Beyond the Cusp

February 20, 2016

When Does Enough Become Enough?

 

How many Jews need to be stabbed, run over or set ablaze with firebombs before the world says that Israelis should be permitted to fight back against these murderous attacks? The answer appears to be when the last Jew in Israel has been murdered, or better known as never. If Israeli security prevents an Arab assault by shooting dead the terrorist attacker it is called extra-judicial vigilantism. If instead the Israeli security shoots and disables the attacking terrorist and then give them top notch treatment in Israeli hospitals and returns to their family whole and with all limbs functioning as well as the day they took a knife and attacked an innocent Israeli, then Israel is causing them to be disabled and thus a drain on the limited funding of the Arab Palestinian society. The only way that the Israelis would be permitted to stop such murderous activities is if the terrorist died of exhaustion stabbing Jews and other Israelis and then Israel would likely be accused of not permitting the terrorist to have a normal sleep cycle. But there are some factors which the world willfully ignores about this stabbing Intifada which deserves investigation.

 

First item is that when these terrorists strike at those residing in Israel, they have planned them quite well attacking areas where the percentage of Jews is highest. Those who have used their employment in Jewish communities to gain entrance to the neighborhood can choose their victim carefully. This was the case this week when the stabbing attack at a branch of the Rami Levy Supermarket in Sha’ar Binyamin in which Tuvia Yanai Weissman, an American citizen, was murdered. Security cameras revealed the two terrorists roamed the aisles of the Ram Levy store for more than a quarter of an hour before attacking the couple killing the husband and injuring his wife before two other patrons at the store ended the attack responding to the distress calls by the victims. The terrorists were shot and taken for treatment at an Israeli hospital. It bears noting that the terrorists would be treated by Israeli physicians. When we say an Israeli hospital treated them it means the physician and nurses and other hospital staff could be from any background including Arab, Jewish, Christian or other parentage as in Israel all are permitted to study what they wish and become anything their intelligence and hard work will provide for them. When the terrorists attack, no matter how careful they may be in choosing a target which is Jewish, as long as the person attacked cannot be determined by manner of dressing and wearing religious clothing such as a Yamaka, the terrorist has a one in three chance of attacking an Israeli of other than Jewish religious background including a fellow Muslim, a Christian or one of the other religions represented within Israeli society.

 

 

Hamas Terrorists Abusing Their Own Children Raising Them on Hatred

Hamas Terrorists Abusing Their Own Children Raising Them on Hatred

 

 

Still, what will it take for the world instead of screaming about the Israeli response to violent murderous assaults with force of their own to actually hold that the initial attack is the root of the problem, not Israelis, particularly Jews, defending themselves. Could it be that Jews have been forced by their societies to play only the part of victim which bothers these people about Jews defending themselves? Can it be that in their eyes of an idealized world Jews would be forbidden of availing themselves of the basic right of self-defense? Granted that living amongst these peoples of the world, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Europeans, Americans and any other places where such is true have so accustomed themselves to the helpless Jew living at the behest of their presumed betters. Their social customs often left the Jews no protection other than living in their designated areas and not intersecting with their host civilization but allowed to service their needs. Jews were forced to reside in the ‘Jewish zone’ where they theoretically could not infect their neighbors with any Jewishness as if being Jewish were caused by some virus and was an affliction, a contagion which could become infected. A basic amongst their beliefs was that the Jew was inferior and must never be permitted to own weapons. This may be a part of their trepidations, that if the Israeli Jews in Israel have weapons, then the Jews in their countries will demand the right to arm, and that is something they feel they must never permit as the unarmed Jew is the contained Jew. As long as the Jews remain over there and know their place, then society can function “normally” with all as it should be. Israel upsets that balance.

