► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Europe’ Category

We’re All Racists Now!

by coldwarrior ( 43 Comments › )
Filed under Bigotry, Economy, government, Islam, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Racism, UK at May 29th, 2014 - 5:00 pm

It was, after all, just a matter of time!

RAAAAACIST!

 

Are we all racist now?

As a survey of British social attitudes reveals a shocking upturn in prejudice, Allison Pearson argues that the political elite’s desire to advance multiculturalism with mass immigration has backfired

With impeccable timing, the children chose Mother’s Day lunch to tell their grandmother she was racist. And what vile abuse had my poor mother bandied about? She had asked her grandson if his choir sang Negro spirituals.

“Raaaa-cisst,” chorused my junior Thought Police with more than a hint of witchfinder glee.

“I’m not racist,” said my mother, clearly shocked. “What did I say that was racist?”

“You’re not allowed to call them Negro spirituals any more,” my Daughter informed her.

“What do you call them, then?” asked Grandma.

“African-American spirituals,” announced Daughter, a creature of such impeccable liberal certitude that she makes Nick Clegg look like Oswald Mosley.

“People of Colour spirituals,” hazarded the Boy. He obviously didn’t have a clue, but was enjoying his generation’s favourite baiting game: More Politically Correct Than Thou.

“Grandma is not racist,” said Himself. “Heinrich Himmler is a racist. Grandma, not so much.”

“Who’s Henry Himmer?” asked the Boy.

“Heinrich HIMMLER,” said Himself, “was a foul, Jew-exterminating, Nazi fiend whom your grandmother’s parents and their whole generation fought a world war to defeat in order that she could sit here 70 years later and be called racist by her sanctimonious and ungrateful grandchildren. Anyone for crumble?”

When my mum had gone for a nap, I explained to the kids that racism was not as black and white as they seemed to think. During their grandmother’s lifetime, the UK had seen vast social changes. Certain words once in common usage were now regarded as toxic, and rightly so. I blenched to think that, as a child myself, I went down the “Paki” shop to get some Blackjacks (inky toffees in a wrapper decorated with the faces of, then unremarkable, golliwogs). Miss Leyshon, my lovely primary school teacher, taught us to count with the help of three toys, Teddy, Dolly and Golly. In 2014, she would be considered guilty of inciting racial hatred.

I told the kids that, over the past 15 years, my mother’s town in South Wales had seen a huge influx of Eastern Europeans. It was possible for Grandma and her friends to note that the character of their birthplace had changed, and express some unease about it, but also for them to enthuse about their excellent Romanian dentist. Tolerance was not a one-way street. Tolerance meant treating elderly people who used outdated language with understanding, not finger-pointing and yelling “Raaa-cisst!” Real racism – the ugly, frightening, visceral kind – would flourish if people’s tolerance was taken for granted, and their communities changed too fast without any regard for the consequences.

That was two months ago, and I wish I were more surprised to learn that a new British Social Attitudes survey has found that more than a third of Britons admit they are racially prejudiced. Prejudice fell to an all-time low in 2001, but the latest figures show that the problem has returned to the level of 30 years ago. More than 90 per cent of those who say they are racist want to see immigration halted. More interestingly, 72 per cent of those who do not consider themselves racist also want to see immigration cut drastically.

As shell-shocked politicians from the main parties struggle to discern the causes of Ukip’s deafening electoral success, here’s a tip: look in the mirror, chaps! It is politicians, not the British people, who are to blame for a resurgence in racism; politicians who have ignored public opinion and created the conditions in which resentments fester and grow. Specifically, though not exclusively, it is New Labour who welcomed workers from the new, accession countries of the EU at a time when countries such as France and Germany wisely exercised their right to keep them out for another seven years. According to Jack Straw, this was a “spectacular” error. And Jack should know, because he was Home Secretary at the time. The plan of Tony Blair’s government, as laid bare by Andrew Neather, then a Blair speechwriter, was to banish that old, hideously white, retrograde England and usher in a new, vibrant, multicultural country which, rather conveniently, would vote Labour. Mr Blair now works in international conflict resolution, having stored up enough conflict in his homeland to keep future generations busy for centuries.

You bigoted xenophobic nazis can read the rest here.

Spain, Basketball, and old fashioned Jew hatred; and Auschwitz commander’s grandson visits israel

by Speranza ( 159 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Germany, Hate Speech, History, Holocaust, Israel, Judaism, Spain at May 28th, 2014 - 10:40 am

He makes an excellent  point, the vast majority of Spaniards (outside of the tourist industry) have never really met any Jews.

by Jonathan S. Tobin

Spain has recently attempted to woo back the descendants of Jews who were expelled from the country in 1492. The offer of citizenship to those Sephardi Jews who can’t trace their ancestry back to the exile from the Iberian peninsula is primarily motivated by a desire to attract both capital and tourism to a country that is in dire economic straits. But if any Jews are tempted to take Madrid up on its offer, and apparently some may be, they should take into consideration the fact that Spain ranked third in the list of most anti-Semitic countries in Europe in the survey of international opinion published last week by the Anti-Defamation League.

