Tuesday, May 24, 2011

I believe this is only fair

Julia Gorin has an interesting article about activists from Serbia who helped the Egyptian "revolution" using the October 2000 coup as a model.

Well, I hope they are proud of their achievement which consists moslty of the rise of the Muslim Bortherhood and it's agenda, persecution of Christians and threats of war and genocide against neighbours.

The only just reward for this feat would be to have future refugees from now all but inevitable Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt as well as a likely war in the Middle East settled in the houses and flats of these useless idiots and have all their other property confiscated and handed over as compensation for other losses Egyptian christians, secular Muslims and basically all sane people living there are likely to suffer. It is about time they suffer consequences for bringing calamity on whole countries and it's peoples, with Serbia being their first victim.

Pipe dream? Perhaps. But stranger things have happened indeed.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Obama to Israel: drop dead!

And it well may be literally if Hamas, as of late participant of the Paelstinian "unity givernement", has anything to say about it.

Although Obama is not the first US president to call Israeli presence in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria "occupation" or the first to endorse openly a Palestinian state the direct mentioning of the "1967 borders" is indeed a watershed. It also follows the standard MO of American diplomacy wherever it engages itself as a supposed mediator: initially feign impartiality by paying lip service to it with a couple of washed up frases, gradually insert the general direction in which the supposed "open negotiations" should be going and then drop the bombshell of what they see as a solution and imply that it's the only acceptable outcome while simultaniously shamelessly denying that you are trying to impose a solution. And if one of the sides refuses to cooperate, there will always be a torrent of abusive labels directed at it such as "intrasigent", "uncooperative", "hard-lined", uttered first by the US governement sycophants, it's ideological fellow travelers, useful idiots and, in Israel's case, plain old-fashioned Jew-haters and then, as a crescendo, by US governement spokesmen themselves. We Serbs felt it on our own skin, and still feel it.

And I'm sorry to say this but this situation is in good part of Israel's own making. For quite some time it has been putting all it's diplomatic eggs into the American basket. Israel has been declaring itself America's staunchest ally, professing undying loyalty and extolling America's values and virtues up to the point of almost elevating it to the level of idol-worship. By doing this, it has not only painted itself into a diplomatic corner but has also played right into the propaganda hands of it's enemies who have been falsely portraying it as an American client-state, or even worse, as a center from which the "Jewish conspiracy controls America". Sane voices who warned agianst such behaviour and what consequences it might have were all to often sneered at with the usual canard of "It can not happen to us". Famous last words...

What now? Israel's rejection of Obama's proposal is a foregone conclusion but it is also only the first step. The question is how does Israel cope with the inevitable Obama diplomatic onslaught afterwards? Breaking of with America completely? It would not be prudent unless there is another powerful ally waiting in the wings to take over America's place. EU? They are on board with Obama on this. Russia? Lieberman made some overtures and some of it was reciprocitated but it's not likely that anything meaningful will come out. China? It's got strong interests in Arab countries it would not want to jeopardize. India? Could be, but it's not strong enough.

Which leaves us with the option of Israel hoping that Obama is voted out of office in 2012 and a more sympathetic person replaces him. On the face of it, this seems to be Israel's best bet. Once you scratch the surface, however, a much murkier picture emerges. Leaving aside the quality of GOP candidates, the question remains whether once they get hold of the office they will transform their professed simpathy for the Jews and the Jewish state into concrete action. Will they roll back Obama's policies? It may not be as simple as it looks. A great power is a benemoth that often acts on inertia and is too proud to admit it made a mistake. Thus, it's actions become an end to itself rather then instrument of it's interests and the abstract notion of it's "credibility" becomes more important then any benefit or even damage the erroneous action might cause. There will be powerful forces in Washington who will resist any change in course Obama has set, you can rest assured on that.

And even if the new president does overcome internal opposition to the new course the question is juct how much will the restored US support be effective on the international scene. America has a lot of internal and foreing problems on it's hands as it is and it's power is on the wane it could be that it simply will not have the means to help Israel. Besides, some of the damage Obama can do might be beyond repair.

