Agrégateur de flux

Jorge Domecq, Chief Executive of the European Defence Agency (EDA), and Massimo Garbini, Managing Director of the SESAR Deployment Manager (SDM) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Its purpose is to establish efficient cooperation and support between the two organisations with regard to SESAR deployment.

“Europe’s military fleets include some 9,500 diverse aircraft accounting for more than 150,000 flights each year. In other words, they form the single biggest ‘airline’ operating in Europe today. The challenges of the Single European Sky programme and the modernisation of European air traffic management are manifold. However, it is the role of the EDA to ensure that the European air forces will continue to have free and safe access to European airspace for training purposes, air-policing, as well as air defence missions. The financial and technological impacts of the programme need to be mitigated to ensure that they do not adversely affect European defence capabilities. Only through constructive cooperation between military and civil stakeholders, our shared vision of an efficient, safe and flexible European airspace can be realised. It is in this spirit that we sign the Memorandum of Understanding today”, said Jorge Domecq at the signature ceremony. 

Massimo Garbini, “This MoU reflects the kind of relationship we aim for with all stakeholders. Only through efficient cooperation and mutual support between both civil and military stakeholders, we can deliver the modernisation of European Air Traffic Management technology together.”

Memorandum of Understanding

The scope of the MoU covers the SESAR deployment of sets of functionalities in accordance with the relevant regulations1. The EDA and SDM will work together to support the Member States in translating the regulation into projects to be deployed nationally with financial support from the EU. The EDA will ensure that military viewpoints and needs are captured in the SESAR Deployment Programme and support the bidding and execution processes of the projects. At the same time, the Deployment Manager will coordinate with the military through the EDA to avoid any adverse impact on national and collective defence capabilities. This involves inter alia enabling and exploiting military contributions as well as optimising the use of expertise and avoiding duplications. The EDA and SDM also agree to put in place effective coordination procedures to ensure efficient synchronisation and the timely exchange of relevant information. A Steering Committee will be set up to ensure the effective functioning of the Memorandum.

 

Single European Sky ATM Research

The Single European Sky (SES) aims at realising the optimisation of the airspace organisation and management in Europe through a combination of technological, economic, and regulatory efforts. SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) is the technical pillar of this. SESAR involves developing a new ATM system to handle more traffic with greater safety and at a lower cost. Its new technologies and procedures will also seek to reduce the environmental impact of flying. The resulting efforts will be deployed in a synchronised manner involving all stakeholders, civil and military.

 

About SESAR Deployment Manager

SESAR Deployment Manager (SDM) is the industrial partnership that synchronises and coordinates the modernisation of Europe’s air traffic management system under the political oversight of the European Commission. The main task of the SESAR Deployment Manager is to develop, submit to the European Commission for its approval and execute the Deployment Programme, a project view strictly drawn from the Pilot Common Project (PCP) set by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2014, as well as any subsequent Common Projects in future regulations. Through the Deployment Programme, the SESAR Deployment Manager will ensure efficient synchronisation and coordination of implementation projects required to implement the PCP, as well as the related investments. The tasks of the Deployment Manager are described in Article 9 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 409/2013.

 

Role of the EDA

In order to ensure that the effects on military aviation are understood and taken into account, Member States entrusted EDA with the task of facilitating the coordination of military views from and in support of Member States and relevant military organisations and to inform military planning mechanisms of the requirements stemming from SESAR deployment. In 2014, EDA established a dedicated SESAR Cell to ensure that the military views and requirements are taken into account in the implementation of SESAR.

 

More information

• Single European Sky project page
• SESAR Deployment Manager website

---------------------------------------------- 

1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 409/2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2014

/ Région parisienne, Bulgarie

CCSERBIE - КУЛТУРНИ ЦЕНТАР СРБИЈЕ
info@ccserbie.com
www.ccserbie.com
01 42 72 50 50

/ Région parisienne, Serbie

CCSERBIE - КУЛТУРНИ ЦЕНТАР СРБИЈЕ
info@ccserbie.com
www.ccserbie.com
01 42 72 50 50

/ Région parisienne, Serbie

Az Európai Bizottság alelnöke szerint erre meg kell próbálniuk rávenni minden uniós tagállamot.

Après quatre années de travail les diplomates russes, chinois, français, britanniques et américains ont écrit un glossaire des termes nucléaires. À ce rythme, nous sommes loin de parvenir à l’élimination des armes nucléaires…. (lire la suite…)

/ Région parisienne, Balkans

"Quand on est emmerdé par une affaire, il faut susciter une affaire dans l'affaire, et si nécessaire une autre affaire dans l'affaire, jusqu'à ce que personne n'y comprenne plus rien."
Charles Pasqua.

American Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Missile

A SodaStream hazai képviselete, a Fast Hungary Kft. 1000 darab palackot adományozott múlt héten a Bátor Tábor számára. „A készülékeink 0,9 literes palackjai egyszerű kulacsként is használhatók. Mivel a nagy melegben különösen fontos a folyadékfogyasztás, ezért döntöttünk úgy, hogy egy olyan szervezetnek adjuk a palackokat, akik nyáron is egy nemes cél érdekében végzik munkájukat. Így esett a választás a Bátor Táborra és önkénteseikre” – tájékoztat Rutai Gergely, a SodaStream magyarországi szakértője.

Kapcsolódó hírek:  Újra népszerű az otthon készített szóda Hungarikum, amiből nem iszunk eleget

tovább

Si Alexis Tsipras pensait faire plier ses partenaires de la zone euro, ou au moins les diviser, en annonçant, dans la nuit de vendredi à samedi, un référendum (le 5 juillet) sur un compromis qui n’existe pas, c’est totalement loupé. C’est exactement le contraire qui s’est passé au cours de l’Eurogroupe (les dix-neuf ministres des Finances) convoqué samedi dans l’espoir de boucler un accord avec la Grèce destiné à lui assurer une nouvelle aide financière de plus de 15 milliards d’euros, un plan d’investissement de 30 à 35 milliards d’euros, le tout assorti d’un calendrier de renégociation de la dette grecque en échange de réformes structurelles, de hausses d’impôt et de coupes dans les dépenses publiques. Ce référendum « ferme la porte à la poursuite des discussions », a tranché le Néerlandais Jeroen Dijsselbloem et patron de l’Eurogroupe. La Vouli, le parlement monocaméral grec, a adopté la loi autorisant le référendum dans la nuit de samedi par une très large majorité de 178 voix contre 120 (sur 300 sièges). Le Grexit redouté est désormais au bout de la semaine, voire avant, sauf rebondissement en Grèce.

• Que s’est-il passé ?

Personne ne comprend le brutal raidissement d’Alexis Tsipras : « on était à deux doigts d’un accord », affirme une source proche des négociations. « Tout le monde pensait qu’on allait conclure. À la demande des Grecs, on a convoqué, lundi, un Eurogroupe et un sommet de la zone euro, puis un nouvel Eurogroupe mercredi, puis jeudi. Le Conseil européen de jeudi et vendredi a aussi permis de progresser et c’est pour ça qu’on a convoqué un nouvel Eurogroupe samedi ». Mais, à la surprise générale, Tsipras a annoncé au milieu de la nuit de vendredi à samedi la tenue d’un référendum sur le texte de compromis tel qu’il existait jeudi, après avoir prévenu quelques minutes auparavant François Hollande et Angela Merkel, (Jean-Claude Juncker, lui, plongé dans un profond sommeil, n’ayant pas décroché). « Or, ce texte a changé vendredi pour tenir compte des demandes grecques. Ce référendum est sans objet », ajoute cette même source. Pire : « les Grecs sont partis au pire moment, avant qu’on parle de la soutenabilité de la dette, de l’extension du programme (au-delà du 30 juin) » et du plan d’investissement, s’est étonné Jeroen Dijsselbloem. En effet, si le texte est négocié par le « groupe de Bruxelles » (les représentants de la Commission européenne, de la Banque centrale européenne (BCE) et du Fonds monétaire international (FMI)), seuls les ministres des Finances sont habilités à parler des autres questions. « Tout était sur la table de négociation » afin « d’aboutir à un accord global et durable », insiste Michel Sapin : « mais le gouvernement grec n’a pas souhaité que la négociation continue ».

Au cours de la réunion à haute tension qui a débuté en début d’après-midi, aucun pays de la zone euro, mis à part la France, n’a plaidé pour une poursuite du programme d’assistance financière au-delà du 30 juin, la date convenue lors d’un premier accord conclu avec la Grèce le 24 février. Tsipras l’avait pourtant demandé afin de permettre à son pays de tenir jusqu’au référendum : sans ce cadre – qui est une promesse que la Grèce acceptera de procéder à des réformes afin d’équilibrer son budget-, la BCE ne peut pas continuer à alimenter les banques grecques en liquidités (ELA ou ligne de liquidités d’urgence dont le plafond approche désormais les 100 milliards d’euros).

Les Européens, lassés par cinq mois de vaines négociations, ont refusé de lui faire ce cadeau. Il fera son référendum, mais l’Europe ne lui tendra pas la main, ce qui risque de précipiter son pays dans une crise bancaire et économique… À quoi bon continuer la discussion dès lors que le gouvernement grec a décidé de soumettre à référendum un texte datant de jeudi et auquel il a décidé d’appeler à voter non ? « On ne peut pas étendre un programme dont un pays ne veut pas puisque le gouvernement grec a d’ores et déjà décidé d’appeler à voter non », s’est justifié le ministre des Finances français, Michel Sapin.