Anyone who doubted the accuracy or the methods employed by the ADL in compiling its poll, especially with regard to Spain, ought to have second thoughts today.  [........]But the rash of anti-Semitic statements, especially on Twitter, in reaction to the victory of the Israeli squad shouldn’t be dismissed as only the sour reaction of supporters of a losing sports team. That the outcome of a basketball game would lead so many to resort to anti-Semitic language is not an accident or people just blowing off steam. The willingness to invoke traditional stereotypes of Jew-hatred as well as echoes of the Holocaust under these circumstances illustrates not only how deeply entrenched such attitudes are in European culture but the way Israel has become a stand-in for traditional anti-Semitism.

The fact that so many Spaniards adopt anti-Semitic attitudes is remarkable not only because of their nation’s desire to attract Jews and to honor the lost heritage of the Jewish communities that were destroyed by the expulsion and the Inquisition. It must be understood that most Spaniards have had little or no contact with Jews. Yet many Spaniards seem to have retained the remnants of the vicious anti-Semitic attitudes that led to the expulsion even all these centuries later. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s late father wrote in his definitive history of the Inquisition, the persecution of the many Jews who converted and remained in Spain after 1492 was not so much a function of religious prejudice as it was a form of racism that would lay the foundation for future European horrors.

Just as important, this latest outbreak is a reminder that for many Europeans, expressing prejudice against Israel, even in the crudest manner possible that invokes memories of the Holocaust, has become legitimized by the campaign of demonization of the Jewish state that has been conducted by intellectuals and other elites.  [......]

While I doubt that efforts by Spanish Jews to sue those who insulted them and Israel on Twitter will do much good, they deserve credit for not taking this hate lying down.  [......] Anti-Semitism, including its anti-Zionist variety, is not really about anything the Jews do but the function of the sick minds of the anti-Semites. But in Europe today, it is becoming all too typical for any event involving Israel, be it good or bad, to serve as an excuse for hate.

Read the rest - Spain, Basketball, and Jew hatred

I read where Adolf Eichmann’s son is a hardcore Nazi.

by Lazar Berman

Rudolf Hoess oversaw the deaths of almost 1 million Jews as the commandant of the Auschwitz extermination camp.

He likely never would have imagined that someday his grandson would be in the Jewish state, enjoying the Tel Aviv waterfront.

 But Rainer Hoess, 48, is in Israel, and seems to be enjoying his trip.

[......]

Hoess, who discovered his family history when he was 12 years old, has dedicated himself to fighting the rise of neo-Nazi movements in Europe and last week launched an informational campaign ahead of the EU elections, which kick off Thursday.

“Right-wing extremists are not stupid,” he said. “They are growing, gaining ground, very slowly but very effectively.

“I’m very aggressive against them,” added Hoess, who has turned down multiple offers to participate in neo-Nazi events.

[......]

Entitled “Never Forget. To Vote,” the campaign launched by the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League (SSU) ahead of the May 22-25 vote sees the ballot box as the best defense against resurgent far-right extremism.

“To have Rainer at the front of this initiative is a way to show that he can never forget and we should never either,” SSU head Gabriel Wikstroem said.

Despite the disapproval of other family members, who preferred to bury their past, he has spent more than 20 years researching his background and the Nazi movement.

Hoess, who wears a Star of David around his neck, devoted the last four years to educating schoolchildren about the dangers of right-wing extremism.

What began when his children’s teachers asked him to share his story with pupils at their school has now become a full-time job that saw him visit more than 70 schools in Germany last year alone.

His aunt Brigitte, one of Rudolf Hoess’s five children, chose the opposite path.

Only last year, at the age of 80 and dying of cancer, she chose to share her story with The Washington Post, on condition that her married name and any details hinting at her identity be kept hidden.

Through his own research, Hoess has met many Holocaust survivors, even traveling to Israel to take part in a documentary — a delicate undertaking, he admits.

“It was a little bit tricky, as the grandchild of a mass murderer, to go to Israel.”

Rainer Hoess was a central figure in the 2011 documentary “Hitler’s Children,” which examines how descendants of key Nazi figures cope with the burden of their families’ actions.

One million Jews were killed at Auschwitz from 1940 to 1945 along with more than 100,000 non-Jewish Poles, Roma, Soviet prisoners of war, homosexuals and anti-Nazi partisans before the camp was liberated on January 27, 1945.

