Pity Lebanon and Pity the Lebanese, The History of Germany's BfV, Ceding Patriotism to the Right, Infighting in Anti-Putin Exile Community, "Doom Scrolling"
Hit the like button at the top or bottom of this page to like this entry. Use the share and/or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
And please don't forget to subscribe if you haven't done so already!
Ah yes, the Left realizes the Chuds got something going on with the whole like their homelands thing and now it's time to take it from them for power. So lovely
It's a recognition of reality on the part of the author, but the Anglosphere Left has been savaging him and his essay online ever since it was published.
Hey Niccolo - thanks for this. Final comment added at the end.
A Neo-Ottoman polity complete with a political millet system of governance, the creation of the State of Israel (and the reaction that its creation caused) effectively doomed Lebanon, leading to its present failed state status. Lebanon is a failed state -->
Lebanon was doomed by a neo-Ottoman polity (complete with a political millet system of governance) and the creation of the State of Israel (and the reaction which that creation caused), leading to its present 'failed state' status. Lebanon is a failed state
[Problem here is that one first thinks 'lebanon is a neo-ottoman polity, then one reads the 'creation of the state...' and realises one hasnt read it correctly - in the suggested form its just easier to read bc the subject of the sentence is clear earlier).
gallows' --> gallows
[no apostrophe]
Occam's --> Ockham's
[Occam is a minority rendering of the name, note there is a second ref to Occam too to consider changing]
all to happy --> all too happy
did tank --> tanked
[stylistic point: to tank almost never used with the did construction]
and naturally, the Israelis --> and naturally the Israelis
When I saw your subtitle I wondered if you had read Fisk's book. Yes! It is a remarkable work and a must read for any student of middle east affairs.
As for the quotes and the mention of the "brutal HAMAS attack"...I am always put off by Oct 7 brutality accounts because in comparison to 76 years of hell for the Palestinians escalated to the "outdoor prison" of Gaza starting in 2006, then the "mowing the grass" operations (Cast Lead, Protective Edge and Pillar of Defense) Israeli assaults on Gaza that were small samples of the outright annihilation going on now, Oct 7 was to be expected and mild by comparison. And, as Norman Finkelstein has so wisely said, Oct 7 was a godsend for Netanyahu.
The primary problem in the area has been the protection from all consequences for Israel by the US both militarily and diplomatically. The US is thus the Hypocrite of the Planet now with the country of "liberty and justice for all" backing an extermination campaign.
Hitler ran an ethnic cleansing operation, 250,000 Americans died in the joint effort to destroy Naziism.
Imperial Japan was an ethnic supremacist state of the first order (ask the Chinese about it) and the US spent about 50,000 American lives putting an end to that
Israel is BOTH an ethnic cleansing state AND and ethnic supremacist state and the US will very likely spend American lives to PROTECT Israel from the consequences that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan faced and could not avoid. Zionism is explicitly a repudiation of liberty and justice for all that the US, whose Pledge of Allegiance specifically mentions it, has entirely forgotten. I have never heard Biden, Harris or Trump mention the phrase as they pour out the love for Zionism.
This American is appalled. I was out on the street today with a bullhorn calling on my fellow countrymen and women to break the grip of Zionism, whose bottomless well of money perfectly manipulates the completely corrupt Congress. I got in a good 40 minutes before the noise ordinance cops came and, in sympathy with what I was doing, very respectfully asked me to stop. It is amazing what a blue eyed white guy can accomplish. If I looked Arab, I would have been shut down in 10 minutes.
Zionism being the antithesis of liberty and justice for all, our President declares openly he is a Zionist with not a hint of hesitation. What could be more treasonous and Americans sleep through it. Nobody on MSM cares to question it. America has reached the lowest point in its history, we might as well pull down Old Glory and hoist Israel's blue and white flag. The tiny tail wags the world's biggest dog.
The US is the safe home for Jews, thoroughly integrated into all parts of American society and a benefit to America in so many ways. But we must back a killing machine at the east end of the Mediterranean to the hilt and even sacrifice American lives to bring Iran down, a country that threatens not one American citizen, Jew or gentile. The story of Zionist takeover will ring through histories of the future leaving all who hear of it astounded.
George Marshall (Marshall Plan) warned Truman not to recognize Israel as it would bring unending woe for the area and the US. Truman didn't listen. The woe has yet to climax.
You neglect history and geopolitics and assume that the US decides everything. It does not and never has.
The USSR supported the creation of Israel and ensured its survival in 1948 by providing weapons from Czech armouries. Truman, by contrast, imposed an arms embargo. He, together with George Marshall, expected Israel to collapse within weeks and was happy for this to happen. Marshall even declined to meet the Israeli ambassador because he thought it a waste of time. Stalin made a fool of Truman. He met Golda Meir and they had a cordial and respectful meeting.
American hostility to Israel endured. During the Suez crisis the US navy had orders to sink all Israeli naval forces in the Mediteranean (as well as those of the UK and France) in the event of war. As it was the US forces maliciously interfered with signals and navigation systems, putting the lives of sailors at risk.
Years later, Washington refused to honour its commitment to maintain free passage in the Straits of Tiran (initially made to resolve the Suez crisis), thereby making the war inevitable. At the time the US expected Israel to lose and was not prepared to risk anything to prevent that.
The US was ardently sympathetic with Arab nationalism and supported Negouib's coup, then Nasser's. The US only reconsidered things after Cairo started to intrigue against Riyadh. This kicked off the celebrated 'Arab Cold War' and the US was obliged by treaty to support Riyadh.
The US only reluctantly became involved with Israel after '67 because it had no choice. The US needed allies on the ground because at the time it had no bases in the region (the ones in Saudi Arabia were built in the late 70s onwards, maybe the 80s). Washington was no longer comfortable with a non-aligned Israel.
To what extent the US is too closely aligned with Israel at present is a matter for rational debate. In deliberating this facts matter. Emotions don't.
Way past time, Bob. The time for that was after the 1967 war before the settlers showed they could intimidate the Israeli government into allowing them to do their thing.
