And Hormuz is Closed Again

Well, that didn't last long.  The US cannot prevent Israel and Hezbollah from fighting, but Iran won't keep the peace unless their proxy is safe.  There are too many moving parts in the Middle East to maintain the fragile peace.  If we aren't going to bomb Iran into the stone age, then it will just be another Afghanistan or Iraq.  Neither of those have turned out well.  Keep an eye on the nukes, bombing as needed, and protect US shipping.  Otherwise, let the region find a balance.  Beyond preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, this isn't our problem.

The Peace Deal

It is a day for celebration.  The current war between Israel and the Palestinians has come to a conclusion, just as it has so many times before.  Where those who engineered the peace paint a rosy picture of the future, it is all too likely that this is just a lull in the eternal struggle.  Hamas shall lie low for a few years as it recruits more fodder and assembles a new arsenal, same as always.  This is only an extended ceasefire; to think otherwise is to have no knowledge of the region's history.

Then again, the peace between Israel and Egypt has held for nearly a half century.  The Abraham Accords have normalized relations between Israel and several Muslim Arab countries.  The peace process may not be the chimera it has long appeared to be.  It has taken decades, but progress toward regional peace is undeniable.  Would the various peace agreements have been successful without American arm-twisting?

Peace is good strategy for the time being.  Islam is conquering the West through unfettered migration.  Muslims are openly declaring their intent to overwhelm countries where they have immigrated, assuring them that Sharia Law is on the horizon.  The West is too soft to believe it, even as more and more districts of capital cities become Muslim majority.  The West celebrates the 'peace' in a distant land while strife takes root in the home country.

October 7th

It has been two years since the attack that started the current war between Israel and Hamas.  Except for that first assault by Hamas, it has been a one-sided war.  Hamas never stood a chance, and they knew it.  As usual, there have been constant calls for ceasefires and ending of the war.  That is not how wars end.  In World War II, the US required surrender from the Axis powers.  Germany didn't get to sue for peace after D-Day.  No, they had the choice of surrender or continued warfare.  The same was true with Japan.  Either surrender or the bombing will continue.  Hamas has refused to surrender.  Nor have the Palestinian people overthrown their bellicose leaders.  You do not get to start a war then cry timeout when it goes badly for you.  Ergo, the war continues.

Clearly, Hamas will not surrender, thus the war can only end when Hamas is no more.  Is that even possible?  It is quite a strategy that Hamas has and may yet succeed in letting them rebuild for the next attack on Israel.

World War III?

Simon Webb of History Debunked suggests that World War III has already begun.  In fact, he proposes that the first world war should be the Napoleonic Wars, which spanned a decade (1803-1815) and involved actions from India to the Caribbean, and the Middle East to Scandinavia.  The current situation has recently seen North Korean troops heading to Ukraine to aid the Russians.  The NATO powers are funding and supplying equipment to Ukraine, most notably the United States.  In fact, US soldiers are stationed in Israel to man anti-missile batteries.  Israel's war with Gaza has leaked over into Lebanon.  Iran has fired yet another barrage of missiles, which Israel will soon answer.  Will that draw Iran into the war?  Maybe.  He notes that previous world wars were easily defined thanks to the war declarations by each side.  Few participants are declaring war but certainly engaging in war-making activities.

I would not call this a world war yet.  It is more like a new chapter of the Cold War.  Yes, the Cold War ended more than 30 years ago, but this has the same vibe.  If all that it requires to be a World War is the participation of many countries, the Korean War should count.  The UN (led by the US) was on the side of South Korea and while the Chinese & Russians supported North Korea.  Similar conflicts happened throughout the world during the Cold War.

Cold War II.  For now.

Don't Trust the Media

The new story from Israel is the discovery of 40 dead babies, some of them beheaded.  If true, that is Nazi level of evil.  However, I remember when Iraqis supposedly tossed babies out of incubators during the invasion of Kuwait.  It was a big story.  The young woman who testified was quite convincing.  It wasn't true but it sure helped sway the American public for the Gulf War (1990-1991).  Though I have seen pictures of dead Israelis and even tourists in this conflict, I have not seen the beheaded babies.  Of course, I don't want to see beheaded babies, but the media has proved so unreliable that I don't believe it.  What Palestinian could be so stupid as to not realize how devastating such an action would be?

