World News

Hope and Change Hits Israel

W R Collier Jr February 16, 2015

Is President Obama Working Toward Regime Change In Israel?

Bill Collier- A new organization in Israel, manned by Jeremy Bird (who was the field director for President Obama’s 2012 campaign) is causing some to suspect that the President is seeking regime change in Israel. Recently, the White House pushed back on House Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak before Congress. It was argued by the White House that allowing such a meeting with the Prime Minister, and allowing him to speak before congress, would be “interfering” with Israeli elections.

The emergence of this organization has raised eyebrows about the claims by the Obama administration to be concerned about ‘interfering’ with the Israeli elections. The organization itself is well funded by “wealthy American Jews.” It is staffed in large part (and at the top leadership levels) by top operatives from the President’s Presidential campaigns in 08 and 12. The sole aim of the group is to unseat Prime Minister Netanyahu.

While the White House argued that meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu was wrong because it was close to an election it would appear that, at the very least, many of the US President’s political operatives are actively and openly engaged in an attempt to unseat the sitting Prime Minister. This charge, if true, is far more intrusive to the Israeli election than meeting with Netanyahu at the White House would be.

The organization, V-15 (meaning Victory 2015), is not associated with the main opposition party, Labor, and is solely focused on working against the current Prime Minister. As its source of funding is foreign, by its own admission, Likud, the party in power, is seeking to ban it from any further activities.

Netanyahu has also been accused of trying to unseat President Obama. During the 2012 election, an ad by Romney showed a picture of Netanyahu, while a voice-over stated, “The world needs American strength, not apologies.”

It was obvious at the time that Netanyahu was warm and cordial with Romney (whom he met with) even as his relationship with the US President was seen as tense, as it remains even more today. During that time, Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s spokesman, said that the TV spot had “not been coordinated with us, we were not consulted and no one asked us for our permission.”

There was not then and is not now, any accusation that either Netanyahu or his supporters provided expertise or funding for President Obama’s opposition.

The mysterious foreign-led and foreign-funded group has no ties to Labor, according to Labor Chairman Eitan Cabel, who said he knows “nothing about the group “ or its activities. But one organization noted to be working with the mysterious group is “OneVoice”.

According to the group- “The OneVoice Movement, founded in 2002, is an international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of Israelis and Palestinians, empowering them to propel their elected representatives toward the two-state solution.”

Until November of 2014, the US State Department admitted that they were providing funding to this organization, which observers note “has a clear and partisan political bias” in favor of the left. Funding of this organization by the US has itself been considered to be an act of “interference” in Israeli elections. The group notoriously targets the Israeli political process while doing nothing to promote a “two-state solution” among Arab politicians who lead Gaza and the West bank (Judea and Samaria) and who have consistently espoused a “one state” solution in which the State of Israel ceases to exist.

These assertions, that OneVoice is essentially an anti-Israel movement, have not prevented Palestinian groups from accusing the group of being a mere faux peace movement meant to serve the interests of the Jewish State. A Pro-Palestinian group called “Another Voice” accused OneVoice of being a front for American and Israeli interests back in 2007. But its track record of supporting leftist causes and being led by leftists puts it in the category of being more about promoting liberalism in Israel than peace between Arabs and Jews, in the eyes of many.

But Another Voice said this about OneVoice- “We did not care to demonize the individuals behind OneVoice, nor did we assume bad intentions on their part. However, we were, and continue to be concerned with simplistic, high profile initiatives that equate the occupier with the occupied, and that do not recognize Israel’s ongoing violations of international law, including gross violations of Palestinian human rights, which are the reasons behind the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian “conflict.”

According to Haaretz, “V15 is partnering with the pro-peace organization OneVoice. Its goal is to recruit thousands of volunteers who will go door to door before the election to persuade as many as one million people to vote to change the government.”

“Two candidates for the Knesset are among the heads of OneVoice – Yoel Hasson and Danny Atar,” said David Shimron, a lawyer and close confidant of the Israeli Prime Minister, at a recent press conference.

“Both of them are candidates of the Zionist Camp for the Knesset. OneVoice is financing V15. There is a clear political affiliation here. We can see a clear criminal act whose purpose is to buy the election with money that may not be used,” Shimron stated.

While State Department funding for OneVoice may have ended, as of last November, the amount of money has not been disclosed and, it is argued, that money is only now being deployed to support this electioneering.

V15 countered in its own statement, “Since Likud’s campaign staff has accepted the fact that Netanyahu has lost the field and the street, the party’s lawyers are trying to stop the energy and buzz around Victory 2015. We are bringing in innovative work plans learned from successful campaigns overseas. Obama’s ‘recruitment’ to the campaign exists only in the fevered brains of right-wingers and Likud. The Likud’s panic and paranoia from the right’s loss of the street to the V15 field operatives is not a reason for fantastic delusions such as a connection and cooperation with one of the parties or the American administration. We will continue to win and they will continue to whine.”

Regardless of this statement, it is clear that many of the President’s allies are engaged, that US taxpayer dollars went to OneVoice, and that the US President has done all he can to diminish the Israeli Prime Minister, especially regarding his upcoming speech before the US Congress. That speech is now being boycotted by the same American left who are so deeply involved in the organization seeking his ouster.

