of popular drama series from America as well the purchasing of films. What the BBC does not understand is that if such programmes are so popular with the British people and have been made no longer affordable, then they will be readily be bought up by ITV or Sky.

THE BBC HAS BEEN one big comfort zone where money has never had to be competed for. It has always been spoon-fed to them by the public who have had no choice on threat of imprisonment but to pay up if they wished to be entertained by any channel.

            I have heard the BBC described as either Kafka’s Castle or Gormenghast. Both titles are of course unfair, but they exemplify the character of a state run enterprise; and the BBC is such an enterprise.

            If any institution receives its finances from the public purse via the politicians, then it is, as a creative industry, to be despised. The BBC’s arrangement was for a different time in our history; a time when the nation had its back to the wall, and at a time when, in the desperate days of the early post war years when rationing depressed the nation, the BBC lifted spirits.

            As the sole broadcaster of the nation, the BBC added extra warmth to the post war coal fires. It was an admirable institution for this phase in our social history, but when the commercial sector arrived and competition was introduced, the BBC found it increasingly hard to justify taxing the public.

            There is no doubt that the BBC has many millions of supporters and would no doubt flourish well into the future if the public were to be given a choice about the payment of the licence fee. Instead of demanding it; if the BBC were as popular as they perceive themselves to be, then surely they can do as any other broadcaster has to do – survive in the market place of broadcasting by subscription or advertising - or both.

            If we were living in a socialist dystopia the BBC would serve a valuable purpose for the Central Committee of such a wretched society. But thankfully we do not and hopefully we never will.

            So let those BBC employees who think the nation will be brought to a halt through their industrial actions proceed – I will even stand on the picket line with them; be it in Norwich.

            My only reservation is not that the BBC will cave in to these little emperors working for them – an event that in all probability, will happen:  but I hope that the Conservatives will not find a way of doing so in order to save their wretched gathering. This I dearly hope  will not happen because other broadcasters will cover the conference on their behalf, and will reach as many of the electorate as the BBC -  which is probably minimal.

            If the BBC has a future then it has to be in the market place, like any other broadcaster. It cannot go on demanding money from the people of this country with threats of imprisonment.

THOSE WORKING FOR the BBC who threaten to strike should be encouraged to do so by the Conservative part of this governing coalition. There is no need to bully or pressurise  the BBC. Just give them enough rope to hang themselves with. Let the BBC’s employees do whatever they wish; it all gives added fodder to the Right’s argument.

            I cannot believe that millions of British taxpayers who consider themselves of a centre right conviction, should be forced to contribute to a liberal institution on fear of imprisonment. If this is not a Kafkaesque situation, then I do not know not what is.

            The BBC should be put adrift along with its employees to survive in the commercial world freed of any political interference from any of the political parties. The BBC should welcome this and be given a final years £3 billion to make the changes from a state regulated institution to a private, profit making company.