La rupture a donc été rapidement consommée. L’Eurogroupe a été suspendu, le temps que Yanis Varoufakis, le ministre grec, quitte la salle, et la réunion a ensuite continué pour évoquer les conséquences d’un défaut grec, désormais inéluctable, et les mesures à prendre pour éviter une contagion au reste de la zone euro. Pour la première fois, un communiqué de l’Eurogroupe, qui signe la fin du programme d’assistance à la Grèce, a été adopté par seulement dix-huit ministres des Finances qui, au passage, rappelle « les importants transferts financiers et l’aide apportée à la Grèce au cours des dernières années ». Le Grexit, souhaité par plusieurs ministres, dont l’Allemand Wolfgang Schäuble, est désormais dans toutes les têtes.

• Que va-t-il se passer la semaine prochaine ?

La BCE va se réunir dimanche. Selon toute probabilité et en l’absence de programme, elle va décider (à la majorité des deux tiers de ses 25 membres) d’interrompre l’alimentation des banques grecques en liquidités : « poursuivre cette aide, c’est encourager le bank run, c’est-à-dire le retrait d’argent par les Grecs, aux frais des contribuables européens. Rien que cette semaine, les 1,6 milliard d’euros prêtés aux banques grecques ont été immédiatement retirés par les épargnants. C’est un puits sans fond », nous confie une source européenne. Si la Grèce adopte une loi ce dimanche prévoyant la fermeture des banques dès lundi et la mise en place d’un strict contrôle des capitaux, la BCE pourrait de nouveau intervenir pour éviter les faillites bancaires que la Grèce seule n’a pas les moyens d’éviter faute d’argent (elle n’a pas accès aux marchés et les caisses sont vides). Mais cela n’est pas certain, les durs de la BCE pouvant faire valoir que l’attitude de Tsipras exclut un retour à la normale avant longtemps. Surtout, les banques grecques ne sont plus solvables à la suite du retrait massif d’argent de ces derniers mois.

Si jamais la Grèce n’adopte pas un contrôle des capitaux, la zone euro va se couper de tous les canaux la reliant au système financier grec pour éviter la contagion d’un effondrement du système financier grec. En clair, si la Grèce ne s’isole pas elle-même, c’est la zone euro qui l’isolera. Dans le second cas, le système bancaire grec va vite s’effondrer faute d’argent frais. Selon plusieurs experts, ce sera une affaire de jours et non de semaines… Ce qui aura un effet immédiat sur le tissu économique grec, alors que le pays est déjà retombé en récession (on attendait 3 % de croissance cette année): les faillites d’entreprises vont se multiplier, faute de crédit, et les Grecs ne pourront plus retirer d’argent. Cette asphyxie programmée du système bancaire risque aussi d’affecter la saison touristique qui a déjà commencé. On imagine le marasme et la panique dans lequel va se dérouler le référendum.

Cela étant, la zone euro insiste sur le fait que les négociations peuvent reprendre à chaque instant : « les portes sont ouvertes », a martelé Jeroen Dijsselbloem, « ce ne sont pas les institutions qui ont quitté la table de négociations la nuit dernière, c’est le gouvernement grec ». Tous les gouvernements ont tenu le même discours : l’accord est proche, il suffirait de quelques heures pour le boucler.

• Sur quoi va porter le référendum ?

Il semble que la question portera sur le projet de compromis dans sa version de jeudi. Le problème est que ce texte est déjà dépassé (par exemple, vendredi, les créanciers ont accepté de limiter l’augmentation de la TVA sur l’hôtellerie à 13 % au lieu de 23 %). Surtout, ce texte n’a plus aucune existence légale depuis samedi, puisque le programme prend fin le 30 juin, ce qui signifie que l’offre des créanciers est caduque. Même si le résultat est positif, il faudra reprendre les négociations sans garantie que le texte final sera identique à celui de vendredi. Surtout, les Grecs vont se prononcer sur un texte qui ne porte ni sur la restructuration de la dette, ni sur le plan d’investissement promis, ni sur l’extension du programme (avec un doublement de la somme de 7,2 milliards promise). Ce référendum est donc un tantinet surréaliste. La seule question qui vaille, en réalité, devrait porter sur l’appartenance de la Grèce à la zone euro.

• Le « oui » peut-il l’emporter ?