 

The sad reality is that the Western World may not have much left of their culture and society should the tap on basically open enrolment for citizenship continue much longer. The shaky balance is radically shifting and when one adds the regressive influence this unchecked influx brings with them a completely different culture and many bring absolutely no marketable skills. That means that many of the new citizens will avail themselves of the cornucopia of welfare and other support functions without adding anything into the societies where they settle. This net cost will damage such countries such as Germany which still has a robust economy, cripple the nations with lesser economic health, devastate any nation already on the brink of failure utterly pushing beyond the cusp of financial solvency those nations teetering on the edge such as Italy and France. Europe was already precariously balanced with the hope that the weaker economic powers could be injected with funds sufficient to stimulate their economies back towards some semblance of solvency. Now, with one million plus new denizens about to lay an economic strain on Germany, the Scandinavian nations and anywhere else economic promises of support to be provided these otherwise hopeless peoples will sap every last Euro and there will come that point where the native populations within Europe explode. Supporting Greece or Italy or Spain or even France once their new socialist government overtaxes the producers to finance the ever-growing class of takers and one adds in the refugees who have little to add other than a colorful new segment of society needing almost total care while adding almost nothing useful in Europe. There should be some manner of support granted Europe by those Arab and Muslim nations who refused to care for these people who are their closest match to their populations but were turned away quite possibly with the intent on their eventually being taken in by the Europeans and thus becoming Europe’s problem.

 

But the problem will not be contained solely within Europe. As the European nations realize the damage they have caused their nations and the continent as a whole through acquiescing and taking some of the burden started by Germany’s Angela Merkel, they will seek relief from the error of their ways. This will add to the numbers already being permitted to seek refugee status in the United States and Canada. The new Canadian liberal government will bring in numbers beyond what that nation can survive and they too will seek a relief by sending their refugees to the United States as well. During his final year President Obama will respond to these urgent calls for assistance and use actual existing immigration quotas in order to facilitate the entry of half to three quarters of a billion, that is as many as seven-hundred-fifty million refugees by using the fact that many are coming from places within Europe as filling European national quotas. This will be the method of entry for Syrian, Iraqi, Afghani, Pakistani and other Arab and central Asian refugees without needing to go to Congress for special permission which would be required if these refugees were being brought to the United States by honest means.

 

What this has to do with Israel is an easy question to answer. Thus far Israel has treated injured people from the Syrian war without any questions as to whose injured they were, how they were injured and any other what could be uncomfortable questions. These people are treated for their wounds or other medical conditions and returned to Syria via the same manner by which they arrived. Israel is not nor has any plans on accepting a single refugee from the Syrian war or any of the other areas from where refugees currently originate. Israel took in her fair share of refugees as she pulled out of southern Lebanon. Granted the majority of those refugees were Arab Christians, still they were refugees. Israel absorbed refugees from Europe at the end of World War II and from across the Arab and Muslim worlds from 1946 to 1959 of near equal as to those taken in from Europe. Israel has accepted the Ethiopian Jews and the Bnei Menashe Jews from India and works to take in other long thought to be lost tribes including some who had originated in Morocco and ended up three-quarters the way up the Amazon River basin where two synagogues remain in service today. Many of these ancient Jewish tribes face persecution today much as they have throughout their histories and their clinging to their Jewish roots is something amazing and miraculous. The return of these refugees, refugees Israel does not demand others to take in and who would be refused by one and all anyway, that Israel has married into a single nation and has proven to be unbelievably inventive and building one nation which is benefitting the world being as they were commanded, a light unto the nations. But it will be pointed out that Israel did not take in their fair share of the Syrian and other Arab and Muslim refugees. Israel, it will be said, as one of Syria’s neighbors, should have accepted their fair share of refugees, perhaps four or five hundred thousand. That will likely be their starting number and it will rise with time until the claims will reach the ridiculous level and from there the numbers will go ballistic. Israel will always be singled out for special blame. Also, anytime things go awry, such as this misbegotten refugee situation, Israel will be called out for doing her share or not taking on a shared burden never recognizing the refugees Israel has taken in over the years. Problems are made to fit into one of two categories, Israel did not do enough or Israel went too far this time. When the subject is Israel, there is no range where things are in balance. With Israel if five-hundred-thousand is too much, then four-hundred-ninety-nine-thousand-nine-hundred and ninety-nine are too few. On the other hand, if five-hundred-thousand is too few then five-hundred-thousand and one is way over the top, what was Israel thinking. Israel is the epitome of you can’t win for losing.