Meanwhile, US Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry met with Isaac Herzog, the Israeli opposition leader, while the Secretary of State, John Kerry, took the time to be photographed with Herzog. This occurred during an international security conference in Munich, Germany. Of note, this meeting, which Herzog claimed was not “scheduled” by either American official, also took place a month before the March 17 elections in Israel.

Engaging in regime change is not really a new thing for any state in the world, especially powerful states. It can be claimed that both the American and Israeli governments are active in trying to engage in each other’s political process. What has ruffled feathers among some is the denial by the current American President that this is not currently the case in the face of the overwhelming, if under-reported, facts on the ground.

Cuba Normalization Blindsides Congress

W R Collier Jr December 17, 2014

Normalization of Cuban-American Relations A Major Policy Shift

China Could Be Hard Hit By Cheap Cuban Labor

Bill Collier- While there has been bipartisan discussions about a new push to normalize relationships with the Cuban Communist regime in the interest of trade, the sudden and unexpected move has blindsided Congress. Only recently, Congress was assured that no such dramatic change in the US diplomatic stance regarding the Cuban Communist regime was in the offing, but in reality this promise was untrue. Plans to embark on this path of normalization had been conceived and were being worked since early summer of 2014.

Once again, a Presidential policy move is seen as undermining US law, which states that normalization of relationships and a lifting of the embargo against trade with Cuba must be presaged by Cuba adopting democratic reforms. The main purposes of this policy had been to marginalize Cuba in the region and to prevent Cuba from becoming economically powerful enough to finance a serious military threat to the US. After all, Cuba is only some 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

The move, if it goes through by Congressional support or by alleged executive fiat that is unchallenged, would also be a challenge to China. In short, US companies would have access to Cuba’s cheap labor market and one might expect to see “Made In Cuba” competing with “Made In China.”

While the President has not explicitly ended the embargo, it does expand the amount and type of agricultural products that can be exported, it allows for a higher amount of money that individuals can send to Cuban relatives from the US, and it allows for greater tourism travel. The President is expected to request that Congress ends the embargo. It is not known whether he will use the device of prosecutorial discretion to refrain from prosecuting individuals and entities which might violate the embargo.

On the diplomatic side, the State Department is being instructed to move towards establishing diplomatic relations and removing Cuba from a State Department list of nations that support terrorism.

On the Cuban side, the number of concessions appears to be limited to releasing an American prisoner who has been incarcerated in Cuba for 5 years and possibly another American who has been incarcerated for 20 years. There is no promise or agreement to institute any free market or democracy reforms, to do more to guarantee religious freedom and end the persecution of Christians, to allow freedom of the press, or any move away from totalitarianism. The entire purpose of the embargo was to encourage the Cubans to institute such reforms, whereupon the embargo would end.

The argument being made in support of this move is that such normalization will result in Cuban reforms, but this argument was used regarding China. In the case of China, the normalization of diplomacy and trade added legitimacy to the regime, gave the Chinese access to Western technology, and allowed them to grow their economy. The result of this normalization of relations with China has produced no noticeable liberalization of their political environment. Aside from purely cosmetic changes, the Chinese regime remains wholly undemocratic and continues to persecute ethnic minorities, especially Christians.

In short, there is no objective and clear evidence that President Nixon’s change in policy with China has come anywhere close to the goals which were given at the time the U.S declared this policy shift. In fact, it is argued, China has gained much more and the US and the West have lost much more out of the normalization process that occurred.

The Chinese, however, look on this development with some trepidation, though not through official channels. Cuban labor could substantially eat into their economic position. What is more, Cuban control over oil deposits in the Gulf which they are unable to exploit could result in more oil production in the Western Hemisphere to further erode the price of oil and undercut Middle Eastern suppliers and Russia.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the initiative announced by the President will succeed. Will Congress back the policy and even lift the trade embargo, and who will that benefit? Will the President use executive orders and executive memorandum to essentially gut the 1959 law that created the embargo by not enforcing it and, if so, will it be allowed to stand by what observers refer to as a supine Congress?

Salafist Gains In Global War

W R Collier Jr December 15, 2014

Islamic Salafist Is Winning Battles Against Freedom

The West Refuses To Fight An Ideological War

By Bill Collier- The Salafist forces, united on the Shia side around Iran and on the Sunni side by Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, continue their ongoing war against modern Muslim states and the states in the West, including America and the United Kingdom, with unrelenting fury. The Islamic Salafist war on freedom is being waged on every continent- it has resulted in numerous (and often misnamed0 acts of terror in the US and elsewhere, and has most recently raised its ugly head in a chocolate shop in Sydney, Asutralia.

Salafism, for those who are not familiar with the term, is a world-conquering pseudo-socialist and authoritarian ideology that utilizes only the earliest writings of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad as the basis for a worldwide revolution, or “Jihad”, against all non-Salafist states. The Salafist the modern Islamic notion of a more moderate and reformed religion in which later writers, or Surahs, which carry more weight in terms of interpreting Islamic law and doctrine than the earliest writing, This view of an “unfolding revelation” of Islam is the reason why some of the seemingly “bloody” texts of the Koran in its earliest sections are interpreted today by many Muslim scholars as having a more spiritual meaning. For instance, modern “Jihad” is viewed as an inner struggle to become more righteous and pure in the yes of Allah, not as a war against anyone on the outside.