Même si les Grecs sont massivement attachés à l’euro (entre 70 % et 80 %), le résultat ne fait guère de doute. « Si j’étais Grec, je voterais non à ce texte », confie un diplomate d’un grand pays, « puisqu’il ne comporte que des hausses d’impôts et des coupes dans les dépenses publiques. En soi, il ne veut rien dire, puisqu’il n’est pas accompagné des mesures qui donnent un horizon au pays. Mais le gouvernement grec se gardera bien de le dire et ça n’est pas à la zone euro de faire campagne ». Si par miracle le « oui » l’emportait, Tsipras serait dans une situation inconfortable et devrait sans doute convoquer de nouvelles élections après un tel désaveu. Et là, tout est possible.

• Vers le Grexit ?

« Il n’y a pas de mode d’emploi pour une sortie de la zone euro, car personne n’avait prévu une telle situation. On est dans les figures libres », confie une source européenne. On peut donc très bien imaginer que la Grèce reste formellement dans la zone euro, mais ne dispose plus d’euros fournis par la BCE. Il faudra donc qu’elle émette en parallèle une nouvelle monnaie (après avoir repris le contrôle de sa banque centrale, ce qui l’exclura de facto de la BCE) afin de payer les salaires des fonctionnaires et les retraites. Mais cette nouvelle drachme, qui circulera parallèlement à l’euro, n’aura de valeur que pour les biens et les services produits par la Grèce, ce qui limitera considérablement son pouvoir d’achat : tous les produits importés (ou comportant une part d’imports) devront être payés en euros sonnants et trébuchants. Et la Grèce importe beaucoup, des produits agricoles aux produits technologiques en passant par les médicaments. La Grèce serait dans la situation de Cuba qui connaît aussi une double circulation monétaire, le peso local qui ne vaut rien et le peso convertible (CUC) dont la valeur est proche de celle du dollar qui permet seul l’accès aux produits de « luxe »… La Grèce, privée d’accès à l’euro, peut aussi choisir de partir d’elle-même. Dans les deux cas, sa situation ne sera guère brillante, car elle n’aura pas accès avant longtemps aux marchés financiers : elle devra vivre avec ce qu’elle produit.

• Un risque de contagion ?

C’est la question à mille euros. Jeroen Dijsselbloem a insisté sur la solidité de la zone euro qui disposerait désormais des moyens de « préserver son intégrité ». En particulier, le Mécanisme européen de stabilité (MES), doté d’une capacité d’emprunt de 750 milliards d’euros, pourra intervenir pour venir en aide à un pays attaqué par les marchés et la BCE est lancée dans un programme de rachat massif des dettes d’État de 60 milliards par mois qui permettra de juguler une éventuelle panique des marchés. « Ils ont intégré depuis longtemps le risque d’un Grexit, mais on ne peut jamais savoir comment ils réagiront », confie une source européenne. Néanmoins inquiet, l’Eurogroupe a décidé d’accélérer son intégration en suivant les recommandations du rapport des cinq présidents (Commission, Parlement européen, Eurogroupe, BCE, Conseil européen) dont les chefs d’État et de gouvernement ont pris connaissance vendredi. Un mal pour un bien ? C’est l’espoir auquel on se raccrochait à Bruxelles, samedi soir.

Le premier ministre chinois Li Keqiang a affirmé lundi qu'il voulait que la Grèce reste dans l'eurozone et a promis que Pékin investirait dans le nouveau fond structurel de l'UE.
"C'est dans l'intérêt de la Chine. Nous voudrions que la Grèce reste dans la zone euro et nous prions instamment les créanciers internationaux de trouver un accord avec les Grecs", a affirmé Li devant des hommes d'affaires lors d'une conférence qui précédait le sommet UE-Chine. Il a aussi promis que la Chine investirait dans le nouveau fond de 315 milliards d'euros lancé par le Président de la Commission Européenne JC Junker, et qu'elle achèterait des bons de la Banque d'Investissement Européenne.
 "Nous sommes prêts à travailler avec l'Europe afin de renforcer la coopération en matière d'investissements. La Chine est désireuse de participer au programme européen d'investissement pour l'Europe et de faire une avancée dans le domaine du développement d'infrastructures" a ajouté Li, "La Chine veut participer au plan de l'UE".
Source.
Tian Guoli, directeur de la Bank of China, s'inquiète : "Récemment la crise de la dette grecque et l'instabilité du taux de change de l'euro ont réveillé notre préoccupation" révèle-t-il dans une interview donnée au journal de langue anglaise China Daily. "Nous espérons sincèrement que l'euro ainsi que les marchés financiers européens vont se stabiliser". [...]

Pour Wang Chin, de Westlake Europe une compagnie de pièces détachées pour l'automobile : "Nous ne nous intéressons qu'aux conséquences. Politiquement cela n'a aucune importance que la Grèce reste ou non dans l'eurozone, mais pour nos affaires nous avons besoin d'un euro stable". [...]

Guo Taicheng, directeur du Shing Kee Group: la volatilité de l'euro "ralentira le commerce entre l'UE et la Chine".