 

 

Paris France Mass Terror Attacks ISIS Takes Credit for Murderous Carnage 129 Dead Hundreds More Injured or Traumatized

Paris France Mass Terror Attacks
ISIS Takes Credit for Murderous Carnage
129 Dead Hundreds More Injured or Traumatized

 

 

Israel had the first field hospital up and running after the disastrous earthquake flattened Haiti a few years ago and still to this day the blood libel continued that Israeli efforts in Haiti were strictly to steal organs for transplant back in Israel. What a horrific claim to make and to make it without a shred of evidence is simply monstrous. The claim after every conflict involving Israel since 1980 has been that Israel constantly uses disproportional force. The implication in that claim is obvious; too few Jews are dying and the groups making that claim are the very same people who refer to the shooting of terrorists in the midst of their assaulting every target they can reach until stopped with some continuing to attack even after being shot and shot against until completely neutralized as being vigilantism or extra-judicial killings. One guarantee we are willing to make is that if the same violence were occurring in their streets they would demand their government take action to end the terror. That does not mean their government would act which would very soon lead to that very vigilantism of which they accuse Israel. Watch Europe over the next six months and see how they act. We can look back at the recent Paris attacks where the French authorities talked and negotiated and tried to find what the terrorists wanted, right? They offered them their own state with half of Paris and the Champagne region included with the wineries left intact, didn’t they? What, they shot them on the spot, imagine the cruelty. They just shot them without any trial or anything, just shot dead right in the street. Imagine the traumas caused by their actions; they wounded French society doing such a thing. Well, will you imagine that, the great moralizers of Europe and when the violence came to their streets and was murdering their citizens acted exactly as have the Israelis. Enough said, we will simply sit back and wait for the great moralizers to start their Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement against at the very least Paris if not the entirety of that violent nation, France. Truth be told, and we all understand and know this, the French did the right thing and the Israelis have done the right thing and there is only one way to act when facing unbridled terrorism, shoot the terrorists, period.

 

 

Paris France Riots 2005

Paris France Riots 2005

 

 

The difference when it is Israel, and not a problem when the French or anybody other than Israel treats terrorist murderers with hot lead and not cupcakes and ice cream, is their hatred of Israel, the Jewish State. It breaks down to plain and simple anti-Semitism. Call it criticizing the Israeli government, call it the horrific settlements, call it anti-Zionism, call it standing up for human rights, call it the moral thing for society to do, when the standards for Israel differ so starkly from the standards elsewhere, it is anti-Semitism. When Northern Cypress, occupied by Turkey; Tibet, the entire nation, occupied by China; Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara and no protests or burning of government officials in effigy but when Israel legally settles in lands which by treaty, the Oslo Accords, allow Israel to settle and the entirety of the lands are disputed, not occupied or final disposition determined except by high minded and heavy handed navel gazing moralists, then singling out Israel from the entirety of the world is anti-Semitism and not acting morally. It is likely the most immoral action a human being can take as anti-Semitism had proven ruinous and morally empty for over thirty centuries starting with Pharaoh. The real occupation was by Jordan and their relocation of people and their gifting and selling the lands were acts against international law but that never mattered. While Jordan occupied the lands and they could have been used to found a “Palestinian” State, that was not even a glimmer in anybody’s eye. The fact that the PLO was founded in 1964, a full three years before there was any Israeli occupation to protest unless the formation of the state of Israel is the occupation that was and still is what they are referring to. Let us repeat that, the “Palestinian” Liberation Organization with Yasser Arafat as its leader and Mahmoud Abbas as his second in command was founded in 1964 with its mission and goal the complete eradication of Israel and that is the exact mission statement it retains today while Mahmoud Abbas is numero uno. Calling the PLO the PA or Fatah makes it no different; their goal is the eradication of Israel, nothing less. Truth is this is the same Arab Israeli war from 1948 and the aim has not changed, just the tactics. Israel is at war, a slow and long war, Europe and the United States are about to join Israel in that war and we will see what effect if any it has on their views when they too are in a kitchen on fire.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

September 20, 2015

Would Reykjavik Mind Answering One Question Before Boycotting

 