The forces of Salafism, however, are in the ascent, not only in terms of their geopolitical and their propaganda gains, but also among rank and file Muslims, For instance, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian territories, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Turkey, and Islamic State (or ISIS) are all Salafist regimes of varuying degrees and of different types.

Among many Muslims around the world, the Salafist version of Islam is in fact gaining in popularity, it is no longer possible to say that “most Muslims do not agree with that” when it comes to Salafist ideology. Even in America, Abu Mujahid Fareed Abdullah of the Islamic Center of Connecticut is a Salafist scholar with a growing following among American Muslims. He was recently hosted at a seminar at The University of Southern California, espousing his Salafist ideology to an Islamist organization on campus that has over 350 members.

As Salafism grows in popularity, there remains no effective ideological response from the West, however Muslim states are beginning to push back and counter with their own ideological response, emphasizing that Salafism is a violation of Muslim teachings and ethics, for instance focusing people to convert or penalizing those who refuse. One Muslim state, the United Arab Emirates is quite vocal in its efforts to present a counter-ideology and Salafism remains largely unpopular among Muslims who live there.

Salafist gains on the battlefield in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have humiliated Muslim and Western States, which had portrayed their Salafist foes as on the fringe and on the run. It turns out they are no longer a “fringe” group among most Muslims around the world and they are certainly not “on the run.”

The recent release of a party-line Senate report, pushed by Democrats, attacking the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and disclosing information some have argued is useful for our enemies and not helpful in any debate regarding these techniques, has provided the Salafists with much propaganda material, especially in view of the fact that the West remains fixated on refusing to deal with Salafism on ideological terms. Some argue that it also provided actionable intelligence for Salafist forces and that it makes foreign governments extremely hesitant to share intelligence with the US in light of these disclosures regarding their prior and top secret collaboration.

During the recent hostage taking in Sydney, Australia, for instance, police refuse to acknowledge the motive of the hostage taker or the terrorist nature of the incident, despite the attacker forcing hostages to display a Salafist flag and demanding an ISIS flag be provided, thus clearly indicating that this was an act of Salafist terrorism.

Even the use of the term “Salafism” and information detailing the clear and undeniable difference between modern Islamic doctrines and Salafism has yet to be presented by most media or governments to the general public. There is no question of waging war on Islam, as such, but the lack of an effort to wage ideological war with Salafism, and the confusion caused by conflating modern Islam and Salafist Islam has caused many to withdraw from even criticizing Salafism for fear of being called “Islamophobic.”

When the American President said that ISIS was not “Islamic” his comments sounded absurd to most observers, after all ISIS calls itself the Islamic State, but his real failure was to not explain WHY one should refrain from calling ISIS “Islamic”: because “Islamic” is a broad term that is used to include both Salafist and non-Salafist Muslims. Not noting thatISIS does have an ideology, Islamic Salafism, obscures the difference between modern Islam and Salafist Islam and it fails to deal with the war against this Salafist aggressor on ideological terms.

Islamic Salafist forces are not united, which is likely a good thing given that, even in their disunited state, they continue to advance militarily, politically, and in their popular appeal to Muslims who are increasingly turning their back on modern Islam and embracing this dangerous ideology. A failure to confront Islamic Salafism head on as an ideology by both undermining its legitimacy claims and presenting a contrary ideology will see the continued advance of this dangerous and violent movement.

The attack in Sydney by an Islamic Salafist is only just the beginning of what is in store for many states, both Muslim and non-Muslim, which refuse to go along with Islamic Salafism but which also refuse to confront it on an ideological level.

Gaza War Slogs On

W R Collier Jr July 31, 2014

Netanyahu’s Failed Military Strategy Questioned By Some

Scroll to the bottom for any new updates…

ANALYSIS- WORLD NEWS- William Raymond Collier JR- Many IDF officers are privately questioning the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his conduct of the war in Gaza. The criticisms are aimed at what is seen as indecisiveness. The PM’s office often gives no greater guidance than to attack in response to rocket launches or, as some IDF officers complain, “none at all.”

The IDF leadership are firmly convinced they have the means and skill to finish Hamas off. But the moral high ground once attained by Israel to do this, with the blessing even of major Arab powers who loathe Hamas, is slipping away. It is feared that if things do not change, this war will end as the last one did, a PR victory for Hamas as it prepares for the next round. Indeed, gains won towards actually forging some common ground with Arab powers against the “Jihadist” (Salafist) threat could be ceded if this operation ends indecisively.

When the Prime Minister added as a military goal the limited destruction of the tunnels that go from Gaza into Israel, broad-based penetration of Gaza’s 25 mile western border with Israel had to be scrapped. This sudden departure from the original plan made hash of the IDF logistics and planning efforts. It also resulted in a makeshift and reactionary deployment that still lacks a real strategic focus. Simply going after rocket stockpiles and tunnels does not constitute a strategic aim. In fact, some argue it is not even a tactical aim.

The original plan was aimed at toppling Hamas. The IDF would make 3-4 rapier thrusts across the strip’s 4-7 mile width through areas in between built up areas. Tanks would lead the way and a minimum force would be needed to cordon off the built up areas, thus preventing Hamas from holding a unified command. Then the infantry, with armor support, would focus on one pocket at a time Here the objective would be to further sub-divide the populated area, using main roads for armored thrusts, going neighborhood by neighborhood to take out Hamas. Appeals would be made to civilians- give up Hamas and peace would be possible. The current plan is akin to the Germans invading France and stopping to destroy the Maginot line while the French Army retreated and regrouped. The Germans bypassed the Maginot line altogether and later had ample time to destroy the defenses without meeting resistance from a now-defeated French army.

The IDF have crossed into Gaza on a broad front, with some 22,000 troops and 300 tanks on a 25 mile front, going into built up areas, but staying within a 1/2 mile to a mile of the border. The operation is now focused on the environs around the border to find and destroy tunnels. Again, if we return to our comparison of the German invasion of France in World War Two, had the Germans stopped at the Maginot line and concentrated on destroying those fortifications, the French would have been able to recover and consolidate their force, blunting the Blitzkrieg action that ultimately led to the fall of Paris and the surrender of the French Army.

If Hamas, its leaders, its command and control locations, and its soldiers, were targeted, they would no longer be able to use the tunnels. Israel would be free to destroy the tunnels at their leisure. Netanyahu is focusing instead on those tunnels and assigning artillery and air power to issue salvos in response to either rocket firings or intelligence about rocket storage.

This is leading to civilian casualties. It is not depleting Hamas’s supple of rockets as much as is claimed, and it is putting the IDF at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, Hamas remains in tight control and has unitary command because, beyond Israel’s incursion zone, the Gaza Strip remains cohesive and all the separate population centers are connected by wire and road.

Had the original plan been utilized, and had 40,000 men been deployed, it is likely, many believe, that the casualties on both sides would be lower and Hamas would be defeated, giving the IDF all the time it needed to locate and destroy tunnels in an essentially “cleared” environment. The action would be more like civilian demolition that a battle. But Netanyahu inexplicably abandoned this plan and opted for a very limited and, for both sides, costly operation.

On the ground, his orders have removed Israel’s best asset, the tanks, as practical weapons and placed his soldiers in the places where his enemy wants to fight. In the air and from a distance, without people on the ground, he has been forced to rely on stand-off weapons which, by their nature, have less accuracy than people on the ground.

One thing, however, has not materialized. Hamas had claimed to have some new way to defeat Israeli armor and inflict serious casualties on the IDF. In reality, whle there have been IDF casualties, they have not been near as high as Hamas planned or hoped for and in close order battle Hamas fighters have been more prone to flee. That has not meant that the fight is all one-sided, but it is still tilted heavily in favor of the better armed and better trained Israelis. Hamas, for its part, is switching to a PR offensive now, realizing that the IDF has no intention, at least for now, of actually destroying them “city by city” as was planned by the IDF, and as was feared by Hamas.

Even as open press reports now reveal that many Arab powers are backing any plan that results in the toppling of Hamas, Netanyahu seems determined to keep them in power. And that has many in the Middle East scratching their heads. But look for a possible change of direction as Netanyahu faces growing pressures both from Israelis and from Arabs to “get the job done” once and for all. Such sentiments are not shared by Washington, but the events of the past few weeks have significantly reduced America’s credibility, standing and relevance to the players in the region.

Update: with the latest truce offer having been accepted for 72 hours, and twith the rhetoric out of Israel still focused on tunnels, it appears that Prime Minister Netenyahu has thrown away any grand strategic plan. Destroying the tunnels is not a strategic aim, it is, at best, a tactical gain won at the cost of a major diplomatic setback and undermining of Israel’s standing with Arab powers who might have considered Israel an unlikely (secret) ally against groups like Hamas. Israel is not serious about replacing Hamas.

Update 2: August 1, 2014
The 72 hour truce has not held. The Israelis say that Hamas sent fighters through tunnels who killed two Israeli soldiers and possibly abducted a third. Hamas says Israel broke the truce by sending artillery fire into Rafah, a city in the Gaza strip.

This broken truce, if indeed an Israeli soldier has been adbucted and two killed, could potentially give Netenhayu an opportunity to switch from a short game to a more strategic approach. But it is unlikely as the Prime Minister, who enjoys a 65% popularity rating, has doubled down on his limited plan by scolding cabinet ministers who have questioned his leadership. This has had a chilling effect on others, including IDF officers, who fear the Prime Minister’s wrath.

Most Israelis are not aware of the difference between the strategic plan described here, which military strategists might argue would have caused fewer casualties on both sides and end Hamas as an entity, and the limited tactical plan that targets only tunnels, rocket supplies, and firing sites.

It would seem that the Prime Minister is a wholly political animal who sees this war in purely political, and not military, terms and it may even be that the Prime Minister wishes to keep Hamas around because their actions delegitimize the Palestinians in general. Hamas does tend to delegitimize the Palestinians and as long as they are lobbing rockets Israel does not feel they have to resume real peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, although the cost is that Israelis will continue to live with rocket attacks and daily disruptions of their lives.

The Ebola Scare- Why America Is Safe

W R Collier Jr July 31, 2014

Is the Ebola Scare justified or not?

US NEWS- William Raymond Collier Jr- In March of 2014, Guinea announced the outbreak of the Ebola virus in their country. Since then ,732 people in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone have died, including Guinea’s leading Ebola doctor, who contracted the disease while treating patients.

Much has been said of the Ebola virus and there are fears that the virus could spread to the United States or Europe. The United Kingdom’s Cobra Committee, a committee which has special emergency response functions, has even met to discuss the threat.

There are fears that the virus could spread abroad from West Africa as people travel by air. In fact, Nigeria and many other nations have banned flights from Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. All three countries are launching massive public outreach efforts to raise awareness and isolate the outbreak. But the main problem for these countries stems from a substandard health care system and issues with early detection. If detected early, Ebola can, in fact be treated, but it requires a fairly sophisticated medical regimen that these nations cannot provide. Moreover, with proper sanitary precautions, the potential for an outbreak is also very limited.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, this is the treatment for Ebola- Standard treatment for Ebola HF is still limited to supportive therapy. This consists of:balancing the patient’s fluids and electrolytesmaintaining their oxygen status and blood pressuretreating them for any complicating infections.

Timely treatment of Ebola HF is important, but challenging, since the disease is difficult to diagnose clinically in the early stages of infection. Because early symptoms such as headache and fever are nonspecific to ebola viruses, cases of Ebola HF may be initially misdiagnosed.

However, if a person has the early symptoms of Ebola HF and there is reason to believe that Ebola HF should be considered, the patient should be isolated and public health professionals notified. Supportive therapy can continue with proper protective clothing until samples from the patient are tested to confirm infection.

This treatment regimen, as provided by the CDC, requires a sophisticated medical response and capability that is lacking in the affected countries.

Were an Ebola infected individual to arrive in the US or Europe, especially with existing screening measures, the likelihood of them contaminating someone else would be reduced simply because of existing sanitary measures. Once health officials determined they had Ebola, a fairly sophisticated system for finding and screening anyone they came into contact with is in place.

The virus spreads by more intimate contact. In other words, by bodily fluids or by eating or drinking anything the infected person has allowed to come into contact with bodily fluids, or by sharing utensils. In the West, our culture and our sanitary regimen mitigate against much of this.

To be clear- the virus is only transmitted via contact with such bodily fluis blood, urine, faeces, saliva, or puss (from open sores) – and thenfrom someone showing symptoms of Ebola.

If someone is infected and it is caught early on, treatment is known to work and, like any virus, Ebola is eventually killed by the body’s immune system. There is no “cure” other than to treat the patient as prescribed and allow their immune system to do its job, which eventually it will. So when you read that “there is no cure”, that is true, just as there is no cure for the common cold!

This does not mean that it is impossible for some people to initially catch Ebola from a foreign passenger and, if their infection is not detected, for some to even die. Exercising an abundance of caution when traveling to affected locations or when interacting with people who have come from those locations is prudent and necessary.

But once anyone has been discovered to be infected, in the US or Europe the regimens in place to quickly isolate them and find everyone they have been in contact with and the degree of intimate contact needed to become infected will severely limit any outbreak in the West.

The real issue and concern should be, after of course proper precautions have been taken at home, those people in the affected countries who do not have all these advantages and who are even now living in fear for their lives from this deadly outbreak.

An excellent article with interviews of health officials and statements from WHO and the CDC should also help allay fears. VOX Article On Ebola

US Diplomacy Stumbles In The Mideast

W R Collier Jr July 28, 2014

Kerry Fails in Ceasefire Negotiations between Israel and Hamas

WORLD NEWS

L to R- Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Qatari Foreign Minister Khaled al-Attiyah

William Raymond Collier Jr- In order to come up with a cease-fire agreement between Hamas and Israel, US Secretary of State John Kerry first made a stop in Paris on the 25th of July.

During this stop, he met with Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, as well as foreign ministers from Italy, the UK, Germany, and France. Present at this meeting were representatives from Qatar and Turkey, whose support for Hamas has upset many Arab nations and the Palestinian Authority.

Left out of this meeting? Egypt, the Palestinian Authority Israel, or any backers of Israel.

Increasingly, Egyptian and Israeli officials are accusing the US of taking sides with Hamas, led largely by Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. In the past, President Obama described Erdogan as one of his “closest friends.” Erdogan recently stated that the Israelis’ actions in Gaza “far outweighed” what Hitler did to the Jews.

Erdogan is in the process of setting up a presidential dictatorship, has been accused of sending arms to the ultra-Salafist group known as either ISIS or ISIL, and has even been making threatening moves against fellow NATO member, Greece.

In recent months, however, President Obama has not had much communication with Erdogan whom, in all fairness to President Obama, may no longer be held in the same esteem by the President.

This US coziness with Turkey, Hamas, and Qatar who are fast becoming pariahs in the greater Muslim world for their support of terrorist organizations, is making Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority nervous.

The Palestinian Authority is the sole legitimate ruler of Palestinian territories and was booted from Gaza by a localized military coup backed, it is now believed, with Iranian and Turkish money.