Pour l'avocat Haibin Xue, présent lui-aussi au sommet UE-Chine, la Chine a un intérêt géopolitique à ce que l'euro soit fort, parce que de cette manière l'équilibre entre puissances se déplace davantage vers un monde multipolaire, qui s'oppose au monde unipolaire dirigé par les USA. Ainsi "La Chine aimerait que la zone euro soit forte et stable".

Source.

L'actuel gouvernement grec est un conglomérat étrange de communistes et de nationalistes dont le seul point commun est d'être des fantoches du Kremlin. Leur rôle est de déstabiliser voire de faire éclater la zone euro et l'UE au bénéfice de la Russie. Mais tout cela ne semble pas être du goût des Chinois qui voient là une atteinte directe à leurs intérêts commerciaux. Tout cela a au moins le mérite de démonter le mythe des BRICS et de la "lune de miel" entre la Chine et la Russie tant vantée par les médias russes. On voit aussi que les Chinois ne voit pas l'UE comme un outil des Américains pour établir je ne sait quel Nouvel Ordre Mondial, mais au contraire un frein à leur hégémonie.


EU-China Summit, Brussels - signing ceremony

From Arlene Kushner:
June 29, 2015

The Horrors and the Hope


Never do I relinquish hope, my friends.  Not even in the midst of growing horrors.  And so I begin here with something we did right: the way we handled the “threat” of the “Freedom Flotilla.”

The flotilla, carrying a total of 47 passengers, was comprised of four boats, lead by the largest – the Swedish-registered “Marianne of Gothenburg,” with some 20 passengers aboard.  When all diplomatic efforts to re-route the flotilla failed, a political decision was made to stop it at sea.  During the night last night, three Israeli navy boats approached the “Marianne” in international waters – some 100 nautical miles from shore - and in accordance with international law, repeatedly advised the lead boat to change course.  When there was no compliance, the “Marianne” was surrounded; Navy commandos from Shayetet 13, the special forces unit of the Israeli Navy, boarded, seizing control of the boat without violence or incident. 

The other three boats in the flotilla turned back.  The “Marianne” will be brought to the port in Ashdod. After its crew and passengers are questioned, they will likely be deported via Ben Gurion Airport.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-navy-boards-ship-headed-for-gaza-no-injuries-reported/


Credit: YouTube Screenshot

~~~~~~~~~~
The PR emanating from the pro-Palestinian Arab passengers and news sources sympathetic to them strikes me as parody.  One passenger referred to the Israeli navy as “pirates.” and one news source explained that the “Marianne” was on a humanitarian voyage - carrying solar panels because “there is no electricity in the Gaza Strip.”  Indeed there is electricity: and Israel supplies 70% of it!  The pity is that there are some who believe this garbage.

~~~~~~~~~~

Last night, a letter to the passengers of the “Marianne” from Prime Minister Netanyahu was released (emphasis added):

“Welcome to Israel.


“You seem to have gotten lost.  Perhaps you meant to sail to a place not far from here – Syria where Assad’s army is slaughtering its people every day, and is supported by the murderous Iranian regime.

“Here in Israel we face a reality in which terrorist organizations like Hamas try to kill innocent civilians. We defend our citizens against these attempts in accordance with international law.

“Despite this, Israel transports goods and humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip – up to 800 trucks a day. In the past year we enabled the entry of over 1.6 million tons of products, an average of one ton per person in the Gaza Strip. By the way, these supplies are equivalent to 500,000 boats like the one you came in on today...

“However, we will not allow the terrorist organizations to transfer weapons into the Gaza Strip by sea.  Only one year ago, we thwarted an attempt to smuggle hundreds of weapons into the Gaza Strip by ship. These weapons were meant to target innocent Israeli civilians.

“There is no siege on the Gaza Strip, and you are welcome to transfer any humanitarian supplies for the Gaza Strip through Israel.

“Barring the entrance of boats and ships into the Gaza Strip is in accordance with international law, and was even backed by a committee commissioned by the United Nations Secretary General.