And another thing: what if Israel does throw it's lot with the GOP and Obama wins nevertheless? All of a sudden the notion that Libya is a blueprint for Israel does not seem so far-fetched after all.

As it stands now, literally all bets are off and there is no unified action which can be pointed as the solution to the situation Israel is in. It must combine elements of all the suggested courses of action above and more as well as be prepared for anything, even what it deemed as unthinkable only 24 hours ago.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

You just knew that this was coming, didn't you?

The spectacular failure of the western intervention in Lybia has reached it's nadir. Acting as "rebel" air force has produced little result in reversing the fortunes of war so the decision is to step it up:

General Richards, chief of the defense staff in Britain, spoke in an interview at NATO's southern headquarters in Naples, Italy, which has served as a command center for the attacks. "The vise is closing on Qaddafi, but we need to increase the pressure further through more intense military action," he said in the interview, published in The Sunday Telegraph. "We now have to tighten the vise to demonstrate to Qaddafi that the game is up."

He added that the bombing campaign, which has involved more than 2,500 sorties since it began March 19, had been "a significant success." But he added: "We need to do more. If we do not up the ante now there is a risk that the conflict could result in Qaddafi clinging to power."

The general suggested NATO should be freed from restraints that have precluded attacking infrastructure targets; other NATO officials have suggested in recent weeks that these could include elements of the electrical power grid in government-held areas, and fuel dumps.

How does bombing Lybian infrastructure conform with the goal of "protecting civilians"? Does anyone intend to ask these people that? Aren't Lybians who support Ghaddafi also civilians? Or are some civilians more equal then others? I know that nobody will ever ask these questions, but I'm still dying to hear what kind of insult to intelligence and common sense will they give as an answer!

Then again, the whole war in Lybia is an insult to intelligence and common sense...

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Bin Laden dead, delusions are still alive

Took them long enough, almost 10 years, but America finally got Bin Laden. And it's not as if he was hiding in the remote caves Pakistan, as it was assumed, so while this in itself is a great success for the USA the time it took to achieve it, during which Bin Laden almost became an afterthought, takes some shine off it. In any event, good riddance to bad rubbish.

But while Osama is in for a nasty surprise as he is learning his maker is not what he believed he was, the delusions that have dominated the public discourse when it comes to global jihad are still very much alive. The biggest of which is the one that the US and it's allies are winning "the war", or if they were not winning it up to this point they have turned the tide.

Nope, none of it is true. Things are, in general, going very badly for the west. While even Barack Obama noted that it is far from over, it's the reasons why it is so that escape him and mainstream pundits. Osama Bin Laden did not invent jihad, it did not begin with him and it is not going to end with his death. Western officials not only deny this, they deny that the very nature of the conflict is in fact global jihad against non-muslims. Instead the enemy is still portrayed in abstract terms such as "evil" and "totalitarianism". Under such circumstances, any real, sincere defense of civilization, providing the fact that current US and European leaders actually want tto defend it, is impossible. Fighting a war is much more then just military action, it is also preparing the nation for the conflict mentally. How can one be prepared for a conflict that has been falsely identified right from the begining? Not only that, the officials went out of their way to dispel any notion that 9/11, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda had anything to with islam. Bearing that in mind, it is no wonder that the ideology that has driven Osama and his actions is making steady and ever faster inroads in America and Europe. Until that changes killing a 1000 Bin Ladens will not matter in the grand scheme of things.

As a final note I can not help but agreeing with Ilana Mercer's take on people hitting the streets to celebrate Bin Laden's death. Sorry, but I do not recall rallies in honour of Hitler's death, coincidentially announced on the same date, May 1st, as that of Bin Laden. Back then, people rejoiced not for the death of the Fuhrer, a figure much more murderous then Osama, but for the end of the war. Another reminder of how much America has fallen spiritually.