After his Paris meeting, evidently, Secretary Kerry took up what were essentially Hamas demands as a condition for a cease-fire and, through his personal presence, as well a “frank discussion” President Obama had with the Israeli Prime Minister, strongly pressured the Israelis to accept the deal. But since one of the conditions involves Egypt opening up its Gaza border to Hamas, it would require pressuring Egypt as well.

Egypt, the PA, and Israel have a version of a cease-fire they have agreed to, but Secretary Kerry, according to the Egyptians, “is digging a tunnel under Egyptian diplomacy.”

The Egyptian-PA-Israeli approach is to end hostilities, leave all forces in situ, allow the closing of Hamas tunnels to continue, and open a two week negotiation in Egypt brokered by Egypt and participated in by the PA, Hamas, and Israel. The Kerry-Hamas proposal allows Hamas to attack Israeli soldiers in Gaza, calls for opening the Egyptian border with Hamas, and calls for massive aid supplies to Hamas, along with Israel ending its anti-tunnel operations. It does not include a provision for Egyptian or PA involvement.

The Egyptian Government is still smarting over the US Government’s backing of the radical Salafist group, Muslim Brotherhood, which Hamas supports. The Muslim Brotherhood’s ouster from power by a dramatic popular uprising that included almost half the population hitting the streets, was condemned by the Obama Administration, even as it continues to support the radical Salafist group today, according to Egyptian sources.

By discarding the Egyptian led effort in favor of Qatar and Turkey, Secretary Kerry has won the ire of US allies in the region who are openly questioning which side the US is on, the moderate and peaceful Muslim nations, or radical Salafists groups, and those nation, Qatar and Turkey, which now back them?

Others argue that Kerry’s diplomacy with Qatar and Turkey stems from the fact they represent Hamas’ interests and that any notion that the US is taking sides is absurd. Kerry’s staff also accused the Israelis of leaking a cease-fire proposal before it was finalized. The Israelis have denied the charge by Kerry.

Qatar has earned ire from its neighbors for how it allegedly welcomed the 5 released Taliban terrorists released by the US as heroes, for the editorial content of Al Jazeera, which leans towards the Salafists, and for accusing the UAE of secretly working with Israel. Increasingly, many Arab Nations are becoming estranged from Qatar, including Saudi Arabia.

The net effect among regional powers, whether fair or not, is that US standing as an “honest broker” is being diminished because regional powers feel snubbed and are concerned that the US may be more favorable towards the enemies of her allies than they are towards their allies. This can be a complete falsehood but unless it is addressed head-on it could lead to a degrading of US influence in the region.

With talk now that Hamas may indeed agree to the Egyptian brokered plan, which in effect freezes out the US from the process, Secretary Kerry, Turkey, and Qatar are essentially “bit players” in the drama. Meanwhile Israeli forces have been ordered only to fire if fired upon.

Debt Drags the Dragon

W R Collier Jr July 23, 2014

BUSINESS NEWS- WORLD

China’s Debt Reaches 250% of GDP

William R Collier Jr. – For the past five years, we have been writing about China as a paper tiger with inflated numbers, and now analysis has revealed that China’s much-vaunted “economic miracle” is nothing more than the result of debt spending on a massive scale.

Stephen Green at Standard Chartered has calculated that China’s actual debt is now 250% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But in 2009, China’s debt was only around 70% of its GDP, making this meteoric rise alarming. This debt includes both public and private debt. However, in China, the government controls much of the corporate world and financial institutions.

With a reported GDP of $9.6 trillion, China’s total debt should equal around $24 trillion. The US, by comparison, has a GDP of around $16.24 trillion, with a total debt burden of $42.2 trillion. Total public debt stands at $17.1 trillion.

While total government debt may be 53% of GDP, a major portion of the corporate and financial sector debt is directly driven by the government which operate a communist “management” policy that, at best, mixes free market policies with their overall Party agenda.

In the United States, government and private debt equal 260% of the GDP, with federal government debt right at 105% of GDP and private debt at 155% of GDP, but much of this private debt is independent of government obligation.

US Debt has also risen. At the end of 2008, just before President Obama was sworn into office, US public debt stood at around $10 trillion with a GDP at around $14.5 trillion. At the end of 2013, US public debt stood at $16.7 trillion compared to a GDP of $16.9 trillion. It is projected that 2014’s GDP will stay at around $16.9 trillion, while public debt has gone over $17.6 trillion. Household debt in the US, money owed by individuals, it at $13 trillion, near where it was in 2007, and has shrunk since the end of 2008 both as a percentage of total debt and in terms of raw amounts.

But while the total US debt has risen around 40% since 2009, an alarming number to be sure for some, Chinese debt has risen from a little under 80% of GDP to 251% of GDP, and that’s just the debt we know about. The Chinese are known for manipulating numbers in their favor, which usually means that if the numbers look bad, they are probably worse.

It would appear then that much of China’s “success” and even “growth” has been driven by a massive spending program, funneled through “private” but government controlled institutions to prop up what remains an essentially communist, and, therefore, unsustainable economy.