“If you were truly concerned about human rights, you would not be sailing in support of a terrorist regime which summarily executes citizens in the Gaza Strip, and uses children as human shields.”
http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Spokesman/Pages/spokeYam290615.aspx

~~~~~~~~~~

I thought this would be a good place to share the following fascinating piece of information, as well (emphasis added):

“Shop owners in the West Bank lament that it is impossible to boycott Israel, Jordan-basedAlbawaba news reported on Thursday.

“According to the report, Palestinian political party Al-Mubadra Al-Watniya, or the Palestinian National Initiative, has launched a campaign throughout Ramallah urging consumers to boycott Israeli products, as part of the larger international boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. Signs throughout Ramallah call on Palestinians to ‘boycott Israeli goods’ and to refuse to ‘pay for the bullets that kill our children.’

“But it appears locals are having difficulty accomplishing just that because of certain specialty goods that come from Israel. ‘Our gluten-free bread and lactose-free milk come from Israel,’ one Palestinian businessman said, according to the report.

“According to the report, most small grocers in Ramallah continue to sell Israeli goods, despite the active boycott movement.

“Pharmacist Samer Toubassi told Albawaba, ‘We’re with the boycott, but for many products we have no alternatives,’ adding that 40 to 50 percent of his medications come from Israel...

“’Palestinians do not have the technology to produce medicine that is used to treat cancer, problems with the immune system, or diabetes, for instance,’ said Toubassi.

“One Palestinian told the Jordanian paper that he would not boycott ‘the settlements’ — Jewish communities built on lands conquered by Israel in the defensive 1967 Six-Day War — because the settlements provide many Palestinians with work.

“’I don’t believe in boycotting. If we boycott settlement products, what about the Palestinians who work in the settlements?’ said Ramallah resident Mahmoud Jbbarin.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/06/26/palestinians-in-west-bank-its-impossible-to-boycott-israel/#How about that?

~~~~~~~~~~
Then I want to return to the issue of the Druze in Syria, who were said to be threatened by Islamist rebels fighting Assad.  Recently Israeli Druze demonstrated in large numbers, and appealed to the Israeli government to act to save their cousins across the border, who presumably were facing potential genocide because of their support for Assad. 

Credit: AP/Ariel Schalit

Many here, sensitive to the issues of genocide, declared in support of acting to helping the Syrian Druze.  There was discussion of the establishment of a “safe zone” on the Syrian side of the Golan, for example.But the story has grown ever more complex since then, taking on different shadings every day or two. 

~~~~~~~~~~

As my readers may remember, Druze in the Israeli Golan attacked an IDF ambulance that was bringing two Syrians to a hospital for care – one Syrian died and the other was left in critical condition.  This was a situation that was by all measures unacceptable and had the effect of shifting attitudes here in Israel.  Civilians in Israel (many but not all Israeli citizens) cannot attack an IDF ambulance under any circumstances, or otherwise interfere with an IDF mission. 

The Druze in the Golan were charging that the Syrians who were attacked were rebels belonging to groups that threatened the Syrian Druze.  Israeli officials said that we help Syrian individuals – presumably civilians, who have been injured in cross-fighting – and that Israel does not directly support the Nusra Front.  How it is determined who is a civilian was not made clear. 

~~~~~~~~~~

All this by way of background.  Five days ago, Brig- Gen. (res.) Imad Fares, a Druze IDF officer who served in high positions, went public with a statement, saying that the Israeli defense establishment cannot and should not intervene in Syria (emphasis added):

“If we can be mature and accept this point, it will be easier for us to understand the complicated nature of the situation.

“It is not a correct or realistic request, and I think that intervention must be coordinated with the side receiving the support, and therefore intervention with an Israeli stamp of approval is unacceptable, will not happen, and there is no mutual interest, making it useless to think about.

“...the Druse in Syria also won’t want Israel to intervene on their behalf. The Syrian Druse, let’s be honest, identify with the Assad regime. Their continued survival is also dependent on other alliances which won’t necessarily be helped by joining with Israel.”
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Former-Senior-army-official-The-IDF-cannot-intervene-in-Syrias-war-406914

Quite a departure from the original statements we were hearing, and makes a great deal of sense. I had reported on the analysis of one of my contacts, who had said that all Israel might do is send weapons to the Syrian Druze so that they can better defend themselves.  The weapons should go through Jordan, he told me: This would be so that they were not readily identified as having come from Israel.  And this dovetails with what Fares said.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now there is yet another take on the situation, which is what prompted me to revisit it (emphasis added):“Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Monday that Israel has been providing aid to Syrian rebels, thus keeping the Druze in Syria out of immediate danger. Israeli officials have previously balked at confirming on the record that the country has been helping forces that are fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad. 

“During a briefing with Israel’s diplomatic correspondents at the IDF’s headquarters in Tel Aviv, Ya’alon said that Israel’s ongoing humanitarian assistance to Syrian rebel fighters, a source of growing conflict between Israel and its own Druze population, safeguards the minority population in Syria.

“’We’ve assisted them under two conditions,’ Ya’alon said of the Israeli medical aid to the Syrian rebels, some of whom are presumably fighting with al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad. ‘That they don’t get too close to the border, and that they don’t touch the Druze.’”http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-syrian-rebels-keeping-druze-safe-in-exchange-for-israeli-aid/

Not the same story we started with...