Rudolf Hoess experimented with different methods of mass killing, eventually settling on the use of the pesticide Zyklon B to gas his victims.

Read the rest – Auschwitz commander’s grandson visits Israel

 

John Kerry insults France, UK, Canada, Israel in one speech

by Speranza ( 4 Comments › )
Filed under Canada, France, Headlines, Islamists, Israel, John Kerry, Syria, UK at May 26th, 2014 - 7:36 am

This clown came very close to being president in 2004.

by Daniel Greenfield

The State Department repeatedly refused to name Boko Haram a terrorist organization, urged the government to pursue appeasement policies and even threatened the Nigerian government for daring to fight them.

Now Kerry is beating his sunken chest while insulting a whole bunch of other countries.

The United States is alone in helping Nigeria locate more than 200 schoolgirls kidnapped by Islamists, Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday, despite help on the ground from Britain, France and Israel

“Boko Haram, Nigeria, only the United States is there offering the assistance to help find those young women,” Kerry said during a dinner at the State Department.

“Other countries not only aren’t they invited, but they didn’t even offer. That’s a difference, and I think it’s a difference worth dwelling on.”

However the United States is joined in Nigeria by Britain, France and Israel, which have sent their own experts. China, which saw 10 citizens likely abducted by Boko Haram in a region bordering Cameroon, has also proposed to help.

Also Canada appears to have sent some support.

The Canadian government announced more than two weeks ago that it was sending surveillance equipment and personnel to Nigeria to help search for the schoolgirls who were abducted by Boko Haram extremists. It later emerged that Canada was also sending special forces’ soldiers as further support.

Then in a stunning betrayal, Kerry lashed out at his own homeland.

In his speech, Kerry also lashed out at France, whose Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has expressed regret that the United States did not attack Syria a year ago amid spiraling violence in the conflict there.

“People are angry because we did not strike Syria at one instance but guess what: Today, 92 percent of all the chemical weapons in Syria are out and being destroyed and the other eight percent will get out,” a visibly angry Kerry said, without mentioning France specifically.

“That never would have occurred otherwise.”

It hasn’t occurred anyway. Anyone who thinks that Syria has given up the majority of its chemical weapons is… well John Kerry.

The UK is not exactly thrilled with the snub. The French enjoy diplomatic fights with the US. And the Israelis couldn’t possibly hate Kerry anymore. But there is something strange about Kerry using a State Department dinner to demonstrate the opposite of diplomacy.

It’s the kind of thing Democrats expected from Bush.

 

#Caturday visits flooded Serbia and Bosnia, May 24, 2014

by 1389AD ( 16 Comments › )
Filed under Caturday, Open thread, Serbia at May 24th, 2014 - 2:00 pm
Aerial view of flooding in Obrenovac, Serbia
Aerial view of flooding in Obrenovac, Serbia [source]Man rescues cats from roof in Vojskova, Bosnia
Man rescues cats from roof in Vojskova, Bosnia [source]

InSerbia News: Floods in Serbia: Large number of pets rescued

Cat on dog's back in floodwaters

BELGRADE – A large number of pets have been rescued together with citizens from the flood-hit areas. Numerous animal protection associations are active on the ground, with individuals collecting aid, securing shelters and necessary food.

Thus, the Belgrade-based Bitef Theater and BETA, the animal rescue organization of the City of Belgrade, have announced an initiative aimed at collecting humanitarian aid for flood-hit animals. At the Bitef Theatre, Tuesday is traditionally the day when theater buffs can come and watch a play with their pet. However, due to the national emergency, there was no play, but citizens were welcome to donate collars, leads, anti-parasitic, tick prevention products and antibiotics. Due to the national emergency, an outpatient clinic of the animal protection society, the VHB, is working 24/7 and offering veterinary assistance to animals from the flood-affected areas. The Vet Clinic is making a register of all pets rescued from the floods in Obrenovac. Numerous vet clinics in Belgrade joined the initiative.

More here.

On YouTube:

Published on May 22, 2014 by studio RINGISHPIL
Donations for flooded areas in:
Serbia – http://floodrelief.gov.rs/
- SMS na 1003
Bosnia and Herzegovina- 090 291032
- 092 890 830
- SMS 1458
Croatia – 060 90 11
created by Branislav Brkich
(music on video – Joe Hishaishi – The sixth station)

28. Jun: Important Flood Relief Information

28. Jun has received authorization of the Serbian government to collect and ship all material donations from North America. Chicago and Toronto are the central locations from which all aid will be sent.

TORONTO
St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Church
2520 Dixie, Mississauga, ON 
L4Y 2A5

CHICAGO
St. Nikola Serbian Orthodox Church 
4301 Prairie Ave Brookfield IL 
60513

To help us pay for transportation of the aid please donate on www.28jun.org

For more info contact 28jun.org@gmail.com 

###

28. Jun je dobio ovlašćenje od vlade Srbije da prikuplja i transportuje sve materijalne donacije iz Severne Amerike. Čikago i Toronto su centralne lokacije iz kojih će se na kraju slati sva pomoć. 