Reykjavik, Iceland’s Capital City, has taken a vote on a motion presented by Björk Vilhelmsdóttir, an outgoing councilwomen representing the Social Democratic Alliance, to boycott all products from Israel, not just the “territories” or the “occupied areas” but all goods Israeli until Israel has pulled all Israelis and other objects of the occupation from all Palestinian areas and allowed the Palestinian peoples to have their own independent homelands. There have been claims that since there have been no actual boycott items list, that this was purely a symbolic vote with some claiming it was just done as a parting gift for the retiring councilwoman. Might we suggest an acrylic award, as it appears gold watches are rather expensive and retiring councilpersons may be a short lived retirement should they feel they miss telling others how to live their lives. There may be a problem with meeting their demand even if Israeli leaders were at all inclined to fold before this immeasurable pressure; namely, exactly what are the actual acceptable borders for these so-called “occupied areas” so that Israel could satisfy the demand being made by the Reykjavik city council.

 

Truth be told, I am not all that surprised by the vote in Reykjavik. Nor would I be surprised by any of the leftist government councils, parliaments and other governances taking and passing similar pieces of legislation. I also do not see any of these governmental organizations actually implementing their “symbolic” legislation as it would, if carried to the extreme that Reykjavik’s legislation would cover as that would mean junking their computers, erasing their security programs leaving their networks open to malware and viruses except for the problem that the processors would have been removed already as part of their boycott. One must wonder if anybody with a stent permitting their hearts to function would have them replaced with the less effective older models which do not carry the medicine additive which makes the Israeli stents far more effective. The list of items which would need be replaced or completely done without is extensive and surprising. But as the government of Iceland has all but voided the Reykjavik boycott which a spokesperson for the Reykjavik Council stated that the boycott was not readily able to be implemented and was more symbolic than an actual policy. Their admitting the lack of intent to enforce the boycott when they found themselves being called and ridiculed or challenged, depending which groups’ reactions one chooses, put to sham any intent for enforcement.

 

Before posting today it has come to our attention that Reykjavik Mayor Dagur B. Eggertsson has realized a change of heart and decided that the decision is to be withdrawn. Apparently he claimed stating to the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service RUV, “Yes, the decision was poorly prepared. In the past I have taken great pride in preparing all big decisions thoroughly. I’ll admit here and now that I am angry with myself for not doing that, and for not having prepared the decision as well as I would have liked to. This was very unfortunate.” He may have been better off leaving this as his statement but, as with all too many politicians he added as a further explanation, “I have previously stated that we could have been far clearer in the text of the decision, even if the idea had always been this. It is important we make absolutely clear that this was the case.” Oh, so it was not phrased well enough and if the wording had been crafted a little more subtlety it would have been better? No, no matter how you phrase enjoining your city with the BDS movement and doing so up to the neck banning all things Israel is not going to fly as finally the world’s conscience has had enough ever since the BDS fiasco in Spain with Matisyahu being uninvited and then reinvited after the brouhaha appears to have been the bromide behind your limp and half wet backtracking. May this be the reaction for all other BDS against Israel so this sorry chapter can be brought to an end here and now. On the brighter side, Iceland’s Prime Minister Sigmundur Davio Gunnlaugsson called Reykjavik’s actions “Absurd.” But that still leaves us with “The Great Question.”

 

We want somebody in Europe, the Arab League, the Arab Palestinian Authority (PA), Fatah, or anyone with some authority to answer as nobody has answered this necessary question which is required if Israel is to comply with vacating the lands claimed as part of Palestine by the various Arab entities to finally answer with maps and GPS coordinates and a final statement defining exactly what would be required of Israel to satisfy the Arab demands for the formation of some amorphous, undefined entity cynically referred to as Palestine. What is required before Israel gives up an additional millimeter of lands is a definition of exactly what borders are required to be vacated in order for all claims, all terrorism, and all other negative actions, accusations, protested or other negative actions against Israel to cease, end, and be permanently terminated and Israel allowed to live in peace with secure borders. Israel cannot accept what the European Union, the United Nations, European governments, NGOs, or any other entity other than Mahmoud Abbas and backed by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezballah, Iran and all the rest using the “Palestinian occupation” as their reason d’etre in denouncing and calling for Israel to be boycotted, attacked and terrorized or otherwise attempted to be destroyed, end of the entire demanding puzzle, and satisfactory conclusion, period. We in Israel have read of claims by Mahmoud Abbas which are not helpful, not helpful at all.