It is no secret that the Israeli government tends to see the radicals such as Nusra Front as the lesser of the evils in Syria (a lesser evil, not as dangerous, but this does not mean an ally), with the first goal being to see Assad – the puppet of Iran - taken down.

~~~~~~~~~~

The horrors I refer to in my subject line?  Very real and growing daily.

There has been a series of terrorist killings in a host of different venues over the last few days that boggle the mind with their horror and inhumanity.  Perhaps I will return to deal with them in greater detail.  Perhaps not.  The beheading, the drownings, all the rest.  Not sure if it serves purpose to dwell on the details (although threats to France must be mentioned).

What strikes me, again and again, is a perversity so great that it makes it difficult to take a breath: Israel has been charged by the UN with possible war crimes for defending herself in Gaza.  Israeli leaders in turn may be charged with war crimes by the ICC (if Abbas has his way – and this I must return to).  Israel!  When we are surrounded by beheadings, and rapes of six year olds, and all the rest.

~~~~~~~~~~

There is incredible unrest and insecurity in the EU, starting with Greece, but not ending there. Along with fiscal instability, there are problems of large numbers of Muslim refugees flooding into Europe. This must be watched carefully.

~~~~~~~~~~

And, of course, what I must return to in detail is the perennial subject of the negotiations with Iran.  As matters stand now, the deadline – that’s tomorrow! - will not be met.  Netanyahu declares himself pleased that no deal is likely to be signed, because he knows it would be an awful deal.  It can still be improved, he cautions. But this is a pipe dream, not reality.  Each day, as I see it, the situation is worse, not better.  The negotiators of P5+1 are not going to suddenly discover they have backbones.

The best case scenario that I can envision (I guess also a pipe dream) is that P5+1 tells Iran, we have given you more than enough time and you have not cooperated in good faith.  Negotiations are now declared failed.  This would mean, this should mean, the imposition of the stiffest of sanctions, to bring Iran to its knees, backed by a credible military threat if Iran pursues further military nuclear development. 

I have just read that Dennis Ross, formerly an advisor to Obama on Iran, says it would be reasonable to negotiate for another three to six months.  This is daft.  Obama cannot bear to say the negotiations failed, and so concedes more and more to keep them going.  (Boy, do the Iranians have his number!)  In six months, he’d probably be sending hi-tech advisors into Iran to help them. ~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution. 


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Druze and Flotilla.

#CCLKOW this week turns to the matter of confronting insurgency. Seemingly beaten to death, I would submit that the subject is in fact in need of some rigorous thought, especially as there are clearly two defined schools of strategic approach, broadly characterized by their different focuses. Where one is concerned to fight the insurgency as manifest, the other seeks to undermine the terms of its strength to vastly reduce the intensity of the conflict, or anti-insurgency and counter-insurgency. Understanding the difference between the terms and consequences of different strategic approaches is important given that with the geo-strategic landscape and the role of rapid communications we may find ourselves in a time when might, as expressed in destruction, no longer sufficiently or reliably translates to right. Rather, might applied to the resolution of root causes is an alternative path to right that deserves better and more serious attention against the changing landscape of conflict. So, read the piece and join the discussion on Twitter at #CCLKOW.   

 

The subject of confronting an insurgency being less in favor these days seems to me to present the best opportunity to examine it with a bit more dispassion, and hence more rigor. In particular, here I would like to consider how we use COIN. As it stands, COIN is used broadly to describe all approaches to warfare against an insurgency. However, I find this unsatisfying as there is significant divergence in what people mean by this term. To rectify this problem, I propose new terminology to distinguish  between strategies which make the use of force against the rebellion the primary effort versus those that seek to undermine and eliminate the sources of support to the rebellion first thus reducing the scope of direct confrontation. Both envision scenarios which seek attrition, it is simply the means in each which differ. However, I believe there is an importance to this difference, and I think terminology which recognizes it is thus necessary. To describe these distinct approaches I use anti-insurgency and counter-insurgency accordingly, or AINT and COIN.

For clarification, a few points of terminology must be settled. (1) To begin, when I speak of insurgency, I mean a conflict within governed space against the standing order. Those in opposition are characterized by a committed cadre at center, are generally weaker than the forces of the prevailing order, and often resort to asymmetry and other alternative and low cost/low training means. While they may enjoy popular support, it is enough that the population simply be neutral to apathetic. With respect to the pivotal terms of this essay, I will offer that my understanding of this distinction between anti- and counter- goes back to an old lecture on terrorism in my early academic days that has stuck with me for its clarity and utility. In brief, it sorted the approaches to dealing with terrorism into the two categories depending on the focus of effort, whether at dealing with acts and actors directly by fighting terrorists in the act and seeking them when not, or at undermining their ability to organize and act to reduce frequency, efficacy and numbers of attacks.