TORONTO 
St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Church 2520 Dixie, Mississauga, ON L4Y 2A5 
ČIKAGO 
St. Nikola Serbian Orthodox Church 4301 Prairie Ave Brookfield IL 60513 

Ukoliko želite da nam pomognete da platimo transport pomoći donirajte na www.28jun.org 

Za više informacija kontaktirajte 28jun.org@gmail.com

Also see:

 

Actually, this is a boring post.

by 1389AD ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Russia, Technology at May 12th, 2014 - 10:00 pm

The deepest hole in the world, and what we’ve learned from it

Published on May 5, 2014 by SciShow
SciShow takes you down the deepest hole in the world — Russia’s Kola Superdeep Borehole — explaining who dug it and why, and what we learned about Earth in the process. Don’t fall!
———-
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: http://dftba.com/artist/52/SciShow

Or help support us by subscribing to our page on Subbable: https://subbable.com/scishow
———-
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/scishow
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/scishow
Tumblr: http://scishow.tumblr.com

Thanks Tank Tumblr: http://thankstank.tumblr.com

Sources:
http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kola-superdeep-borehole
http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/725.html
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-deepest-hole/
http://www.wirelinedrilling.com/sites/default/files/Kozlovsky%20Kola%20Deepest%20Well%20.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0822/drock.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/29/science/russians-plan-dramatic-expansion-of-effort-in-earth-drilling.html

Location of Kola well and other deep bores
Location of Kola well and other Soviet deep bore project sites

British Jews vote Tory because they are rich, according to “Red” Ken Livingstone

by Speranza ( 12 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Headlines, Judaism, UK at May 8th, 2014 - 8:42 pm

Red Ken Livingstone is an appalling person but then again Britain is loaded with people who think just as he does.

by Christopher Hope

British Jews have switched their support from Labour to Conservative because they have got richer, according to a Labour politician.

Ken Livingstone, a former Labour MP and Mayor of London, said that income rather than skin colour was the reason why people voted for different political parties

Speaking on the BBC’s Newsnight programme on Tuesday night, he said: “People vote according to their income. Now that can change – it might be a generation before people catch up.

“If we were talking 50 years ago, the Roman Catholic community, the Irish community in Britain, the Jewish community was solidly Labour. Still the Irish Catholic community is pretty still solidly Labour because it is not terribly rich.

“As the Jewish community got richer, it moved over to voting for Mrs Thatcher as they did in Finchley.”

Mr Livingstone was discussing how politicians can do more to appeal to the growing proportion of Britons who have an ethnic minority background.

He said: “People come to Britain to become part of Britain, they don’t come to change it. I think the defining issue is not your colour or your religition it is your level of income.”

Referring to Sajid Javid, who was recently made Culture secretary, he continued: “David Cameron has just appointed the first British person of Pakistani origin – I look at him and I don’t see a Pakistani, I see a banker who earned £3million a year. That is why he is in the Tory party.”

The comments were dismissed by Adrian Cohen, chairman of the London Jewish forum.

Mr Cohen said: “Ken Livingstone last made comments to this effect during the Mayoral election. It’s pretty obvious that politicians shouldn’t write off parts of the electorate based on crude assumptions about their perceived relative affluence.

“Many Jews are not rich, indeed many struggle to make ends meet. In any event there are many factors which influence how a person chooses to vote and one shouldn’t refer to Jewish Londoners as if they were homogeneous.”

Life under the Obama doctrine

by Speranza ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, China, Iran, Israel, Japan, Libya, Libya, Russia, South Korea, Syria, Ukraine at May 6th, 2014 - 7:00 am

It seems as if Obama is an even worse foreign policy president than he is on domestic issues. Our friends and allies need to wait him out.

by Caroline Glick

For most commentators, President Barack Obama’s biggest achievement in his four-nation tour of Asia was the enhanced defense treaty he signed with Philippine President Benigno Aquino. The pact permits US forces to operate on Philippine military bases and sets the conditions for joint training of US and Philippine forces, among other things.

There are two problems with the treaty, however.

And they reflect the basic problem with US foreign policy generally, five-and-a-half years into the Obama presidency.

First, there is the reason that the treaty became necessary.

The Philippines has been under attack by China since 2012 when China seized the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. Despite its mutual defense treaty with Manila, Washington did nothing.

This non-response emboldened China still further.

And today China is threatening the Second Thomas Shoal, another Philippine possession.