If this is not true, then Israel is perpetrating one of the darkest public relations operations ever.  As if what has been done was not bad enough, we'll stack on 40 dead babies.  That will get the public on our side.  That is a vile way to win support.  Not as terrible as what Hamas has done, but still vile.

Again, I don't want to see pictures but, until I do, this is a bogus story.

Failure of Intelligence

A week ago, if asked to pick the country least likely to suffer a large-scale surprise attack, I would have chosen Israel.  I would have been wrong.  Considering the extent of the attack, it is almost inconceivable that Israel didn't see it coming.  Much as many believe that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming and that George W. Bush knew 9/11 was coming, I expect that many will believe that Netanyahu knew this was coming.  This provides an excellent pretext for reoccupying Gaza and a huge distraction from his domestic troubles.

If Netanyahu didn't know, this was a catastrophic failure Israeli Intelligence.  Such a large-scale operation cannot be easily arranged without leaks.  Many Palestinian fighters were armed with American weapons, the very ones left in Afghanistan after the withdrawal.  Thousands of rockets were smuggled into Gaza.  The attacks were launched by land, air, and sea.  How did this get missed?

Of course, the Israelis will push the Hamas fighters back and retake all the territory that has been seized.  Moreover, seeing the danger, the IDF is likely to flatten large parts of Gaza.  Hamas must be crushed, removed from any leadership role.  Much as Germany had de-Nazification after WWII and Iraq had de-Baathification after the Iraq War, Gaza needs a de-Hamasification.  Will that help? Probably not.  But whatever replaces Hamas will require years to become as organized.

Another surprising thing about this attack was that Israelis were not armed.  For years, the news has reported how Israelis wander the streets with automatic weapons.  For years, whenever I saw a report on the news (usually ABC back in the day), there were also pictures of random citizens with an Uzi or some other weapon casually slung from a shoulder.  However, many videos show Hamas fighters stalking down residential streets unopposed.  Did Israel impose gun control?  If not, gun sales are going to go through the roof after this.

The Little Drummer Girl

There is a Palestinian bomber targeting Jews in Europe.  His most recent attack in Germany missed its target but killed a young boy and maimed his mother.  Martin Kurtz, an Israeli intelligence officer, arrives to investigate.  He learns that the bomb was delivered by a college-aged Scandinavian blonde who claimed to be friends with the vacationing Swedish nanny.  Other bombings had similarly made use of attractive European women to deliver bombs.  Meanwhile in Greece, Charmian "Charlie" Ross and her band of actors were on vacation after touring the stages of England.  Charlie was a particularly talented actress who also had a history of extreme leftist politics.  Charlie and her group take note of a handsome man who is rather standoffish; he's this fascinating mystery that they want to solve.  Everyone tries to impress Joseph and he eventually consents to fraternize.  In fact, Joseph is an Israeli operative who recruits Charlie to infiltrate the bomb operation and allow Kurtz and him to eliminate Khalil, the bomb mastermind.

I had not read John Le Carre until now and I'm indifferent to his style.  The story is great, but he more often tells than shows.  He sketches his characters by offering a flurry of vignettes that paint the character.  It's like a literary montage.  I found this mostly distracting.  Nothing is happening, I'm just being told a random collection of things to outline a character.  It's not just a sentence or two, but an outline of relationships, past incidents, various noteworthy events, revealed attitudes and opinions, and so forth tossed like a mixed salad.  The first few chapters of the book were full of this as characters were introduced, giving it a glacial pace.  Of course, once that is done, the pace improves somewhat.  However, these montages also happen when a character stays in one place for a while.  Yes, now there are small events to outline to show the character of the area, be it a quiet street in a German town or a Palestinian camp in Lebanon.  There are long sequences of minutia, such as Kurtz portraying an American movie producer with Charlie's London agent in order to procure samples of her correspondence and handwriting.  This is key to being able to forge her convincingly.  On the one hand, I appreciate the attention to detail.  On the other, there is a lot more of the genial drunk theatrical agent than you would expect in a spy novel.  There is very little action but loads of tension.  Often, the stakes seem massive on the next sentence a character might utter.  Was that the right thing to say?  Will the character ruin everything with a misstatement, a verbal faux pas?  There are more often battles of words than bullets.