 

 

Abbas Accepting Map Depicting Palestine Replacing all of Israel and Looking Extremely Pleased

 

 

There is the one statement that Mahmoud Abbas made where he claimed that they only demand that the state of Palestine be formed with the twenty-two-percent which belongs to the Palestinian people. This was immediately locked onto and then defined as Abbas demanding just the areas of Judea and Samaria that Jordan once occupied and renamed West Bank. Others said that Abbas was only demanding the “West Bank” and Gaza. One would think that with Abbas claiming he just desires the twenty-two-percent that belongs to the Palestinians that everybody would have gotten their handy-dandy maps, protractors, compasses and calculators and all come to the same agreement on what Abbas was demanding. This begs then why there were such different descriptions. The “West Bank” measures 5,860 km2 and Gaza measures 360 km2 making the combined total 6,220 km2 while Israel (pre 1967 War) 20,582 km2 we can work out the math and the closest we get to that twenty-two-percent is if Abbas is only claiming the “West Bank” without East Jerusalem or Gaza which produces a figure of twenty-two and two-tenths percent of the land. There is another division which is far more familiar with in the Middle East and it comes from the British formation of Transjordan, today’s Jordan. When Britain divided up the British Mandate along the Jordan River it took the lands east of the Jordan River which measures seventy-eight percent of the lands to make what was then referred to as the Arab Palestinian State and the remaining twenty-two percent west of the Jordan presumably reserved for the Jewish State. If one were able to dig out the actual audio of Abbas he precisely stated that the end of the struggle with the Zionist entity when Palestine was established on its twenty-two percent of the Mandate lands. There were two Mandates in the area, the British Mandate and the French Mandate and the Palestinian state, should one ever be formed, would come only from the British Mandate and the only land mass measuring almost exactly twenty-two percent of Mandate lands is the lands, all the lands, west of the Jordan River, or the land which the pro-Palestinian Arab demonstrators chant, “From the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea, Palestine must be free.” The only other claims Abbas has made is that he would accept temporarily a settlement where the West Bank would be made into Palestine but that must be accepted if it includes the “Right of Return” for over five-million Arabs being thrust into Israel as he specifically states claiming they are Israel’s problem, not the Palestinian Authority’s problem. He also claims that the Arab Palestinians also must be permitted to continue their resistance to the occupation until all of Palestine is freed. What could he possibly mean by all of Palestine, the rest of Palestine? He means and always had meant that Palestine must replace Israel and the Jews must be expelled or otherwise removed from the Arab Lands by whatever becomes necessary.

 

But why would anybody trust that I might be stating any truths, anything completely honest. I do not demand such but until somebody can produce anything contrary where it gives actual demands which the Arab Palestinian Authority and the Arab nations still at war with Israel such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and a number of others and then we can begin to negotiate a solution which recognizes final borders where the Jews and the Arabs all get secure and recognized borders, security, peace, and an end to all further struggle or violence. We might take a glance at some of the depictions of the proposed State of Palestine from Abbas’s own PA schoolbooks and other media.

 

 

Palestinian Textbook Maps depicting Palestine as replacing Israel, not sharing the land in peace and security as the Europeans and the rest of the West insist to misrepresent

 

 