So, too, late last year China extended its Air Defense Identification Zone to include Japanese and South Korean airspace. The US responded to the aggressive move by recommending that its allies comply with China’s dictates.

The administration’s top priority in all these cases, as well as in the case of Beijing’s challenge to Japan’s control over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, has been to avoid conflicts with China.

But American timidity and refusal to abide by US treaty obligations to the Philippines and Japan have had the opposite effect.

By not responding to Chinese aggression, far from moderating China’s behavior, the Obama administration emboldened it. And in so doing, it destroyed the US’s deterrent posture in Asia. As China’s increasingly belligerent behavior has made clear, Obama’s attempt to appease China was perceived in Beijing as a green light for further aggression, because the Chinese correctly determined that Obama would never make them pay a price for seizing territory and otherwise harming America’s Asian allies.

Under these circumstances, Obama had no choice but to sign an enhanced defense treaty with the Philippines.

Far from calming the situation, though, the treaty increases the chance of war between China and its neighbors. No one, least of all China’s leadership, is fooled by Obama’s whiny insistence that the defense pact isn’t directed against China. And now China, already itching for more confrontations, will feel compelled to respond strongly.

This brings us to the second problem with the Obama administration’s new assertiveness in Asia. It simply isn’t credible.

[........]

We already know Obama lacks the will to confront China. And his decision to downsize the US military ensures the US will lack good options for confronting it in the coming years.

During his joint press conference in Manila on Monday with Aquino, Ed Henry from Fox News asked Obama to explain his foreign policy doctrine.

“What do you think the Obama Doctrine is in terms of what your guiding principle is on all of these crises and how you answer those critics who say they think the doctrine is weakness.”

Obama responded with his signature peevishness.

Before launching into a 900-word assault on a series of straw men to whom he attributed positions that at best distorted and at worst willfully misrepresented the positions of his critics, Obama muttered, “Well, Ed, I doubt that I’m going to have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine.”

One thing that Obama did have the time do was signal to the Philippines that the US is no longer a reliable ally. After touting the new defense pact in one sentence, Obama proceeded to explain in the next that his administration cannot be expected to honor any commitment to defend the Philippines militarily.

Obama’s bloviations demonstrated why Henry’s question was so important.

For five-and-a-half years, Obama has not given a straightforward presentation of his foreign policy.

Instead, he has tailored his foreign policy statements to what he thinks the public wishes to hear.

So for instance, in responding to Henry, Obama sounded an isolationist note, attacking imaginary critics for their automatic rush to arms in all circumstances.

Beyond being a gross mischaracterization of his critics, Obama’s remarks ignored the inconvenient fact that he sent US forces on a NATO mission to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya without congressional authorization.

No Republicans forced his hand. Since 2004, Gaddafi had posed no threat to US interests.

And in the aftermath of Obama’s unauthorized war in Libya, the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi.

Al-Qaida and other jihadist groups that benefited from NATO’s operation have taken over large swathes of the country and sunk it into ungovernable chaos.  [........]

Although Obama’s 900-word rant obscured rather than explained his foreign policy doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is easily understood from his actual policies – including his military adventure in Libya.

If Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy doctrine was “Peace through strength,” Obama’s doctrine can be summed up in two sentences: “Speak loudly and carry no stick.” And “Be good to your enemies and bad to your allies.”

The defense treaty with the Philippines, like Obama’s bluster in Ukraine and Syria, is a sterling example of the first part of his doctrine.

And Obama’s obsequious policies toward China, Russia and Iran on the one hand, and his coldness toward Japan, South Korea, Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine and Israel on the other hand demonstrate the validity of the second part of his doctrine.

The reason that Obama has not shared his own doctrine with the American people is not because he can’t explain it in the course of one speech. It is because he knows that they won’t accept it.

For their part, the American people seem to have him figured out. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll published on Wednesday, Obama’s approval rating for his handling of foreign policy is at an all-time low. Only 38 percent of Americans approve of his handling of foreign policy and 53% disapprove.

The same poll gave respondents two foreign policy doctrines and asked them to choose the one they preferred.

The first was, “We need a president who will present an image of America that has a more open approach and is willing to negotiate with friend and foe alike.”

The second was, “We need a president who will present an image of strength that shows America’s willingness to confront our enemies and stand up for our principles.”

Thirty-nine percent preferred the first policy course and 55% the second one. These numbers are nearly identical to the approval numbers for Obama’s foreign policy.

[......]

For America’s allies this reality requires them to carve out their own courses the best they can.

In Israel’s case, this involves first and foremost taking a less idealistic and more mercenary view of the world. This means not shrinking away from opportunities with the likes of Russia and China when they arise. And certainly it means not automatically siding with the Obama administration against them.