The Cyber Battle for Iraq

W R Collier Jr July 22, 2014

WORLD NEWS
William R. Collier Jr

Iraq’s warring factions, and the government, have come to the realization that controlling cyber-space is a necessary war-fighting element, as important as land warfare or aerial domination. Cyberspace, the place where people communicate, get information, and collaborate is the new target. Those who dominate the landscape can operate freely while preventing their enemy from operating freely.

We have learned how ISIL/ISIS has used cyberspace for sophisticated command and control, giving them quite modern and advanced communications capabilities once only available to first world nations. Simply turning off the space is becoming as difficult as turning off the sky: too many communications and transactions depend on the existence of that space.

In Iran, for instance, during the 2009 uprising the government tried to turn off the space. The problem? Millions of government and financial transactions required the use of that space. So the internet was “turned back on” and the government tried to control the space. Today, the ability of governments to control that space short of turning it off is limited. A simple software solution, such as creating a program that filters out certain sites based on content or location, will not work- insurgents and criminals can get around those blocks or simply burrow deep into “spaces” (websites or social networks) that are not blocked.

Criminals and insurgents in Iraq have taken to employing groups of cyber operators. Some act as sleuths, some create malware and other programs designed to spy on targeted computers and networks, some operate “clone accounts” to insinuate themselves into groups, some conduct “operations” (like denial of service attacks, physhing schemes that are meant to steal user names and passwords) and still others operate web crawling and spidering tools to obtain data.

In Iraq, cyber warfare observers have noted that full-on cyber war is being waged. In one instance, a Trojan Horse program was inserted through a link to a “friendly” article clicked on by the targets. The program turned on microphones and video and allowed ISIL to literally see and hear the internal workings of an opposition group operating in Iraq.

Of all the actors, including the government, ISIL has perhaps invested the most resources into these operations, while their operators have also devised clever ways to maintain secure communications for a sophisticated command and control. We have even hear rumors of an ISIL program that allows for a missile hack whereby a “dumb” rocket is guided to a target by Google maps. This is not as precise as US “smart munitions”, but it is far more sophisticated than what has been available.

The now “old” idea of tracking IP addresses is also not enough. These groups create multiple layers of proxy servers and, now, “ip hopping” programs change the IP address of a server every few seconds. The best way to locate the enemy is to actually get an operator into their network who obtains that information, or enough hints to allow for “investigations” to track locations.

It is believed that ISIL operators succeeded in tracking an Iraqi police chief to his home, the location of which had been a closely guarded secret, by infiltrating an online group and inserting a “snooper” program into the police HQ’s computer network which had been accessible to informants. The infamous video of his beheading is proof enough that, for ISIL. cyber warfare is a major component of their warfare.

Near as we can tell, the Iraqi government has not been up to the task of countering this. Cyber space in Iraq is dominated by closely knit groups. The government’s operations are compromised because there are infiltrators involved and they have not worked out a process for vetting potential cyber operators that has worked. Only government cyber units that are coherent by tribe and sect have had any real success in preventing infiltration.

So the cyber landscape for average Iraqis is a dangerous one, although most malware infections have been rather targeted. Generally when “civilians” have had their computers compromised, it is because they are associated with or physically near a target of such operations. We are witnessing the first “collateral damage” due to cyber warfare.

But could this cyber battlefield be extended?

ISIL, for its part, envisions a Caliphate stretching from the Turkish border that includes the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula at least. Future targets of their cyber warfare will include all those nations and, possibly, even Turkey (this despite reports that Turkey’s Prime Minister has been secretly sending them arms).

All around the world, criminals and potential insurgents are seeing cyber space as the next frontier in lateral warfare or guerrilla warfare and many of the world’s governments are ill prepared for this onslaught.

Heavy Slogging In Gaza

W R Collier Jr July 21, 2014

By William R Collier Jr

Details regarding the actual fighting in Gaza are sketchy, but we have cautioned that Hamas wants the IDF to enter into a close order battle with them in the streets of Gaza where they believe they can inflict heavy damage on the Israelis. The practice of closeting fighters and weapons, including rockets, in and among civilians is meant both to generate atrocity stories and to cause the IDF to have to mix it up in close combat.

There are now reports of “heavy fire”, including anti-tank missiles, coming from within civilian areas, including hospitals and mosques, and the toll on Israel in people and equipment is mounting, possibly even more than is currently known, or available, via open press reporting.

For our part, we have not been able to connect with anyone in Gaza, as we have before, about conditions on the ground there. It is possible that communications to and from the area have been disrupted by the IDF. Over 250 more rockets have been fired into Israel in the past 24 hours, resulting in public support for an overwhelming response to Hamas.

IDF officers continue to accuse Prime Minister Netanyahu of being indecisive, or not using overwhelming force to quickly dispatch their enemy.

Meanwhile, on the Arab side, there is growing criticism of Arab governments for not taking a more stance against Israel and both Jordan and Egypt face pressure to sever ties with Israel over Israel’s incursion into Gaza and the loss of civilian life. Some of the Arab hawks are feeling left in the lurch by their own leaders and desire to see Israel punished once and for all. On the other hand, there is growing sentiment that Hamas itself is the problem- using people as human shields and their intransigence in negotiations are frustrating many.

Hamas for its part has now offered a case fire if Israel agrees to supply all of Gaza with free electricity, a non-starter that observers note “they surely know is not realistic under the circumstances.”