And I must admit, those settlers were simply furthering Zionism, realizing the dream. They were saying in effect, "why did we stop in '48?" The same thing that is motivating Netanyahu right now...sweep the board clean of pests and take the land.
Cold hard cash nails it. The US has been bought so thoroughly that the very President is all in for Zionism.
Quite possibly so. At the moment Netanyahu is simply following the Guam Doctrine laid down by Richard Nixon. This is not unreasonable because Washington has not disallowed this or developed any better options. However, longterm US interests would be better served by a less intense relationship with the Israelis.
The political problem is that the US deliberately confuses domestic politics with foreign policy. The US manages relations with its Jews by the bizarre Kabuki theatre of American Zionism. Now that the US also hosts large Muslim populations things are getting more absurd and more sinister. US Muslims and their political allies now seek to constrain and harass US Jews per se, demanding anti-Zionist posturing as a political test. This is reminiscent of the old Soviet Bloc.
Important to note, though, is that there are plenty of American Jews, most of them young, who are vehemently anti-Zionist, specifically those in Jewish Voice for Peace. They are in the front at pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
"The US only reluctantly became involved with Israel after '67 because it had no choice."
Strange, then, that in 1967 given this reluctance you cite, LBJ recalled US Navy fighter jets rather than let them continue on their way to go to the aid of the USS Liberty under attack by Israeli Mirage fighters. Allowing Israel freedom to attack and attempt to sink a US ship, killing many US sailors, and then following up by deliberately keeping the facts from being known and refusing a full investigation doesn't sound like what would be done with a country the US was reluctant to be involved with.
"To what extent the US is too closely aligned with Israel at present is a matter for rational debate. In deliberating this facts matter."
Ok, let's hear a rational argument that the US should be so closely aligned with Israel that the President of the US will not in any way prevent Israel from doing as it wishes, even enduring snubs from the Israeli PM. Add in permission to use US arms to spread warfare as desired along with the ability to assassinate inside Iran and bomb the Iranian embassy in Beirut, an open invitation to start a war in which the US would be bound to come it for Israel.
And, since you tell us emotions don't matter (in this case fear of terrorism), please use reason to deny that unconditional alignment with Israel, allowing it to kill without limit (unless Netanyahu decides on one) is creating a terrorism threat to Americans worldwide.
In your original comment you wrote: "Not everything on earth is about America or what America wants or even how Americans feel"
I'm afraid you neglect to consider that the Americans running US foreign policy are deliberately out to be sure that as far as they can make it so, everything on earth is, or will be, about what America wants. That is precisely why the US is digging its own hole putting tripwire "bases" everywhere.
The US Liberty was collecting signals intelligence. Since I have no access to the relevant archives it is unclear to me if this was being shared with the Arab forces. More than likely it was.
The US had a defence treaty with the principal Arab state in the region at the time (Saudi Arabia) and was desperate to maintain its intimate relationship with Egypt whose government had been installed with the assistance of the CIA. The details of the treaty were a state secret but its existence was common knowledge. The Israelis certainly knew about US ties to Negouib and, later, Nasser through their intelligence work in Cairo.
The Americans also had intimate invoIvement with many, perhaps most, of the military coup leaders in Syria in the 150s and 1960s. The regional centre for US intelligence in the region was in Beirut.
The UK, a NATO country, still had bases in Cyprus which collected signals intellicence on Israel which they would have been obliged to share via the Five Eyes agreement. The UK had assisted with ethnically cleansing Jews from the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948 and as late as the 50s UK defence chiefs had ambitions to carve up Israel so that they would place RAAF bases in the Negev. This was the era of the Baghdad Pact so the need for anti-Soviet solidarity was mixed up with maintaining good relationships between the West and the Arabs. The RAAF had flown reconnaiscance missions for Arab forces in 1948 until the Israelis started shooting at the planes.
It is unlikely, indeed all but impossible, that any Israeli commander would have ordered an attack on a superpower unless there were pressing operational reasons for doing so.
LBJ was covering up mischiefs undertaken by US forces, not the Israelis. There is nothing in the least bit wrong with targetting hostile forces during a war.
As for the present, this is complicated and depends on what the US aims are today. It is unclear what Washington wants but, as always, it is playing games with allies and enemies alike.
All of your comment is only more reason for the US to defend the Liberty, not abandon it, in addition to your previous comment about reluctance to cozy up to Israel. The US could have made up any story it wished just as now it has John Kirby and KJP covering for Israel almost daily. Your evidence of favor toward the Arab countries would make it even more valuable to protect the Liberty, even if it was gathering intelligence for Egypt.
Correct. The US should have defended the USS. Liberty, just as they should have been honest about their cynicism, enmity and malice all along. But honesty is not Washington's way. Candour is a virtue, a manly quality, so no-one expects any of it from Uncle Samantha now.
Further to my previous comment, the US is not drawn into foreign entanglements by its foreign policy, but by economic necessity.
The US cannot give up on empire because its chronic trade deficits are financed by negotiable securiities purchased with the foreign reserves of its trade partners and others. The financial deficits are also financed by foreigners.
Until the US economy decouples from the rest of the world it is bound to play the role of global cop one way or another.
A trade deficit means that more goods and services are imported than exported. On the other side of this equation is a trade surplus, whereupon the rest of the world accumulates USDs in exchange for their exports to the US.
This is a non-issue in terms of finance. It is an issue for countries who are running export-oriented economic development.
The US dollar holdings of the trade partners are recycled through the bond market The US issues negotiable securities which absorb the foreign reserves built up by exporting to the US and other markets. This is the exorbitant privilege about which everyone complains.
China bucked the system when they stopped buying more Treasury bills and started using their trade surpluses to finance infrastucture via the Belt and Road initiative. Trade and finance are intimately connected.
There's no requirement for the Treasury to borrow or offer interest payments. Money can be created out of thin air.
Dollar holders can always invest in the private market, which offer higher returns in exchange for higher risk.
Good on China. There's no point in accumulating dollars if they are not spent on goods and services. Countries who import as much as they export aren't left with enormous balances in foreign banks.
You make a hasty generalization. The Iraq disaster had nothing to do with economics in the hype to get it underway, but it certainly made a hole in the US budget.
Perfectly correct. The US ruling class pointedly suppress public acknowledgement of the intersectices between economic and foreign/defence policy. This leads to endless confusion and frustrates accountability.
Iraq has been at the heart of geopolitical anxiety. The UK returned to the gold standard in the 20s (greatly exacerbating tbe effect of the Great Depression and constraining the defence budget leading to appeasement under Chamberlain in the 30s) because of a clause in the oil treaty with Hashemite Iraq. No one ever discusses this, but it is true.
The current Russia/Ukraine crisis is also a shocking example of the same sinister discretion. Regardless of anyone's sympathies we all need better, more accurate, and reliable information on what is at stake.
“None of this coming end times is because of Jews. They’re just the fall guys for a uniquely European evil, being forced into an antisemitic caricature colony of themselves. While it is true that Jews are disproportionately represented in imperial institutions (finance, media, and government) it’s important to remember that they’re still a minority therein. All the Germans, Scots, and intermixed ‘white’ people blend into the white background and the Jews (conveniently for everyone else) stick out. Jews are definitely shareholders in the imperial project but they’re minority shareholders, and—historically speaking—the first to be thrown under the bus.”?
"Albania has managed to function despite having similar confessional differences, but in my view Albania has had the luxury of being ignored and left to its own devices for a century now, unlike Lebanon."
That gets to the core of the problem. When left alone people in most cases can sort out their problems. It is foreign interference that makes problems unsolvable. It makes the parties look to play their foreign supporters. They will not give in when it would be logical because they think that they can push through things with foreign support. They will paint their position as worse than it is in order to get foreign support. They will deliberately polarize conflicts as it delivers foreign attention and with that money.
Here in the Netherlands we used to have the "verzuiling" (translation: pillarification) that resulted in separate education for Protestants, Catholics and a third neutral pillar. There were separate trade unions, separate broadcasting organizations, etc. Nowadays the remnants are still there but the system has lost its meaning as many people are no longer religious.
The Ottomans used to have the Millet system. The Lebanese system is inspired by that. The problem with the Millet system is that it supposes that one group is on top. With the Verzuiling on the other hand the assumption is that the state will look after the common interests while the separate interests are guaranteed by separate institutions. The difference is trust. In Lebanon every group has its reserved percentage of seats and it reserved functions, such as that the president should be a Christian. This calcifies the system and causes more trouble outside of it.
When Lebanon was founded the Christians were the majority. They no longer are and that causes major problems in the system as it is so hard to change. Here in the Netherlands the Protestants were initially the majority. However, the Catholic population grew faster and they have now probably a small majority. However, nobody has noticed as it is politically irrelevant.
Albania, like Lebanon, has the same language and a shared history among its people. This manages to make the other differences not as stark overall as they were in the ex-YU and USSR.
The USSR fell apart because Yeltsin pushed for it. Separatism was only a major thing in the Baltics. The Baltics had been annexed just 50 years ago in a rather brutal way and there were still many memories of it. Western propaganda will have played an important role there too.
Multi-ethnic empires tend to be quite stable. See also the Habsburg empire and Iran.
Yugoslavia became destabilized by two things: the economy (transit to capitalism and IMF "cure") and the Milosevic takeover in Kosovo. The latter undermined the existing system where Croatia and Slovenia could dominate in an alliance with the poorest republics. There was a proposal for a one man-one vote system where the central government would be elected directly without the republics as intermediate step but Croatia (and Slovenia?) rejected this. It is my estimate that they would have consented after some further negotiations if they had gotten some extra autonomy. That is: in a situation without foreign interference.
Unfortunately Germany, Austria and Hungary were very eager to get their Habsburg brothers into the EU. Later it was reported that Hungary was already shipping tanks to Croatia before the fighting had started. At that time the newspapers here regularly posted articles that Croatia and Slovenia would fit perfectly in the EU. There was no interest to absorb also the poorer republics. Remember that at that time the per capita income in the poorest republic was a quarter of that in Slovenia.
You come from an emigrant community that left when Yugoslavia had existed just twenty years and there had been a lot of trouble about too much Serb influence. In 1989 the country had existed seventy years, the republics had much more autonomy and for a long period the country had been ruled by Tito, a Croat. That was quite a different point of view.
Another dispassionate piece on the Middle East. You are to be congratulated, Niccolo.
Lebanon was created on exactly the same basis as Israel. The French carved out a state for the Christians within the territory of the Mandate for Syria. They also created one for the Druze and the Alawites. These two were dissolved after anti-French uprisings. Lebanon was not caught up in these disturbances so the Lebanese state endured. The rationale for the three minoritarian states under French protection was recognition of the impossibility of non-Muslims retaining social or political equality under Muslim rule.
The British used the same authority to create a state for their Muslim clients, the Banu Hashemi (the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) while reserving the remaining portions of the Mandate for Palestine for a Jewish state. The British went on to allow some Jewish migration but vetoed plans by Central European states (above all Poland and Hungary) to resettle Jews en masse. It is worth remembering that the first shots fired by UK forces in WW2 were aimed at Jewish refugees on a ship (Tiger Hill) seeking to land in Palestine. A few did make it, most were detained and returned to Europe. All of these were subsequently killed.
The issue has always been the legacy of the millet system and those aspects of the shariah derived from the Pact of Umar. The fate of the Jews across the Maghreb and the Mishraq (the Western and Eastern portions of the Arab world), as well as Turkey and Iran demonstrates the farsightedness and justice of the British and French approach in the period from 1917 till the 1920s. Ditto the more recent fate of the Christians in Iraq.
Lebanon's fate was sealed when outside forces (including the US) steered the Palestinians en masse into Lebanon after Black September in Jordan. Lebanon was used to ensure that the centre of gravity for the chaos within the region was placed as far as possible from the oilfields in the Gulf. Arafat was a wild card because he was a client of both sides in the Cold War, financed by Western allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and (after adopting airline hijacking) the West itself. The West could not control Arafat and ended up sacrificing Christian interests within Lebanon to retain cooperation with the Saudis et al.
The abiding issue is the inability of the Lebanese ruling class to function as anything other than as compradors, whether these be Iranian, American, European.
The desperate urgency for us all is that the Western ruling classes are also becoming compradors for extranational forces (transnational corporations, drug cartels, rival superpowers). As we can see from the jihadis in the UK, the British ruling class now manage their domestic affairs with a view to Qatari, Iranian and Pakistani relationships. This is ironic...also ominous.
Glad to see you writing about the BfV. Their growing political importance, and even political activism, since 2020 has become a really important phenomenon, one of the dominant stealth factors shaping German politics presently. It was not only the rise of the AfD and the end of the Merkel era that shifted them rightwards, but also the pandemic. Nervousness about Covid dissenters seems to have genuinely radicalised Haldenwang.
Anyway, the whole topic has yielded a few books – in addition Steinke (which Streeck is reviewing in the LRB) there is Brodkorb's even more recent monograph, Gesinnungspolizei im Rechtsstaat, which is a series of six case-studies and contains some unbelievable anecdotes about BfV activities – also shedding interesting light on their towering incompetence.
I've long planned to write a series of pieces synthesising this material.
Yeah, Streeck mentions COVID-19 and how reaction to it has been monitored by BfV. This is the first solid treatment of that arm of German government, both at the federal and state levels. Lemme know when you plan on publishing your work on it.
Traditional nationalism perhaps too divisive. In the old days it would have been Empire Loyalists versus the Quebecois. Now any coherent Canadian nationalism would presumably be anti-American.
The liberal fox is merely promoting multiculturalism, which is a sneaky method of raiding the hen house, instead of guarding it. The 'far-right' People's Party of Canada could make a case for nationalism if they were elected, but remain in the single digits.
I don't get the end of nation states argument after watching, IRL, as former Yugoslavia was enthusiastically chopped up to ethnostates, with Western sanctioned ethnic cleansing in Croatia in 1995.
It would be interesting to analyse the roots of Iran’s apparent irreconcilable enmity towards Israel. Historically, the two countries have never fought a war against each other; they do not share a common border nor harbour reciprocal territorial claims. In other words, the Arabs have much more reason to be hostile to Israel, which has not prevented the Camp David and Abraham
accords.
his seems to suggests that Iran’s position regarding Israel is essentially ideological, possibly consubstantial to the current regime, but not rooted in deep national interest: a comparison would be Russia’s advocacy of world revolution in Soviet times. Compared to Russia, anecdotal evidence at least suggests even greater fascination with the West, including the US, and deep disenchantment with the regime on the part of public, at least at a corresponding stage of the revolutionary arc. This gives some plausibility to the idea that regime change might bring about as a fundamental re-alignment in the region as the Islamic revolution did in 1979. Acquisition of nuclear weapons may be the best life-insurance for the regime against foreign attempts at fomenting regime change. Conversely, this may be a reason for Israel (and United States) to make an attempt at regime change now.
Geopolitically the current Iranian regime is perverse. The regional interests of Israel and Iran are easily aligned, as they were in the time of the Shah and under the Achaemenid, Arsacid and Sassanid dynasties. The mullahs soaked up too much ideological Kool Aid IMHO.
Would not be surprised if elements of the regime in Tehran are covettly helping to remove obstacles (Raisi, Abdolhanian, Soleimani, Haniyeh, Nasrallah etc). Lebanon, Gaza and the Houthis a drain on resources. Syria less valuable now that trade deals with China, Russia and India have been done. Iran benefits from less conflict with Israel.
The BfV article reminds me of the formation of the Homeland Security Department in the wake of 9/11. Rush Limbaugh (whom I honestly didn't listen to much) warned a new federal department could infringe on our freedom. Now that it's been usurped by Mayorkas, it's more an attack on the homeland than a defense of it.
Excellent post. On the subject of the decline of the nation-state, I am an avid follower of events in Ireland, where WEF apparatchiks have taken the reins of power and are hell-bent on turning Eire into a deracinated vassal state of the Davos crowd. I call it a cold civil war between the militant Irish and the pols. I wonder if it will turn hot?
"Last September, the great glittering prize of Middle East peace seemed to be in touching distance: Saudi rapprochement with Israel.
But, then, the depth of Hamas’s murderous brutality on 7 October shattered that assumption"
Israel/Saudi rapprochement was in the form of the IMEC Memorandum of Understanding on the Principals of an India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).
On Sept. 9, the White House announced a plan for the construction of an India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) that will connect India to Europe, through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel. On Oct. 7, Iran’s Palestinian ally Hamas burst out of Gaza into Israel, killing 1,400 Israelis, and kidnapping 200 others. Iran is part of the competing Belt and Road corridor designed to connect China to the Mediterranean.
“One of the reasons Hamas moved on Israel… they knew that I was about to sit down with the Saudis,” President Biden said. “The Saudis wanted to recognize Israel.”
Hit the like button at the top or bottom of this page to like this entry. Use the share and/or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
And please don't forget to subscribe if you haven't done so already!
Done worry about length - just means I need a few days to read it all
Ah yes, the Left realizes the Chuds got something going on with the whole like their homelands thing and now it's time to take it from them for power. So lovely
It's a recognition of reality on the part of the author, but the Anglosphere Left has been savaging him and his essay online ever since it was published.
All this would resolve itself with a sabbatical to a obscure South American enclave and some purple Kool Aid
nothing makes Leftists more furious than reality...all their theories deny its existence and their theories are never wrong.
Hey Niccolo - thanks for this. Final comment added at the end.
A Neo-Ottoman polity complete with a political millet system of governance, the creation of the State of Israel (and the reaction that its creation caused) effectively doomed Lebanon, leading to its present failed state status. Lebanon is a failed state -->
Lebanon was doomed by a neo-Ottoman polity (complete with a political millet system of governance) and the creation of the State of Israel (and the reaction which that creation caused), leading to its present 'failed state' status. Lebanon is a failed state
[Problem here is that one first thinks 'lebanon is a neo-ottoman polity, then one reads the 'creation of the state...' and realises one hasnt read it correctly - in the suggested form its just easier to read bc the subject of the sentence is clear earlier).
gallows' --> gallows
[no apostrophe]
Occam's --> Ockham's
[Occam is a minority rendering of the name, note there is a second ref to Occam too to consider changing]
all to happy --> all too happy
did tank --> tanked
[stylistic point: to tank almost never used with the did construction]
and naturally, the Israelis --> and naturally the Israelis
[Comment: comma not needed]
______________
[An update:]
Normally, this would --> Normally this would
Thanks Calby
When I saw your subtitle I wondered if you had read Fisk's book. Yes! It is a remarkable work and a must read for any student of middle east affairs.
As for the quotes and the mention of the "brutal HAMAS attack"...I am always put off by Oct 7 brutality accounts because in comparison to 76 years of hell for the Palestinians escalated to the "outdoor prison" of Gaza starting in 2006, then the "mowing the grass" operations (Cast Lead, Protective Edge and Pillar of Defense) Israeli assaults on Gaza that were small samples of the outright annihilation going on now, Oct 7 was to be expected and mild by comparison. And, as Norman Finkelstein has so wisely said, Oct 7 was a godsend for Netanyahu.
The primary problem in the area has been the protection from all consequences for Israel by the US both militarily and diplomatically. The US is thus the Hypocrite of the Planet now with the country of "liberty and justice for all" backing an extermination campaign.
Hitler ran an ethnic cleansing operation, 250,000 Americans died in the joint effort to destroy Naziism.
Imperial Japan was an ethnic supremacist state of the first order (ask the Chinese about it) and the US spent about 50,000 American lives putting an end to that
Israel is BOTH an ethnic cleansing state AND and ethnic supremacist state and the US will very likely spend American lives to PROTECT Israel from the consequences that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan faced and could not avoid. Zionism is explicitly a repudiation of liberty and justice for all that the US, whose Pledge of Allegiance specifically mentions it, has entirely forgotten. I have never heard Biden, Harris or Trump mention the phrase as they pour out the love for Zionism.
This American is appalled. I was out on the street today with a bullhorn calling on my fellow countrymen and women to break the grip of Zionism, whose bottomless well of money perfectly manipulates the completely corrupt Congress. I got in a good 40 minutes before the noise ordinance cops came and, in sympathy with what I was doing, very respectfully asked me to stop. It is amazing what a blue eyed white guy can accomplish. If I looked Arab, I would have been shut down in 10 minutes.
Zionism being the antithesis of liberty and justice for all, our President declares openly he is a Zionist with not a hint of hesitation. What could be more treasonous and Americans sleep through it. Nobody on MSM cares to question it. America has reached the lowest point in its history, we might as well pull down Old Glory and hoist Israel's blue and white flag. The tiny tail wags the world's biggest dog.
The US is the safe home for Jews, thoroughly integrated into all parts of American society and a benefit to America in so many ways. But we must back a killing machine at the east end of the Mediterranean to the hilt and even sacrifice American lives to bring Iran down, a country that threatens not one American citizen, Jew or gentile. The story of Zionist takeover will ring through histories of the future leaving all who hear of it astounded.
George Marshall (Marshall Plan) warned Truman not to recognize Israel as it would bring unending woe for the area and the US. Truman didn't listen. The woe has yet to climax.
You neglect history and geopolitics and assume that the US decides everything. It does not and never has.
The USSR supported the creation of Israel and ensured its survival in 1948 by providing weapons from Czech armouries. Truman, by contrast, imposed an arms embargo. He, together with George Marshall, expected Israel to collapse within weeks and was happy for this to happen. Marshall even declined to meet the Israeli ambassador because he thought it a waste of time. Stalin made a fool of Truman. He met Golda Meir and they had a cordial and respectful meeting.
American hostility to Israel endured. During the Suez crisis the US navy had orders to sink all Israeli naval forces in the Mediteranean (as well as those of the UK and France) in the event of war. As it was the US forces maliciously interfered with signals and navigation systems, putting the lives of sailors at risk.
Years later, Washington refused to honour its commitment to maintain free passage in the Straits of Tiran (initially made to resolve the Suez crisis), thereby making the war inevitable. At the time the US expected Israel to lose and was not prepared to risk anything to prevent that.
The US was ardently sympathetic with Arab nationalism and supported Negouib's coup, then Nasser's. The US only reconsidered things after Cairo started to intrigue against Riyadh. This kicked off the celebrated 'Arab Cold War' and the US was obliged by treaty to support Riyadh.
The US only reluctantly became involved with Israel after '67 because it had no choice. The US needed allies on the ground because at the time it had no bases in the region (the ones in Saudi Arabia were built in the late 70s onwards, maybe the 80s). Washington was no longer comfortable with a non-aligned Israel.
To what extent the US is too closely aligned with Israel at present is a matter for rational debate. In deliberating this facts matter. Emotions don't.
It is time for the United States to tell Israel that they're on their own. Emotions and cold hard cash are preventing this.
Way past time, Bob. The time for that was after the 1967 war before the settlers showed they could intimidate the Israeli government into allowing them to do their thing.
And I must admit, those settlers were simply furthering Zionism, realizing the dream. They were saying in effect, "why did we stop in '48?" The same thing that is motivating Netanyahu right now...sweep the board clean of pests and take the land.
Cold hard cash nails it. The US has been bought so thoroughly that the very President is all in for Zionism.
Quite possibly so. At the moment Netanyahu is simply following the Guam Doctrine laid down by Richard Nixon. This is not unreasonable because Washington has not disallowed this or developed any better options. However, longterm US interests would be better served by a less intense relationship with the Israelis.
The political problem is that the US deliberately confuses domestic politics with foreign policy. The US manages relations with its Jews by the bizarre Kabuki theatre of American Zionism. Now that the US also hosts large Muslim populations things are getting more absurd and more sinister. US Muslims and their political allies now seek to constrain and harass US Jews per se, demanding anti-Zionist posturing as a political test. This is reminiscent of the old Soviet Bloc.
If anyone is following the 'Guam Doctrine', it is Iran. Remains to be seen if the IDF can subdue their own backyard.
Good take. Much remains shrouded in the fog of war. When it clears all will be revealed.
Important to note, though, is that there are plenty of American Jews, most of them young, who are vehemently anti-Zionist, specifically those in Jewish Voice for Peace. They are in the front at pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
There were similar types in the former USSR. The best of them are opportunists and cynics.
"The US only reluctantly became involved with Israel after '67 because it had no choice."
Strange, then, that in 1967 given this reluctance you cite, LBJ recalled US Navy fighter jets rather than let them continue on their way to go to the aid of the USS Liberty under attack by Israeli Mirage fighters. Allowing Israel freedom to attack and attempt to sink a US ship, killing many US sailors, and then following up by deliberately keeping the facts from being known and refusing a full investigation doesn't sound like what would be done with a country the US was reluctant to be involved with.
"To what extent the US is too closely aligned with Israel at present is a matter for rational debate. In deliberating this facts matter."
Ok, let's hear a rational argument that the US should be so closely aligned with Israel that the President of the US will not in any way prevent Israel from doing as it wishes, even enduring snubs from the Israeli PM. Add in permission to use US arms to spread warfare as desired along with the ability to assassinate inside Iran and bomb the Iranian embassy in Beirut, an open invitation to start a war in which the US would be bound to come it for Israel.
And, since you tell us emotions don't matter (in this case fear of terrorism), please use reason to deny that unconditional alignment with Israel, allowing it to kill without limit (unless Netanyahu decides on one) is creating a terrorism threat to Americans worldwide.
In your original comment you wrote: "Not everything on earth is about America or what America wants or even how Americans feel"
I'm afraid you neglect to consider that the Americans running US foreign policy are deliberately out to be sure that as far as they can make it so, everything on earth is, or will be, about what America wants. That is precisely why the US is digging its own hole putting tripwire "bases" everywhere.
The US Liberty was collecting signals intelligence. Since I have no access to the relevant archives it is unclear to me if this was being shared with the Arab forces. More than likely it was.
The US had a defence treaty with the principal Arab state in the region at the time (Saudi Arabia) and was desperate to maintain its intimate relationship with Egypt whose government had been installed with the assistance of the CIA. The details of the treaty were a state secret but its existence was common knowledge. The Israelis certainly knew about US ties to Negouib and, later, Nasser through their intelligence work in Cairo.
The Americans also had intimate invoIvement with many, perhaps most, of the military coup leaders in Syria in the 150s and 1960s. The regional centre for US intelligence in the region was in Beirut.
The UK, a NATO country, still had bases in Cyprus which collected signals intellicence on Israel which they would have been obliged to share via the Five Eyes agreement. The UK had assisted with ethnically cleansing Jews from the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948 and as late as the 50s UK defence chiefs had ambitions to carve up Israel so that they would place RAAF bases in the Negev. This was the era of the Baghdad Pact so the need for anti-Soviet solidarity was mixed up with maintaining good relationships between the West and the Arabs. The RAAF had flown reconnaiscance missions for Arab forces in 1948 until the Israelis started shooting at the planes.
It is unlikely, indeed all but impossible, that any Israeli commander would have ordered an attack on a superpower unless there were pressing operational reasons for doing so.
LBJ was covering up mischiefs undertaken by US forces, not the Israelis. There is nothing in the least bit wrong with targetting hostile forces during a war.
As for the present, this is complicated and depends on what the US aims are today. It is unclear what Washington wants but, as always, it is playing games with allies and enemies alike.
All of your comment is only more reason for the US to defend the Liberty, not abandon it, in addition to your previous comment about reluctance to cozy up to Israel. The US could have made up any story it wished just as now it has John Kirby and KJP covering for Israel almost daily. Your evidence of favor toward the Arab countries would make it even more valuable to protect the Liberty, even if it was gathering intelligence for Egypt.
Correct. The US should have defended the USS. Liberty, just as they should have been honest about their cynicism, enmity and malice all along. But honesty is not Washington's way. Candour is a virtue, a manly quality, so no-one expects any of it from Uncle Samantha now.
Further to my previous comment, the US is not drawn into foreign entanglements by its foreign policy, but by economic necessity.
The US cannot give up on empire because its chronic trade deficits are financed by negotiable securiities purchased with the foreign reserves of its trade partners and others. The financial deficits are also financed by foreigners.
Until the US economy decouples from the rest of the world it is bound to play the role of global cop one way or another.
A trade deficit means that more goods and services are imported than exported. On the other side of this equation is a trade surplus, whereupon the rest of the world accumulates USDs in exchange for their exports to the US.
This is a non-issue in terms of finance. It is an issue for countries who are running export-oriented economic development.
The US dollar holdings of the trade partners are recycled through the bond market The US issues negotiable securities which absorb the foreign reserves built up by exporting to the US and other markets. This is the exorbitant privilege about which everyone complains.
China bucked the system when they stopped buying more Treasury bills and started using their trade surpluses to finance infrastucture via the Belt and Road initiative. Trade and finance are intimately connected.
There's no requirement for the Treasury to borrow or offer interest payments. Money can be created out of thin air.
Dollar holders can always invest in the private market, which offer higher returns in exchange for higher risk.
Good on China. There's no point in accumulating dollars if they are not spent on goods and services. Countries who import as much as they export aren't left with enormous balances in foreign banks.
You make a hasty generalization. The Iraq disaster had nothing to do with economics in the hype to get it underway, but it certainly made a hole in the US budget.
Perfectly correct. The US ruling class pointedly suppress public acknowledgement of the intersectices between economic and foreign/defence policy. This leads to endless confusion and frustrates accountability.
Iraq has been at the heart of geopolitical anxiety. The UK returned to the gold standard in the 20s (greatly exacerbating tbe effect of the Great Depression and constraining the defence budget leading to appeasement under Chamberlain in the 30s) because of a clause in the oil treaty with Hashemite Iraq. No one ever discusses this, but it is true.
The current Russia/Ukraine crisis is also a shocking example of the same sinister discretion. Regardless of anyone's sympathies we all need better, more accurate, and reliable information on what is at stake.
LBJ was 'in bed' with an Israeli 'agent'?
Who was the Mata Hari? She certainly went beyond the call of duty.
“None of this coming end times is because of Jews. They’re just the fall guys for a uniquely European evil, being forced into an antisemitic caricature colony of themselves. While it is true that Jews are disproportionately represented in imperial institutions (finance, media, and government) it’s important to remember that they’re still a minority therein. All the Germans, Scots, and intermixed ‘white’ people blend into the white background and the Jews (conveniently for everyone else) stick out. Jews are definitely shareholders in the imperial project but they’re minority shareholders, and—historically speaking—the first to be thrown under the bus.”?
https://indi.ca/the-jewish-problem-problem/#ghost-comments
“there was a reason Hamas started this uh fight and I think
3:07 the reason is clear that they needed to break the Paradigm of um the Abrahams
3:13 Accord the agreement that was signed during the Trump Administration that normalized relations or sought to
3:19 normalize relations between Israel and the Arab world at the expense of Palestinian statehood the conditions
3:26 that were created within the Abrahams Accord about Palestinian statehood meant that there was never going to be a
3:32 Palestinian State and as Israel was moving toward reconciliation with Saudi Arabia I think Hamas recognized that if
3:40 that happened there would never be a Palestinian State ever that Israel wins
3:45
so what needed to be done was to initiate a military operation um on the
3:51
scope and scale of which it changed the entire Paradigm in the Middle East and this is what happened . . . “?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MnwX49UDiM
"Albania has managed to function despite having similar confessional differences, but in my view Albania has had the luxury of being ignored and left to its own devices for a century now, unlike Lebanon."
That gets to the core of the problem. When left alone people in most cases can sort out their problems. It is foreign interference that makes problems unsolvable. It makes the parties look to play their foreign supporters. They will not give in when it would be logical because they think that they can push through things with foreign support. They will paint their position as worse than it is in order to get foreign support. They will deliberately polarize conflicts as it delivers foreign attention and with that money.
Here in the Netherlands we used to have the "verzuiling" (translation: pillarification) that resulted in separate education for Protestants, Catholics and a third neutral pillar. There were separate trade unions, separate broadcasting organizations, etc. Nowadays the remnants are still there but the system has lost its meaning as many people are no longer religious.
The Ottomans used to have the Millet system. The Lebanese system is inspired by that. The problem with the Millet system is that it supposes that one group is on top. With the Verzuiling on the other hand the assumption is that the state will look after the common interests while the separate interests are guaranteed by separate institutions. The difference is trust. In Lebanon every group has its reserved percentage of seats and it reserved functions, such as that the president should be a Christian. This calcifies the system and causes more trouble outside of it.
When Lebanon was founded the Christians were the majority. They no longer are and that causes major problems in the system as it is so hard to change. Here in the Netherlands the Protestants were initially the majority. However, the Catholic population grew faster and they have now probably a small majority. However, nobody has noticed as it is politically irrelevant.
Albania, like Lebanon, has the same language and a shared history among its people. This manages to make the other differences not as stark overall as they were in the ex-YU and USSR.
The USSR fell apart because Yeltsin pushed for it. Separatism was only a major thing in the Baltics. The Baltics had been annexed just 50 years ago in a rather brutal way and there were still many memories of it. Western propaganda will have played an important role there too.
Multi-ethnic empires tend to be quite stable. See also the Habsburg empire and Iran.
Yugoslavia became destabilized by two things: the economy (transit to capitalism and IMF "cure") and the Milosevic takeover in Kosovo. The latter undermined the existing system where Croatia and Slovenia could dominate in an alliance with the poorest republics. There was a proposal for a one man-one vote system where the central government would be elected directly without the republics as intermediate step but Croatia (and Slovenia?) rejected this. It is my estimate that they would have consented after some further negotiations if they had gotten some extra autonomy. That is: in a situation without foreign interference.
Unfortunately Germany, Austria and Hungary were very eager to get their Habsburg brothers into the EU. Later it was reported that Hungary was already shipping tanks to Croatia before the fighting had started. At that time the newspapers here regularly posted articles that Croatia and Slovenia would fit perfectly in the EU. There was no interest to absorb also the poorer republics. Remember that at that time the per capita income in the poorest republic was a quarter of that in Slovenia.
You come from an emigrant community that left when Yugoslavia had existed just twenty years and there had been a lot of trouble about too much Serb influence. In 1989 the country had existed seventy years, the republics had much more autonomy and for a long period the country had been ruled by Tito, a Croat. That was quite a different point of view.
Another dispassionate piece on the Middle East. You are to be congratulated, Niccolo.
Lebanon was created on exactly the same basis as Israel. The French carved out a state for the Christians within the territory of the Mandate for Syria. They also created one for the Druze and the Alawites. These two were dissolved after anti-French uprisings. Lebanon was not caught up in these disturbances so the Lebanese state endured. The rationale for the three minoritarian states under French protection was recognition of the impossibility of non-Muslims retaining social or political equality under Muslim rule.
The British used the same authority to create a state for their Muslim clients, the Banu Hashemi (the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) while reserving the remaining portions of the Mandate for Palestine for a Jewish state. The British went on to allow some Jewish migration but vetoed plans by Central European states (above all Poland and Hungary) to resettle Jews en masse. It is worth remembering that the first shots fired by UK forces in WW2 were aimed at Jewish refugees on a ship (Tiger Hill) seeking to land in Palestine. A few did make it, most were detained and returned to Europe. All of these were subsequently killed.
The issue has always been the legacy of the millet system and those aspects of the shariah derived from the Pact of Umar. The fate of the Jews across the Maghreb and the Mishraq (the Western and Eastern portions of the Arab world), as well as Turkey and Iran demonstrates the farsightedness and justice of the British and French approach in the period from 1917 till the 1920s. Ditto the more recent fate of the Christians in Iraq.
Lebanon's fate was sealed when outside forces (including the US) steered the Palestinians en masse into Lebanon after Black September in Jordan. Lebanon was used to ensure that the centre of gravity for the chaos within the region was placed as far as possible from the oilfields in the Gulf. Arafat was a wild card because he was a client of both sides in the Cold War, financed by Western allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and (after adopting airline hijacking) the West itself. The West could not control Arafat and ended up sacrificing Christian interests within Lebanon to retain cooperation with the Saudis et al.
The abiding issue is the inability of the Lebanese ruling class to function as anything other than as compradors, whether these be Iranian, American, European.
The desperate urgency for us all is that the Western ruling classes are also becoming compradors for extranational forces (transnational corporations, drug cartels, rival superpowers). As we can see from the jihadis in the UK, the British ruling class now manage their domestic affairs with a view to Qatari, Iranian and Pakistani relationships. This is ironic...also ominous.
Glad to see you writing about the BfV. Their growing political importance, and even political activism, since 2020 has become a really important phenomenon, one of the dominant stealth factors shaping German politics presently. It was not only the rise of the AfD and the end of the Merkel era that shifted them rightwards, but also the pandemic. Nervousness about Covid dissenters seems to have genuinely radicalised Haldenwang.
Anyway, the whole topic has yielded a few books – in addition Steinke (which Streeck is reviewing in the LRB) there is Brodkorb's even more recent monograph, Gesinnungspolizei im Rechtsstaat, which is a series of six case-studies and contains some unbelievable anecdotes about BfV activities – also shedding interesting light on their towering incompetence.
I've long planned to write a series of pieces synthesising this material.
Yeah, Streeck mentions COVID-19 and how reaction to it has been monitored by BfV. This is the first solid treatment of that arm of German government, both at the federal and state levels. Lemme know when you plan on publishing your work on it.
In Canada, nationalism is the preserve of the liberal left. A fox guarding the hen house while carpetbagging conservatives are focused on business.
Traditional nationalism perhaps too divisive. In the old days it would have been Empire Loyalists versus the Quebecois. Now any coherent Canadian nationalism would presumably be anti-American.
Interested in what Canucls have to say on this.
Anti-Americanism hasn't increased. Anti-Trumpism has.
The liberal fox is merely promoting multiculturalism, which is a sneaky method of raiding the hen house, instead of guarding it. The 'far-right' People's Party of Canada could make a case for nationalism if they were elected, but remain in the single digits.
Compared with the carpetbagger from Baie Comeau, John Turner was a nationalist.
Updated with this comment:
Normally, this would --> Normally this would
I don't get the end of nation states argument after watching, IRL, as former Yugoslavia was enthusiastically chopped up to ethnostates, with Western sanctioned ethnic cleansing in Croatia in 1995.
Niccolo, the picture above the portion on the Villa of the Papyri is in Hebrew.
Wat means? Is BAP using FbF to broadcast hidden messages to the Frankists?
It would be interesting to analyse the roots of Iran’s apparent irreconcilable enmity towards Israel. Historically, the two countries have never fought a war against each other; they do not share a common border nor harbour reciprocal territorial claims. In other words, the Arabs have much more reason to be hostile to Israel, which has not prevented the Camp David and Abraham
accords.
his seems to suggests that Iran’s position regarding Israel is essentially ideological, possibly consubstantial to the current regime, but not rooted in deep national interest: a comparison would be Russia’s advocacy of world revolution in Soviet times. Compared to Russia, anecdotal evidence at least suggests even greater fascination with the West, including the US, and deep disenchantment with the regime on the part of public, at least at a corresponding stage of the revolutionary arc. This gives some plausibility to the idea that regime change might bring about as a fundamental re-alignment in the region as the Islamic revolution did in 1979. Acquisition of nuclear weapons may be the best life-insurance for the regime against foreign attempts at fomenting regime change. Conversely, this may be a reason for Israel (and United States) to make an attempt at regime change now.
Geopolitically the current Iranian regime is perverse. The regional interests of Israel and Iran are easily aligned, as they were in the time of the Shah and under the Achaemenid, Arsacid and Sassanid dynasties. The mullahs soaked up too much ideological Kool Aid IMHO.
Would not be surprised if elements of the regime in Tehran are covettly helping to remove obstacles (Raisi, Abdolhanian, Soleimani, Haniyeh, Nasrallah etc). Lebanon, Gaza and the Houthis a drain on resources. Syria less valuable now that trade deals with China, Russia and India have been done. Iran benefits from less conflict with Israel.
The BfV article reminds me of the formation of the Homeland Security Department in the wake of 9/11. Rush Limbaugh (whom I honestly didn't listen to much) warned a new federal department could infringe on our freedom. Now that it's been usurped by Mayorkas, it's more an attack on the homeland than a defense of it.
Excellent post. On the subject of the decline of the nation-state, I am an avid follower of events in Ireland, where WEF apparatchiks have taken the reins of power and are hell-bent on turning Eire into a deracinated vassal state of the Davos crowd. I call it a cold civil war between the militant Irish and the pols. I wonder if it will turn hot?
"Last September, the great glittering prize of Middle East peace seemed to be in touching distance: Saudi rapprochement with Israel.
But, then, the depth of Hamas’s murderous brutality on 7 October shattered that assumption"
Israel/Saudi rapprochement was in the form of the IMEC Memorandum of Understanding on the Principals of an India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).
On Sept. 9, the White House announced a plan for the construction of an India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) that will connect India to Europe, through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel. On Oct. 7, Iran’s Palestinian ally Hamas burst out of Gaza into Israel, killing 1,400 Israelis, and kidnapping 200 others. Iran is part of the competing Belt and Road corridor designed to connect China to the Mediterranean.
“One of the reasons Hamas moved on Israel… they knew that I was about to sit down with the Saudis,” President Biden said. “The Saudis wanted to recognize Israel.”
"The community of Russian dissidents living abroad has long been disposed to infighting"
Sounds like 1924, but its 2024. A century goes by, Russians stay the same.