The Obama administration is reportedly angry with Israel for refusing to join America in scolding Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. But it is far from clear that the Obama White House offers Jerusalem a better option. To date, Obama has repaid Israel for its willingness to toe his line by undermining its core interests, publicly attacking it and seeking to subvert the elected government.

Israel has no interest in getting on Russia’s bad side in order to placate the Obama administration.

Nor is there any reason for Israel to obey the Obama administration’s demands for belligerent rhetoric when the next step of the Obama White House would doubtless be to turn around and castigate the “Israel lobby” for allegedly pushing the US toward war.

The same goes for China. There is no reason for Israel to jump into conflict with the growing Asian power. While Secretary of State John Kerry is egging on the Europeans to expand their trade war against Israel, China is assiduously expanding its trade with Israel. According to the Economy Ministry, next year Asia will surpass the US as Israel’s largest trading partner.

Then, of course, there is Iran. Out of loyalty and basic trust in the US’s strategic sanity, for the past decade, Israel has been willing to play second fiddle to the US in contending with Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program.  [.......]

Since his first days in office, Obama has signaled clearly through his deeds that he had absolutely no interest in blocking Iran’s nuclear progress. On the contrary, Obama’s policies in the Middle East have consistently involved strengthening and legitimizing the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of Israel and the less radical Sunni Arab states.

Out of habit, and in the hopes that something would change, Israel pretended away this reality and continued to follow Washington’s lead, limiting its goals to covert operations against Iran – that Obama leaked to the media – and lobbying Congress for sanctions that never had any chance of blocking Iran’s race to the nuclear finishing line.

[.......]

And so Israel must ignore it. Every day that Israel does not set back Iran’s nuclear progress brings Israel closer to being the subject of nuclear blackmail, Iranian-backed terrorism, and even nuclear Armageddon.

Obama may hide his doctrine behind petulance, populist canards and straw men, but it is clear enough. And that means that as far as Israel is concerned, its goal of securing its survival and prosperity for at least the next two-and-a-half years requires Jerusalem to act on its own and in the face of White House opposition.

It isn’t pleasant to defy the American president.

It isn’t easy. But in light of the Obama Doctrine, defying the White House is required to preserve the freedom of the Jewish people.

Read the rest - Life under the Obama doctrine

Obama angry over lack of Israeli support on Ukraine

by Speranza ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Chechnya, Headlines, Iran, Israel, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Russia, Ukraine at April 28th, 2014 - 7:13 pm

Israel should keep out of it!

by Daniel Greenfield

The source of the article is Haaretz, a left-wing paper in Israel that tries to play up “crises” with the US in order to undermine Netanyahu.

So its credibility in this case is weak.

Still Israel is probably not too enthusiastic about jumping in on the conflict, considering that Kerry just blamed Israel for the collapse of peace talk, the history of the Holocaust and its general lack of escalating foreign geopolitical conflicts. Or to put it another way, Israel isn’t a world power and isn’t trying to be one.

In this respect, the present dilemma is reminiscent of the last, at the end of the 1990s, when Washington naturally expected support from client states like Israel for its anti-Serbian Balkans policy – and found the Israeli foreign minister, Ariel Sharon, much less than enthusiastic. This happened despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated urgings that Israel broadcast its support for its patron.

Considering that Clinton was working to overthrow Netanyahu, and eventually succeeded, a lack of enthusiasm was not surprising. Sharon was somewhat blunter about it.

You can’t expect support from a government that you’re busy undermining.

Israeli policy is driven by its own security interests and does not need to be identical to that of the U.S., a senior defense official said Sunday in response to Haaretz’s report that White House and State Department officials in Washington have built up a great deal of anger over Jerusalem’s “neutrality” regarding Russia’s invasion of the Crimean Peninsula.

Obama Inc. has been building up a great deal of anger over Israel long before it was even in office.

 White House and State Department officials in Washington have built up a great deal of anger over Jerusalem’s “neutrality” regarding Russia’s invasion of the Crimean Peninsula.

The Israeli government does not. But unfortunately both sets of relations are basically hostile.

This follows multiple paragraphs claiming that Israel abstained from the UN vote on Crimea due to its support for
Russia when in fact its diplomats were on strike.

(Yes, that happens in Israel.)

According to the Israeli official, in response to U.S. inquiries Israel attributed its absence at the vote to the strike by the Foreign Ministry’s employees. The White House and the State Department found the explanation wanting, especially in light of the lack of advanced notice from Jerusalem.

If the State Department had been paying attention to events in Israel not involving new housing, it wouldn’t have needed advanced notice for a major story. Does no one at Foggy Bottom read the Jerusalem Post?

Adding more fuel to the flames in Washington were public remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in which they maintained their “neutrality” and failed to back up the United States.