So far the operations seems to be in slow motion, the IDF have failed to totally isolate the populations centers from one another, they do not occupy from the sea back to Gaza’s eastern land border with Israel, and they are entering piecemeal into the major cities, contrary to plans. The “limited goal” of destroying tunnels is also not much appreciated- the main threat has been coming from rockets, not the tunnels, and many believe that this is inadequate..

Ground War In Gaza

W R Collier Jr July 17, 2014

At 10:30PM local IDF forces began an operations in three sectors in Gaza which, if successful, would divide Gaza into 4 manageable slices, bypassing the populated areas for now, in what is described as a “limited operation” against “Hamas tunnels.”

The operation is as we had predicted it, a limited operation aimed at isolating the populated regions and disrupting Hamas’ operations and communications. It is unlikely that the IDF will want to roll tanks into populated areas and it remains to be seen whether Hamas’ much vaunted “increased capability” against Israeli armor will materialize. The rockets from Gaza has apparently stopped during this operation.

Coincident with the Israeli government’s announcement of this operation, the Egyptian government announced “the possibility for hundreds of civilian deaths in Gaza” must be blamed on Hamas for being unwilling to agree to any truce, which the Arab powers have brokered and which Israel had agreed to. The Egyptian Government has diplomatic relations with Israel and has been actively brokering peace between Arab Palestinians and the State of Israel.

On July 14th Avignor Leiberman, Israel’s Foreign Minister, reportedly told the Norwegian Foreign Minister that a truce fire agreement set to occur on July14th did not happen “because Qatar and Turkey” urged Hamas not to consider the deal. Hamas had denied that they had been consulted, a fact denied by the Egyptians and the Israelis. However, while the Qataris and the Turks have consulted, there is no evidence that the Qataris urged Hamas to reject any deals.

Some are saying that the IDF is crossing the border “at all points” in order to find tunnels, while forces are only moving further into Hamas territory in less populated areas. We are working to connect with people on both sides to get more detailed information.

We had issued a War Warning for the area. That Warning has materialized. We are issuing a War Report- war has broken out on the ground on a limited basis between Israel and Hamas.

A low probability War Warning remains in effect for the region. War Warning General War, Israel Versus Hamas and Hezbollah- there is a low but credible probability that Hezbollah, operating from Lebanon and Syria, will launch rocket and other artillery attacks against Israel which could prompt air attacks and limited ground attacks aimed at securing their population from such threats. The danger of a more general war is extremely low at this time as Egypt is embroiled in its own political instability thanks to the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria is militarily weak. However there are remote possibilities that the factions in Syria and Egypt agree to unite and push for some sort of military response.

For Arabs, this invasion elicits rage as they consider the Arab civilians which must necessarily suffer as a result of this, but this does not mean they “side” with Hamas. Hamas is viewed as a destabilizing influence and a “bad actor”, their “antics” undermining Arab efforts to create a Palestinian State with international recognition. As long as Hamas is in power, many Arabs have confided to me, the case for a Palestinian State is weakened.

If Israel can quickly eliminate Hamas and if Fatah can regain control over Gaza this can de-escalate and a pathway for peace may be possible. But if Israel’s invasion is in depth, takes a long time, and creates civilian casualties many Arab leaders will find it politically untenable to do anything but defy Israel and possibly even push some into real or covert conflict with the State of Israel.

Currently the battle appears, from a distance, to be rather one-sided but if Israeli forces are not entering heavily populated areas Hamas will not deploy their alleged “new” anti-tank capability. Their aim is to lure the IDF into populated areas where close combat is necessary and where air support is impossible.

Meanwhile, Israel has indicted three unnamed young men (names not released) for the murder of a an Arab Palestinian youth in apparent retaliation for the murder of three Israeli youths, the murder of which indirectly sparked this round of conflict. Immediately after the discovery of the murdered teens, Prime Minister Netanyahu accused Hamas of murdering them. Hamas responded by beginning a rocket assault against Israel, which has gone on for 9 days.

There have been no arrests in the case of the three murdered Israeli teens. It has not been established that Arabs, let alone Hamas members, were responsible, although Hamas has since declared that “every Israeli, everywhere” is “a legitimate target”.

Hope and Change Hits Israel

Cuba Normalization Blindsides Congress

Salafist Gains In Global War

Gaza War Slogs On

Netanyahu’s Failed Military Strategy Questioned By Some

The Ebola Scare- Why America Is Safe

Is the Ebola Scare justified or not?

US Diplomacy Stumbles In The Mideast

Kerry Fails in Ceasefire Negotiations between Israel and Hamas

Debt Drags the Dragon

China’s Debt Reaches 250% of GDP

The Cyber Battle for Iraq

Heavy Slogging In Gaza

Ground War In Gaza

You may have missed

The T-72: The Cookie-Cutter Tank

Horses To Motorcycles To Drones

Eight Days

Bear Trap: Russia’s African Disaster

Netanyahu’s Failed Military Strategy Questioned By Some

Is the Ebola Scare justified or not?

Kerry Fails in Ceasefire Negotiations between Israel and Hamas

China’s Debt Reaches 250% of GDP

You may have missed

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!