Charlie is the book.  Recruited by Israelis, she has her leftist politics demolished during her 'audition' and finds that many of her beliefs are rooted in sand.  She is soon won to the Israeli cause and gladly joins this 'theater of the real' to test the limits of her acting chops.  The curtain never falls and the stakes get increasingly bigger as she consents to each escalation of her involvement.  Once deep undercover, she finds herself siding with the beleaguered Palestinians.  She has sunk so deep into her role that she often believes she had a love affair with a dead terrorist and longs to kill Zionists to avenge him.  It is no wonder she convinces the Arabs of her sincerity, since she believes it herself.  Can she hold herself together to the end or will she finally crack as her Israeli and Palestinian views drive her insane?  Though I felt for Charlie, I didn't particularly like her.

Overall, a solid book and a good spy thriller.

Noam Chomsky

That last post deserves some background.  Here is a post from my old Yahoo360 Blog from 2006:

 

I was first exposed to Noam Chomsky about 12 years ago (1994). George the Red is a huge fan and insisted that I read some of his profound works. Chomsky is an MIT PhD who is credited with revolutionizing modern linguistics. In the 1960s, he joined the anti-war movement and became a reliable critic of US foreign policy. He has written many books on the subject, a few of which I have read.

Though the arguments and discussions are long and ponderous and delivered with a dull rationality that the average reader might find unassailable, all of Noam's books boil down to the same point: It's America's fault (or maybe Israel). Pick any issue in the world today and Noam will shoot back a reasonable argument as to why it is America's fault. Human Rights violations in China? Well, that is obviously America's fault because we granted Most Favored Nation trade status which has only encouraged the regime to mistreat its citizenry. Cuban Poverty? Well, that is clearly America's fault on account of an ill-considered embargo instituted by JFK. Individually, they sound rational and reasonable. Side by side, he is saying that China's problems are because the US trades with them and Cuba's problems are because the US doesn't trade with them. Gee, we either trade or don't trade with every nation so that piles up the guilt pretty quickly.

Noam also has a habit of making outlandish claims without supporting them. This has the effect of saying that the fact is SO obvious, that he shouldn't be bothered to list the proof. Sort of like saying 2+2=4. It is obvious and beyond the need of further evidence. However, when you toss out a statement along the lines of "The US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world," some clear evidence would be greatly appreciated. He'll offer another of his esoteric and reasonable arguments how the UN definition of terrorism could be construed to include US firing cruise missiles into the Middle East since some civilians are killed and surely they must be terrified by the explosions.

Another thing to note about Noam is that he loves Cuba and what Castro has done to the place. To read Noam is to become utterly baffled as to why so many Cubans risk drowning in an effort to reach Florida. Why, everyone has healthcare. The infant mortality rate is lower than in much of the US. It's a socialist paradise that has been persecuted by America since the Bay of Pigs. The claim is outlandish. People vote with their feet and the immigration rate to Cuba is negative.

I believe everyone should try to do their own research on a subject and not take someone else's word for it. You ought to read a chapter or two of Noam (that's about all it should take). But, as I said, you can sum all his writing up as 'It's America's fault - Israel too - and Cuba is a Socialist Paradise. 

As I mentioned Israel, here is another post from the following year (2007) where Chomsky - who is Jewish - sides with the enemies of Israel:

 

Noam Chomsky (PhD in Linguistics) has gone to Lebanon to confer with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. After a chat, Noam had the following deep thoughts:

“I think that Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and a persuasive argument that they (the weapons) should be in the hands of Hizbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression and there is plenty of background and reasons for that. So, I think his position, if I am reporting it correctly, and it seems to be a reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region and the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent.”