“We have good and trusting relations with the Americans and the Russians, and our experience has been very positive with both sides. So I don’t understand the idea that Israel has to get mired in this,” Lieberman told Israel’s Channel 9 television when asked about the Ukraine crisis.

When White House and State Department officials read these comments, they nearly went crazy. They were particularly incensed by Lieberman’s mentioning Israel’s relations with the United States and with Russia in the same breath, giving them equal weight.

Tellingly, Haaretz does not quote the supposed Netanyahu neutrality statement. Lieberman has extensive connections in Russia and his party depends on a Russian vote so his views are not terribly surprising.

They also don’t particularly matter. It’s like getting angry about something that Biden says.

[.......]
So yes, Israel is making a show of cutting ties. Probably more of one than D.C. is.

Israel’s relations with Russia have consisted largely of empty diplomatic gestures and appeasement, surrendering territory to Russia. Israel certainly hasn’t gotten anything out of it and unlike China, there’s no point to the relationship. Russia is going to keep on backing Iran and assorted terrorists because it’s playing a larger war game with the West. Israel has no way of opting out of that game.

But neither does Israel have any incentive for tagging along on foreign policy after Obama has given the green light to Iran’s nuclear program and after Kerry blamed Israel for the collapse of the peace process.

Read the rest – Obama angry over lack of Israeli support on Ukraine

 

The Battle of Warsaw 1920

by Rodan ( 109 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Marxism, Poland, Progressives, Russia at April 28th, 2014 - 6:00 pm

BattleofWarsaw

One of the most decisive battles of world history occurred outside of Warsaw  in  August 1920. The Soviet Army invaded Poland to link up with Communist revolutionaries in Germany. Their goal was to install Communist regimes all over Europe and spread the Bolshevik revolution. After  series of defeats the Polish Army was pushed back to Warsaw, but ended up defeating the Soviet invasion force.

The 2011 Polish movie Battle of Warsaw 1920 celebrated the miraculous Polish victory over the Red Army.

For English subtitles, please use the caption option on Youtube.

 

The disappearance of American will

by Speranza ( 157 Comments › )
Filed under China, Iran, Israel, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Syria at April 21st, 2014 - 7:00 am

Is there a more pathetic looking cabinet member than Chuck Hagel? Seriously, we would have been better off picking any random name out of the phone book and installing them in the Pentagon than having the drunken, incompetent, boob Hagel running the department.

by Caroline Glick

The most terrifying aspect of the collapse of US power worldwide is the US’s indifferent response to it.

In Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East and beyond, America’s most dangerous foes are engaging in aggression and brinkmanship unseen in decades.

As Gordon Chang noted at a symposium in Los Angeles last month hosted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, since President Barack Obama entered office in 2009, the Chinese have responded to his overtures of goodwill and appeasement with intensified aggression against the US’s Asian allies and against US warships.

In 2012, China seized the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. Washington shrugged its shoulders despite its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines. And so Beijing is striking again, threatening the Second Thomas Shoal, another Philippine possession.

In a similar fashion, Beijing is challenging Japan’s control over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and even making territorial claims on Okinawa.

As Chang explained, China’s recent application of its Air-Defense Identification Zone to include Japanese and South Korean airspace is a hostile act not only against those countries but also against the principle of freedom of maritime navigation, which, Chang noted, “Americans have been defending for more than two centuries.”

The US has responded to Chinese aggression with ever-escalating attempts to placate Beijing.

And China has responded to these US overtures by demonstrating contempt for US power.

Last week, the Chinese humiliated Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during his visit to China’s National Defense University. He was harangued by a student questioner for the US’s support for the Philippines and Japan, and for opposition to Chinese unilateral seizure of island chains and assertions of rights over other states’ airspace and international waterways.

As he stood next to Hagel in a joint press conference, China’s Defense Chief Chang Wanquan demanded that the US restrain Japan and the Philippines.

In addition to its flaccid responses to Chinese aggression against its allies and its own naval craft, in 2012 the US averred from publicly criticizing China for its sale to North Korea of mobile missile launchers capable of serving Pyongyang’s KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missiles. With these easily concealed launchers, North Korea significantly upgraded its ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons.

As for Europe, the Obama administration’s responses to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and to its acts of aggression against Ukraine bespeak a lack of seriousness and dangerous indifference to the fate of the US alliance structure in Eastern Europe.

[.......]

Clearly not impressed by the US moves, the Russians overflew and shadowed the US naval ship. As Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News on Monday, the Russian action was not a provocation. It was “a show of contempt.”

As Krauthammer explained, it could have only been viewed as a provocation if Russia had believed the US was likely to respond to its shadowing of the warship. Since Moscow correctly assessed that the US would not respond to its aggression, by buzzing and following the warship, the Russians demonstrated to Ukraine and other US allies that they cannot trust the US to protect them from Russia.

