Doc's Talk: The Kurds, Israel, and the Future of Syria

Friday, June 27, 2008

The Kurds, Israel, and the Future of Syria

Joseph Puder
FrontPageMagazine.com
6/27/2008

Israel has a longstanding relationship with the Kurdish people. In the early 1960’s, Mustafa Barzani and his Peshmerga fighters received training and support in the Jewish State. David Ben Gurion, then Israel’s Prime Minister, possessed an acute vision and understanding of the regional geopolitics – so lacking in today’s realities. He reasoned that Arab hostility encircling Israel necessitated alliances with the leadership and people of non-Arab states like Iran, Turkey and the Kurds (understanding that the Kurdish connection needed to be somewhat secretive, as it continues to be today for fear of upsetting the Turks.)Israel’s military and diplomatic establishment is heavily invested in Turkey and trade relations are of growing significance. Turkey represents, as far as Israel and the U.S. are concerned, a model for a “secular” Islamic democracy. It is the Turkish model that is competing with the radical Islamist model of the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout Central Asia’s Islamic states, and for that matter, in the larger Muslim world. But the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (since 2003), leader of the Justice and Development Party has been accused by the secular military establishment of attempting to appoint Islamist judges. He has also gravitated closer towards the Muslim world as negotiations regarding membership in the European Union have dragged on since 1987. It is precisely for this reason that Israel must not place all its chips on a continued strong relationship with Ankara.

Masoud Barzani, the current president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Northern Iraq, has expressed his government’s positive feelings towards Israel and relations with the Jewish State. Similarly, Kurds elsewhere have attempted to establish channels of communications with Israel. Israel, mindful of the reactions from the Turks, has refrained from open expressions of support for Kurdish rights.

Elsewhere around the region, democratic opposition parties in Syria have indicated their interest in ties with Israel and hopes that Israel would be less protective of the Baathist regime. Israel, fearful that the removal of Bashar Assad’s Alawite minority/Baathist regime would unleash radical Islamist (Muslim Brotherhood) forces from the majority Sunni-Muslim community, has preferred to see the status quo in Damascus remain in tact. It appears as if Washington shares the Israeli fears. Are such fears real and justified? Sherkoh Abbas, President of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria has a different view.

Joseph Puder (JP): Should Israel fear a Muslim Brotherhood takeover if the Assad regime were to fall?

Sherkoh Abbas (SA): It depends, if the status quo remains or if there is sudden change, the Islamists might take over with the backing of Sunni-Arab countries. Alternatively, if the U.S. and the states in the region including Israel support the Syrian democratic opposition and the idea of a federated Syria, where all stakeholders share power, it might prevent the Islamists from taking over. I mean to say that a decentralized federal Syria would boost the power of ethnic and religious minorities. After all, almost 50% of the Syrian population is comprised of Kurds, Druze, Alawite, and Christians.

JP: Could Syria transform into a democracy with a federal system that would provide increased powers to various regions within the country, as well as cultural, and political autonomy to the Kurds, Alawite, and Druze?

SA: A federal democratic Syria is a realistic option. Syria under our envisioned system would have five regions or states, with increased power for each state over legislative, political, and economic affairs. The central government in Damascus would be limited to foreign affairs, monetary and national defense policies.

JP: You mentioned five regions, could you name them?

SA: In the South, bordering Israel would be the Druze State or region. In the North and Northeast, the Kurdish region East of the Euphrates River, and the Turkish border in the North. Aleppo, Arab region would be the third. Damascus would be a separate Arab region as well. The fifth region would be Alawite along Syria’s Mediterranean Coast.

JP: Why do you think Syria requires a federal system, what was wrong with the Baathist system?

SA: Syria is comprised of Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Druze, Alawite, and Christians. We must have a system that provides protection for minorities and satisfies all the stakeholders in the nation instead of just a select group at the expense of all the others.

The Baathists are not much different from the Muslim Brotherhood. The Baathists conceal their pan-Arab nationalistic ideology in a secular form, while the Muslim Brotherhood conceals its pan-Arab nationalistic ideology in an Islamic form.

Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Baathists are a threat to the region and to the world. Consider what the Baathist parties did in both Iraq and Syria over the last three decades, and you will notice that the Baathist regimes supported radical terrorist groups, caused wars, denied people freedom, human rights, and democracy, and used WMD on their own ethnic populations.

JP: Do you believe that Assad’s Syria can detach itself from Iran?

SA: Absolutely not. Iran has positioned itself in Syria and Lebanon to such a degree that even if the Assad regime wanted to separate itself from Tehran it could not. Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the spread of Shiaism in Syria as well as the over 100,000 Iranians who gained citizenship in Syria, would not allow such a separation. Also, the Iranians have developed alliances with the Syrian elites that guarantees their continued presence in Syria and influence over Syrian policies.

JP: In the context of an Israeli-Syrian peace deal, how do you see the future of the Golan Heights?

SA: We know that the current governments in Damascus and Jerusalem are not serious about peace. They simply need each other to stay in power. In the context of a real peace the Druze would have the right to settle with Israel over the Golan. Of course a federal Syria will be involved, but the Druze must approve such an agreement.

JP: How do you see the relationship between Israel and the Kurds?

SA: The Kurds are Israel’s natural allies. They are moderate Muslims and tolerant towards other minorities. For Kurds, religion is not as important or emphasized as ethnicity. The Kurds geographic location and acculturation makes them a barrier to the spread of radical Islam-whether Shia or Sunni. The Kurds also aspire to become a democratic society modeled after Israel.

A democratic Syria would be less of a threat to both Israel and Turkey, and a Kurdish region in a federal Syria would be no more of a risk to Turkey than the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq is today. Israel’s fear of a regime change in Syria should be mitigated by the realization that the current regime in Damascus allied with Iran and Hezbollah, and harboring radical Palestinian terrorist groups while promoting terror against the U.S. forces in Iraq and Israel, is as bad as it gets.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk