#1
If the euro fails, [Merkel] was told by those present, it will be Germanys fault. For the third time in a century, that nation stands accused of blowing up Europe.
Bingo. The guilt of German leaders is why they won't be rational about it. They think it is their duty to see this through to the bitter end, as recompense for past crimes. France exploits that maximally. Result: Germany is France's bitch.
Just one nit to pick: the reference to a "federal Europe." The EU is not a federalist system like the US, with some powers delegated to the federal government, and the rest reserved to the states. It's exactly the opposite.
The purpose of the EU is, and always has been, to abolish nation-states. So the EU's relationship with member states is governed by the concept of subsidiarity. Exactly what it sounds like: member states are subsidiaries of the EU. Vassals. Subject to. Subordinate to. The whole six-decade development of the EU has been premised on the gradual transfer of sovereign rights and powers from member states to Brussels. From elected national officials, to unelected technocrats, mainly the European Commission.
They've managed to convince people that, through their elected national officials, they've had meaningful input throughout this process, but that's a bunch of bull. Just to clarify that ordinary people did not make this mess - the EUrocrats did.
Wrong!! From the beginning monetary union was a large step in the over-all plan to do away with nations in Europe. See RJDs comment. This is all part of the plan to force the total subjugation of the various nations to the unelected, self-selected technocracy of by and for the elites.
#3
"The EU is NOT a Federalist System like the US" > apparently not for Germany's lack of trying ...
To wit,
* TOPIX > [Daily Mail.UK] FEDERAL EUROPE WOULD BE A GERMAN SUPERSTATE, BECAUSE NO OTHER POPULATION [in EU/EUZ] IS SO MOTIVATED TO SUCCEED.
"Greater Germany" = aka as Euroland.
Which IMO bears the question, AND THE RUSSO-GERMAN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP + ALLIANCE - read, 1980's Gorbachevian, Pro-Russia "PAN-SLAVICISM" AKA EASTERN EUROPE + ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY???
[Jerusalem Post] Istanbul's Seventh Criminal Court to seek prison terms totaling over 18,000 years for four former IDF commanders.
The decision this week by Istanbul's Seventh Criminal Court to seek prison terms totaling over 18,000 years for four former IDF commanders may or may not have been timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the May 31 Mavi Marmara debacle. But many have used the occasion of the indictment -- and the anniversary of the incident -- to argue that the time has come to apology to the Turks.
New York University's Alon Ben-Meir, a professor of international relations and a regular columnist for The Jerusalem Post, made such a recommendation in an oped that appeared in the Turkish daily Hurriyet. Ben-Meir claimed that "Turkey has repeatedly reaffirmed that once Israel apologizes, Ankara will resume full diplomatic relations."
In addition, according to a Channel 10 news report, Vice Premier Shaul Mofaz supports apologizing to the Turks, thus strengthening the position held by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor.
The US has reportedly relaunched an effort to convince Israel to reconsider apologizing to Turkey, encouraged by Mofaz's strengthening of the apologist camp in the government and by the fact that the broad government coalition cannot be toppled by Yisrael Beytenu's Avigdor Liberman, a strong opponent of apologizing to Turkey.
But will an apology truly improve Israel's relations with Turkey? Last July ahead of the release of the UN-appointed Palmer Commission's report -- which found that Israel had every legal justification for enforcing a naval blockade on the Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason,-controlled Gazoo Strip, though the IDF was taken to task for using excessive force -- a concerted effort spearheaded by the US, attempted to resolve the tension between Jerusalem and Ankara.
To pacify the Turks, the US would see to it that the Palmer report would be buried. In addition, the Turks demanded that Israel apologize for the incident and pay compensation to the families of the nine people who were killed when IDF commandos raided the Mavi Marmara.
Israel also was expected to lift its blockade of Gazoo.
In exchange, the Turks agreed to refrain from bringing legal claims against the commandos who boarded the Mavi Marmara or against the officers and politicians who sent them, and resolve the conflict with Israel.
For its part, Israel was willing to express "regret" over the incident and provide monetary compensation. But Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Liberman refused to issue an official apology or lift the naval blockade.
As a result, the deal fell through and the Palmer report was published. In response, Ankara downgraded its diplomatic relations with Israel.
At the time, this paper supported the government's decision not to cave in to Turkish demands. Doing so would have been interpreted as a sign of weakness.
Agreeing to lift the blockade would only encourage future attempts to use diplomatic pressure to influence Israeli policies. And a full apology would also be a disservice to IDF soldiers and military commanders.
Finally, an Israeli apology -- without any recognition on the part of the Turks that by allowing the Mavi Marmara to set sail from their shores, they were also responsible for the debacle -- might be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
Obviously, if the Turks had really been interested in improving relations with Israel they would have -- "If you don't want to marry, ask for a large dowry," says a Ladino expression.
And even if Israel had apologized, it is highly unlikely that Ankara would fully normalize relations. Doing so would hurt its standing in the Mohammedan world. In contrast, taking a tough stand against Israel is an easy way of currying Mohammedan favor, both inside Turkey and throughout the region.
It is naïve to believe that if only Israel were to apologize for the Mavi Marmara raid, relations with Turkey would return to normal.
True, Israel might score a small diplomatic victory by apologizing and proving to the world that it is Turkish intransigence and radicalism -- not an Israeli refusal to apologize -- that are the real obstacles to normalization.
But Israel also has an obligation to itself to maintain a modicum of self-respect and deterrence power.
#1
ION TURKEY, BHARAT RAKSHAK > a KURDISH MAJORITY IN TURKEY WIDIN ONE GENERATION.
and
* WAFF > ERDOGAN'S CALLS FOR MORE BIRTHS TO INCREASE TURKEY'S WORLD POWER. Ethnic Turks facing a Kurd-led demographic bomb that can explode at any time.
Erdogan feeling the heat from Turkish Womens' Groups to "hands off" their bodies.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2012 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
How about after the Turks apologize to the Armenians?
How about after the Turks apologize to Israel for forcing them to kill the vicious miscreants Turkey had sent their way?
#1
UAV's have their place, but wars throughout history have been won by seizing terrain and vanquishing an enemy. Over relieance on armed UAV's as a strategy is misguided. Assasination just hardens people's resolve whilst the next fellow moves up to replace the last. Nothing much is really gained except headlines.
#4
The rep is, piss us off and we'll kill you and we won't even break a sweat. What's the problem?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
05/31/2012 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
So mebbe this only ends when enough of the right kind of conflict tourists show up to strangle / stab these types up close and personal. The horror...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/31/2012 8:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Yes, one can use a Browning High-Power to take out a hill of fire ants. Just remember to bring plenty of ammo and plan on spending the day.
#7
Well the west's problem is its unwillingless to declare war on enemy pakistan, or pakistan to agree that land within its borders is out of the states control.
Until this is clarified we have a vietnam/cambodia situation.
#10
Still think we should have been quiet about the drones and let them wonder how bombs occasionally blew up people. Was it inside men? Targeted bombs? What? As it is, this is a militarily weak culture complaining that its unfair. The same culture I might add that lives by hit-and-run and terrorist attacks on the undefended instead of a stand-up fight so who cares.
#12
Besoeker #1 is totally correct. Aerial warfare also settles nothing on its own, unless you are ready to go nuclear. Clinton used the same no-boots-on-the-ground method with the Serbs and that situation was never really resolved and is getting ready to boil over again.
#16
I cannot recall anyone successfully defeating a counterinsurgency when a border sancuary was permitted to operate.
The Greeks defeated the Communist insurgency that had bases in Albania and Yugoslavia. The Philippines defeated the Huks who were being resupplied from China via the usual junks. South Vietnam defeated the Vietcong - with a lot of help from Uncle Sam - although that became moot when the North Vietnamese military invaded with conventional forces in 1975.
The difficulty for the Pashtuns is that they are a 40% minority that is hated by the other ethnic groups because of the Taliban. Our difficulty is that we could resolve the problem once and for all without getting directly involved by simply funding the Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks to crush the Pashtuns with maximum force, but can't really operate that way because of Carter bright idea to use human rights as a stick against the Soviets, something that never worked because the liberal media had and has this laser-like focus on human rights violations among our allies.
#17
Or you could just redraw the border line and put all the Pashtuns on the Pak side. The 1893 Durand Line Agreement was supposed to be an agreement about spheres of influence, not a holy writ.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/31/2012 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Put all the Pastuns on the Pak side? That means the next time they violate our human rights with another terrorist attack we declare war on the Paks. Works for me if we can do it without nation building. Just nuke 'em.
[Jerusalem Post] Kirkpatrick defended Israel with unyielding critique of UN, charging anti-Israel diplomacy 'has nothing to do with peace."
Jeane Kirkpatrick experienced an epiphany shortly after Ronald Reagan appointed her America's permanent representative at the UN in 1981 when Israel's ambassador Yehuda Blum came to her office for his first official visit.
She had been appalled during the previous four years by what she regarded as the Carter administration's contemptuous attitude toward the Jewish state, and particularly by the way that preceding UN ambassadors Andrew Young and Donald McHenry had, respectively, criticized the Jewish state as "stubborn and intransigent" (and met secretly with the PLO representative), and voted for Resolution 465 condemning Israel's occupation of "Arab territories including Jerusalem."
But she didn't realize how deeply these attitudes had penetrated the US mission until she saw the way the career foreign service officers she inherited from the previous administration dismissively referred to Blum by his first name and rudely interrupted him on this first visit. She sternly pointed out to them that Blum was a Holocaust survivor who spoke nine languages, and angrily ordered them out of the room.
"You can see what it has been like for Israel here," Blum told her after they sat down. Kirkpatrick replied, "It will be different now. No one will be treated better in this mission than Israel."
And this was true. She and Blum cooperated on several initiatives and often escaped with key staff members for private strategy dinners at a small restaurant in Brooklyn they both favored. The personal relationship was political for Kirkpatrick. Seeing the hatred of Israel in her first days at the UN, she told her colleague Richard Schifter with a stricken look on her face, "I think the Holocaust is possible again. I didn't think so before I came to the UN, but I think so now."
She brought this feeling to president Reagan who agreed with her that the US had to stand against "the obsessive vilification of Israel." Along with preventing the spread of Marxism-Leninism in Central America and driving a stake through the heart of the Soviet Union, this became Kirkpatrick's chief objective during her time at the UN.
After the bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, she argued strenuously that the US should simply abstain from the resolution advanced by Iraq after the attack calling for sanctions against Israel but was overruled by the State Department.
She then worked behind the scenes to get the resolution watered down to a condemnation and made her feelings known when even this question was called by raising her hand reluctantly to half mast and allowing a look to cross her face of someone who has just detected a fecal odor in the room.
Kirkpatrick defended Israel by her unyielding critique of what it faced at the UN. Charging that diplomacy regarding the "Arab- Israeli conflict" at the world body "has nothing to do with peace, but is quite simply a continuation of war against Israel by other means," she said that the UN, as a result, had become a place where "moral outrage was distributed like violence in a protection racket"; a place where Israel is regularly and routinely attacked for manufactured crimes amidst deafening silence "when 3 million Cambodians died in Pol Pot's murderous utopia... when a quarter million Ugandans died at the hands of Idi Amin... and when thousand of Soviet citizens are denied equal rights, equal protection of the law; denied the right to think, write, publish, work freely or emigrate."
She pointed out repeatedly that hatred of Israel deformed all aspects of UN operations: "A women's conference is suddenly transformed into a forum for the denunciation of Israel" because of assertions that "the biggest obstacle to the realizations of women's full enjoyment of equal rights in the world is Zionism....A meeting of the ineffective International Atomic Energy Agency becomes so absorbed in negotiations and debate over a resolution to expel Israel that it almost forgets to worry about nuclear non proliferation."
Kirkpatrick experienced this malign obsession personally when she headed a delegation to the International Conference on African Refugees in March 1981.
The day before it opened, the Arab States, led by Libya, moved to bar Israel's delegate. Kirkpatrick announced that if this happened, the US would walk out and withdraw the $285 million it had pledged to the refugee problem. She dared the African countries and their Arab allies to choose between their "vile rhetoric" and money that could help their people.
They chose the money.
She saw clearly that isolating and stigmatizing Israel was the USSR's "great project" at the UN, an effort undertaken with diabolical ingenuity by the accusation that the Jewish state was guilty of racism -- the greatest of sins in the post-colonial period when newly minted states were regularly entering the world organization -- and by making Israel morally equivalent to apartheid South Africa.
She presciently saw that this accusation would be justified not by facts or proof, but by "a systematic assault on language and meaning."
She picked up on the first signs of this brazenly methodical effort to turn the narrative of the Holocaust inside-out by rebranding the Paleostinians "the Jews of the Arab world" and the Israelis " Nazis," and she understood the likely consequences: "by successfully claiming that Israel was guilty of genocide, any attack against the state and people of Israel was justified."
The passionate indignation over the treatment of Israel at the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick carried with her until her death in 2006 is nowhere visible in the Obama presidency whose cold friendship for the Jewish State has justly been compared to the Carter administration's. But his treatment of Israel is also often cited as one of the reasons Carter lost to Ronald Reagan who immediately installed at the UN a woman who believed that "to defend Israel was to defend America and western civilization itself." So perhaps the historical analogy carries with it a ray of hope after all.
#1
She might have liked Israel but she tried to get Reagan to side against the Brits in the Falkland conflict. Side with a conquering dictatorship over historical democratic allies.
Posted by: jack salami ||
05/31/2012 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Israel's military skills are unrivaled in the region, but its predictions about geopolitical issues leave a lot to be desired, although it has to be said they're at least based on facts rather than the fantasies conjured up by the Arabs.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