In the Middle East, it is not only the US’s obsessive approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel that lies in shambles. The entire US alliance system and the Obama administration’s other signature initiatives have also collapsed.

After entering office, Obama implemented an aggressive policy in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere of killing al-Qaida operatives with unmanned drones. The strategy was based on the notion that such a campaign, that involves no US boots on the ground, can bring about a rout of the terrorist force at minimal human cost to the US and at minimal political cost to President Barack Obama.

The strategy has brought about the demise of a significant number of al-Qaida terrorists over the years. And due to the support Obama enjoys from the US media, the Obama administration paid very little in terms of political capital for implementing it.

But despite the program’s relative success, according to The Washington Post, the administration suspended drone attacks in December 2013 after it endured modest criticism when one in Yemen inadvertently hit a wedding party.

[......]

This week, jihadist websites featured an al-Qaida video showing hundreds of al-Qaida terrorists in Yemen meeting openly with the group’s second in command, Nasir al-Wuhayshi.

In the video, Wuhayshi threatened the US directly saying, “We must eliminate the cross,” and explaining that “the bearer of the cross is America.”

Then there is Iran.

The administration has staked its reputation on its radical policy of engaging Iran on its nuclear weapons program. The administration claims that by permitting Iran to undertake some nuclear activities it can convince the mullahs to shelve their plan to develop nuclear weapons.
[.....]

In a televised interview Sunday, Iran’s nuclear chief Ali Akhbar Salehi insisted that Iran has the right to enrich uranium to 90 percent. In other words, he said that Iran is building nuclear bombs.

And thanks to the US and its interim nuclear deal with Iran, the Iranian economy is on the mend.
[.......]

Rather than accept that its efforts have failed, the Obama administration is redefining what success means.

As Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz noted, in recent months US officials claimed the goal of the nuclear talks was to ensure that Iran would remain years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. In recent remarks, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the US would suffice with a situation in which Iran is but six months away from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In other words, the US has now defined failure as success.

Then there is Syria.

Last September, the US claimed it made history when, together with Russia it convinced dictator Bashar Assad to surrender his chemical weapons arsenal. Six months later, not only is Syria well behind schedule for abiding by the agreement, it is reportedly continuing to use chemical weapons against opposition forces and civilians. The most recent attack reportedly occurred on April 12 when residents of Kafr Zita were attacked with chlorine gas.

The growing worldwide contempt for US power and authority would be bad enough in and of itself. The newfound confidence of aggressors imperils international security and threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

What makes the situation worse is the US response to what is happening. The Obama administration is responding to the ever-multiplying crises by pretending that there is nothing to worry about and insisting that failures are successes.

And the problem is not limited to Obama and his advisers or even to the political Left. Their delusional view that the US will suffer no consequences for its consistent record of failure and defeat is shared by a growing chorus of conservatives.

Some, like the anti-Semitic conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan, laud Putin as a cultural hero. [......]
.

Leaders like Sen. Ted Cruz who call for a US foreign policy based on standing by allies and opposing foes in order to ensure US leadership and US national security are being drowned out in a chorus of “Who cares?” Six years into Obama’s presidency, the US public as a whole is largely opposed to taking any action on behalf of Ukraine or the Baltic states, regardless of what inaction, or worse, feckless action means for the US’s ability to protect its interests and national security.

And the generation coming of age today is similarly uninterested in US global leadership.

During the Cold War and in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the predominant view among American university students studying international affairs was that US world leadership is essential to ensure global stability and US national interests and values.

Today this is no longer the case.

Much of the Obama administration’s shuttle diplomacy in recent years has involved sending senior officials, including Obama, on overseas trips with the goal of reassuring jittery allies that they can continue to trust US security guarantees.

These protestations convince fewer and fewer people today.

It is because of this that US allies like Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, that lack nuclear weapons, are considering their options on the nuclear front.

It is because of this that Israeli officials are openly stating for the first time that the US cannot be depended on to either secure Israel’s eastern frontier in the event that an accord is reached with the Palestinians, or to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is because of this that the world is more likely than it has been since 1939 to experience a world war of catastrophic proportions.

There is a direct correlation between the US elite’s preoccupation with social issues running the narrow and solipsistic gamut from gay marriage to transgender bathrooms to a phony war against women, and America’s inability to recognize the growing threats to the global order or understand why Americans should care about the world at all.

And there is a similarly direct correlation between the growing aggression of US foes and Obama’s decision to slash defense spending while allowing the US nuclear arsenal to become all but obsolete.

America’s spurned allies will take the actions they need to take to protect themselves. Some will persevere, others will likely be overrun.

But with Americans across the ideological spectrum pretending that failure is success and defeat is victory, while turning their backs on the growing storm, how will America protect itself?

Read the rest - The disappearance of US will