If you were wondering about the title, this is where the odd construction becomes relevant. The “it” and “this” refer to two pieces written by others which illustrate the two models. They are important here because the first, on AINT, inspired the conceptualization, and the second motivated the writing in this moment. Very interestingly, they are both by British authors, representing two ends of the security spectrum and long traditions of service. The AINT article is a theoretical description of the model by William F. Owen, formerly of the British Army and currently active in the field of military affairs. (2) The second is a blog piece on neighborhood policing by an anonymous but currently serving British police officer of significant experience, Nathan Constable. (3) While it may seem unorthodox to use a policing example to describe a strategic approach insurgent conflict, the principle, parties and activities are similar enough for these purposes. Where the absolute scale of force and violence may differ, I believe that plotted relatively they are sufficiently comparable. Thus, as a good enough comparative, I will go further to add that in this case the conceptual box is safely, and I hope fruitfully, exceeded.

Turning to the first piece, in Owen’s “Seek and Destroy,” the AINT model is clearly explicated. As a counter-insurgency strategy, I cannot disagree with it more. However, under the AINT construct, while I may not agree with its utility, I must similarly recommend that it is an entirely correct construction. The opening sentence is unambiguous: “The purpose of this article is to argue that the destruction of the enemy’s forces lies at the heart of countering both terrorism and insurgency.” (p. 12) If the end is compliance with the status quo, this will be achieved by attrition, and more specifically by fighting the insurgent force in order to kill or capture its members. Elimination of the rebellion in arms will eliminate the rebellion. That is iconic AINT.

For COIN, the Nathan Constable blog on neighborhood policing includes a vignette fully describing the contours of the countering model. His piece deserves to be read in its entirety, but for our purposes here a brief synopsis of the relevant portion will suffice. The circumstances of the case were a local police force dealing with significant and recurrent problems of anti-social behavior (the “insurgency”) that demanded police resources without improving by their interventions. Watching this approach fail to do more than “stick a plaster on” the ritual disturbances (the “insurgent activity”), he shifted course.

This adaptation meant considering the problem in other terms. Using intelligence gathering to understand the nature of the disorder and its causes, who might be the ringleaders, and what motivated the presence of the larger numbers of participants, the author describes how he and his police force changed their approach to the problem. Learning that many of the participants in the trouble were at a loss for anything better to do on a Friday evening, the police reached out other agencies and organizations to create sport and other entertainments for local youth so that they had safe spaces to spend an evening. As well, to reduce the influence and draw of alcohol, they worked with local businesses to eliminate or reduce sales to those under 21. Although the cadre of troublemakers remained (the “committed cadre” who drive the insurgency), without the broader participation of other youths (the rank and file who give the movement its force) these numbers were more easily dealt with by traditional policing methods. More importantly, the broader results of this combined effort away from the point of conflict was a reduction in the number of calls to police for that area and an overall improvement in the quality of life for the community as previously unpleasant to unsafe spaces were reclaimed and the youth had positive attractions for their energies. That is, by countering the problem rather than continuing to fight the obvious manifestation it was more enduringly solved.

It should be clear these two approaches vary significantly in principle and in practice. As played out at the level of conflict and war when considering insurgencies these differences are important and manifest at every level, from political to tactical. While it is certainly not necessary in practical strategic terms to choose one at the complete absence of aspects of the other, representing as they do very different philosophical perspectives on the conflict and its proper resolution, the likelihood is that one or the other will dominate. That is, if presented with the same situation, Owen and Nathan Constable would, according to their models, design very different strategies to achieve the ends of peace and order. These differences matter in costs and consequences, and must be considered in detail in deciding which should be chosen, because despite Owen’s claim, the efficacy of one over the other, is not an “obvious and enduring fact.” Where force of arms has come to dominate Western conceptualizations of warfare, this preference is not necessary in war.

Given this, the question for this week’s discussion is broad, intended to drive consideration of the terms of each approach and debate their relative merits against historical or hypothetical cases. Simply, it is:

 

When and where is each the more practicable approach and why?

 

Add your thoughts on Twitter at #CCLKOW.

 

 

 

Notes:

(1) These are the product of a wide reading across history and military affairs. They are attributable to many and none. I can offer no real credit, but neither is there anyone else to blame. These are, simply put, my definitions.

(2) Owen’s piece was published in Infinity Journal, Issue 2, Spring 2011, “Seek and Destroy: The Forgotten Strategy for Countering Armed Rebellion,” pp 12-15. It is freely available to those willing to sign up with the journal.

(3) Due to my unorthodox interpretation and application of the case, I chatted with Nathan Constable regarding my use of the blog. He was curious to see the alternative application, and forwarded supporting public documentation of the events — news articles which provide detail on the circumstances and the steps taken by local police and naming the officers involved. I have no need or intention to identify him, but for the purposes of this essay the verification of the events only added weight to my thinking on it.