As I said in an earlier blog on Noam, he has a way of phrasing things to sound reasonable. He makes outrageous claims that don’t seem outrageous because he surrounds them in equivocating phrases like ‘if I am reporting correctly’ or ‘seems to be.’ To use the old expression, Noam just loves to ‘beat around the bush.’ Let us try to dissect Noam’s statement and find what claims there are to evaluate.

1. Hizbollah should have weapons to deter aggression

2. There are historical reasons for Hizbollah to be armed

3. Weapons should be retained until there is a political settlement

Of course, Noam has failed to mention who Hizbollah must deter but the answer is clearly Israel. Israel occupied southern Lebanon twice so that would be the ‘plenty of background’ to which Noam refers. An armed Hizbollah will ‘deter aggression’ from Israel. Though both these points presume Israel as the aggressor rather than reacting to aggression, one can defend claims 1 and 2. Claim 3 falls apart when one examines Nasrallah’s stated intentions toward Israel:

“There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel. Peace settlements will not change reality, which is that Israel is the enemy and that it will never be a neighbor or a nation.”

Now, I found this with astonishing ease by merely looking up Hezbollah online but Noam apparently believes that Nasrallah only wants weapons until there is a ‘general political settlement.’ The settlement that Nasrallah intends is the destruction of Israel, as is clear from his own statements. Either Noam agrees that Israel should be destroyed or he is a witless dupe who failed to do any research – like I said, it was astonishingly easy to find Nasrallah’s stated views.

It is of note that Hezbollah sided with Syria (another nation that long occupied Lebanon but received no where near as much grief about it as Israel) during the Cedar Revolution, that they are funded by Iran (whose president has echoed Nasrallah’s views on Israel), and that they are in violation of UN resolution 1559 that required them to disarm. It takes someone as brilliant as Noam Chomsky to view Nasrallah/Hizbollah as the reasonable party in the Middle East.

To Chomsky, America and Israel are the bad actors in the world while everyone else is just an innocent victim of the policies of these two countries.

Engagement

President Obama campaigned on a policy of engagement with hostile countries, most notably Iran. Since his inauguration, he has tried to make nice with Iran and, as predicted by yours truly, it has come to naught. Oh, but since we showed that Iran was unwilling to engage when we offered the carrot, it makes us all that much stronger now that we must resort to the stick. Actually, no. The Chinese will not allow meaningful sanctions. Nor, in all likelihood, will Russia. The skeptics of Obama's strategy said that he was simply giving them a year or more to pursue nuclear weapons with no threat of action. Now we will seek toothless sanctions that will do virtually nothing to curb Iran's thirst for nuclear weaponry. Look what our sanctions have achieved against Cuba. As the Obama Administration will not use military force against Iran to prevent that nation from going nuclear and will strenuously urge Israel not to do so, it is now fairly certain that Iran will join the nuclear club. Won't MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) contain Iranian belligerence like it did with the USSR, especially since there is nothing Mutual about the Assured Destruction? Maybe. I'd rather not put it to the test.

Ahmadinejad has said that Israel must be "wiped off" the map. That will be much easier if he has some nukes. Is he just bluffing or should Israel take him at his word? The stakes could hardly be higher?

Peace Talks will never Succeed

I have long grown weary of all the talk on the Mideast Peace Process and how Israel is always making it more difficult to have peace. This is nonsense. The Palestinians will never agree to co-exist with Israel. They have stated their goal of the destruction of Israel many, many times. If Israel surrendered 99% of its territory, the Palestinians would blame Israel for ruining the peace process by not surrendering that last percent. There can be no peace when one party can only be satisfied by the destruction of the other party. This state of affairs is common knowledge and yet everyone claims to want the peace process to continue. Thus, I am always amazed when people I respect talk of the peace process as if it weren't a chimera. There is no peace process. There has never been a peace process. It is the Israeli Surrender Process. Those who desire the destruction of Israel are content to accept small gains (withdrawal from Gaza, withdrawal from Lebanon, etc.) while surrendering nothing themselves. I have seen the process for 25 years and, through various reading, discovered it has been ongoing since the creation of Modern Israel in 1948. Right now, the Palestinians may lose every battle but they are winning the war. If Israel still exists in 20 years, there will still be no peace.

Peace is easy. All you have to do is surrender.