As stated in my plea above, please simply get Mahmoud Abbas or Saab Erekat to lay out a map depicting the borders for their idea of a Palestinian state which will signify a complete end to the terrorist war and all other forms of conflict including Lawfare and the BDS threat and allow for a permanent peace with all claims of occupation settled and final borders providing peace and security. It is a simple request which Yasser Arafat refused to define and Mahmoud Abbas has refused to define and Saab Erekat after him will also fail to define because once they reveal that the only solution they will accept is the destruction of Israel replacing it with Palestine and then the destruction of Jordan then Lebanon as Palestine moves to unify the world under their banner. There is little difference between Hamas and Fatah except that Hamas makes their claims in the name of Islam and Fatah makes its claims in the name of Palestine. Both groups believe they have been destined by Allah or the fates to rule the entire world. The western nations have forgotten the drive which had driven so many in history of conquering the world. Where the Western leaders have resigned and forgotten their former designs on world conquest but that drive is what drove the colonization of the Americas, Asia and Africa and is what is driving many in the Islamic world today. The drive for world conquest drives Islamic State as it does Hamas and Fatah as well as the Saudi Wahabbists and the Mullahs of Iran who believe by causing worldwide chaos they can hasten the return of the Mahdi who will lead them in the final conquest of the world for Allah and the Shiite form of Islam, well, unless Islamic State is able to reinitiate the Caliphate and conquer the world for Allah and the Sunni form of Islam. When their aim is the world does anybody really and honestly believe that they would allow Israel, all 20,582 km2 to stand in their way? Israel is just their appetizer and once they have gobbled down the appetizer, if they ever do, the soup and salad is Europe and Africa, the main course is the United States, Russia and China and the desert is whatever is left over unless we can make a space station or Moon and Mars bases as the Quran does not exactly command the conquest of those of mankind who managed to flee the planet before Islam took over everything, so they might be safe if they are self-sufficient. But just get a commitment that spells out what will satisfy their bloodlust and will bring the terrorism, rockets and war to an end, and then decide what should be done.

 

One last warning, look up the meaning in Islam of the world, the concept is more appropriate, of “Taqiyya.” That last bit kind of puts a wrench into the works, doesn’t it. Below is a small poster giving a basic and simple definition of the concept of “Taqiyya” followed by a short four minute video from the Center for the Study of Political Islam also about “Taqiyya.”

 

 

Taqiyya defined in plain and simple easy to understand terms

Taqiyya defined in plain and simple easy to understand terms

 

 

 

 

Beyond the Cusp

June 24, 2014

Where Did Iraq and the Rest of the Middle East Go Wrong?

With the rapid unraveling of Iraq before the rapid murderous advance ISIS is executing through the central Sunni areas and advancing towards Baghdad and the Shiite south leaving slaughtered bodies and a ruined country in their wake has left a number of those who originally supported removing Saddam Hussein when President George W. Bush first proposed it expressing second guesses that perhaps their support was misplaced. Possibly the sole bright spot has been the fact that the Kurdish semiautonomous government intact and thus far mostly avoided and unmolested and that the Kurdish militias even have liberated Kirkuk from the clutches of ISIS after it had been subsumed falling as just another domino falling before the charging forces of Sharia. There have been some who have stuck with their original support of the war in Iraq such as Senators Graham and McCain who are now calling for yet another intervention to save Iraq, or maybe their aim is to try and not lose face and have to explain what was gained by the thousands of American young men and women who died or suffered horrendous injuries with too many having to live with permanent physical and/or psychological handicaps and disabilities or explain why so much treasure, taxpayers’ hard earned monies were invested just to have everything go up in smoke before the assault by ISIS. At least those who supported the original mission in Iraq and are now claiming that the United States is obliged to return to protect any gains which may have been won are being consistent in their positions, something that cannot be said for those who are now making excuses and asking forgiveness for their initial support and once again proving that hindsight is not as blind as the initial vision one initially had at the beginning. Yes, Iraq looks a whole lot different now than it did back when those supporting removing Saddam Hussein as an initial step towards changing the face of the Middle East. So, was the initial theory and concept really such a disaster or did things go awry at some point further down the line and if so, where and what was the point where things went sideways.

 

Let us first try and disassemble the early days and remember some of the initial ideas and concepts which were discussed and the plans which were discussed and proposed when the subject was first debated before the United States and their allies first entered Iraq. The idea was to introduce democracy and a more modern industrial and societal based society into the Middle East replacing the existing clan, tribal and sectarian based society. The thought was by removing Saddam Hussein who was thought to have WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and was known to be supporting terrorism as he was proud of his giving every family of a suicide bomber who detonated themselves within Israel with $25,000 reward recognizing the esteem the sacrifice of their family had garnered. There had been some mention that after liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein that the next target would necessarily be Iran and the overthrow of the Ayatollahs. It was believed that Iraq and Iran were both causing much of the unrest, terrorism and discord in the Middle East. The ideas promised that by establishing functioning democracies along with introducing a multicultural based society in these two key countries that this would in turn be the first step of a spreading of modernism and Western style society throughout the Middle East and beyond which would make for a safer and more stable society. The one misconception which seemed evident from the start was this transformation would be easily established with minimal prolonged troops stationed in Iraq and Iran and that these concepts would be accepted quickly and without much resistance from the peoples. These ideas flew in the face of all previous evidence much of which we gained after World War II with the deNazification of Germany, the replacing of fascism in Italy and the installation of modern democratic governance replacing the Emperor in Japan. These efforts took somewhat longer than the few years that we were told would be needed to establish similar changes in governance in the Middle East. The United States kept troops in Germany and Italy for decades before being able to reduce the numbers necessary despite the fact that both were Western nations with histories and religious establishments which paralleled the United States and the allied Western powers. Even after that, the United States kept significant numbers of troops in Germany and Italy right on into the new century. In Japan there was a provincial government which was overseen by the United States for a significant number of years and the new Japanese Constitution was mostly written by the commanding American General Douglas MacArthur who also acted as a military governor. The occupation was codenamed Operation Blacklist and continued into early September 1951. There are still sizeable contingents of American troops stationed in Japan to this day. After World War II, in order to establish nonthreatening, effective, democratic governance in the Axis Power nations required decades of intense and invasive monitoring before the warring nations were changed into friendly and allied nations willing to cooperate and work towards supportive and compatible governance which could be trusted sufficiently along with the peoples themselves not to revert to their aggressive recent past. Somehow the brain-trust in the administration of President George W. Bush thought and tried to sell the idea that the transformation of the Middle East could be accomplished in a matter of a couple of years. All one can say looking back is what were they thinking? Maybe a better question would ask if they were actually thinking.

 

Now we can easily observe that everything in Iraq has collapsed in upon itself and the end of what was initially described as the coming of a dream for the Middle East has become a horrifying nightmare. There are reports of indescribable violence, murdering of entire groups who are dumped in mass graves, crucifixions and other horrors almost beyond belief. There was a report that thousands of individuals thought to be Iraqi military troops who had stripped off their uniforms, disposed of their equipment and weapons in place and attempted to flee into the population being gathered and executed wholesale. ISIS has taken possession of large amounts of United States equipment including heavy arms, armored vehicles and large caches of automatic assault weapons some of which are already on their way back to Syria for use there. Iran has sent their elite core units from the al-Quds force to assist and protect their investment which is the al-Malaki government which the United States supported when it was initially elected and there has been some discussion in Washington DC that perhaps the United States should support Iran in fighting and hopefully defeating ISIS. The problem with this concept is why support one horror which desires the downfall and defeat of the United States to defeat another horror which desires the downfall and defeat of the United States. Iran has stated repeatedly their hatred and revulsion of everything concerning the United States and its culture and ISIS has expressed their willingness to murder everything and everyone who does not believe in their exact version of Islam and are so vehement and violently determined to fulfill that promise that even the hierarchy of al-Qaeda has divorced themselves from them. Sometimes when two of your enemies are set on destroying one another, the best path is to permit them their conflict and watch and only making a move when the entirety of the violence has been resolved and then, if any action is truly necessary, and only then do you offer to provide the innocent people of Iraq an alternative. Of course if they show even the slightest hesitation then the offer must be withdrawn as such doubt signifies a people not yet tired with the horrors which currently are plaguing much of the Middle East and especially Iraq and until they are done with the insanity there is nothing the United States or anybody else can offer. The mistake was made when the plans for transforming the Middle East was presented as a quick and easy fix. The mistake was compounded when the transformation which was voted into the White House was the intention to transform the United States which changed the direction and complete ideas of who were friend and who were foe in the Middle East leading to the removal of American influence in much of the Middle East and where the influence remained, it was now contrary to all previous efforts over the last three or more decades. The Middle East is going to need to sort itself out without any interference from the United States or Europe and that may prove to be a blessing and an end to the curse of always having efforts turn into disasters as soon as one turns their attention aside for even an instant. The one coming horrific threat out of the Middle East is something which is an established reality that has simply not been announced but has been perceived followed by conscious dissidence allowing for the Western nations to pretend that their nuclear negotiations with Iran are actually meaningful and have the potential to prevent Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons, something long accomplished and already an established fact. But why should the negotiations with Iran be founded in something any closer to reality than any of the Middle East policy of the United States at any time in this new century?

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.