RUTHFULLY YOURS

Two demagogues have inserted their countries into a monstrous civilisational war between millennialist Shia fundamentalists and apocalyptic Sunni fundamentalists. There were always going to be consequences for such folly – the assassination of Ambassador Karlov is but one.

All of this was clarified yet again with the slaying of Andrey Karlov, Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, by Mevlut Mert Altintas, a twenty-two-year-old policeman. To begin with all we knew – and almost all we needed to know – was that (a) Altintas served in security details protecting none other President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in recent months and (b) the assailant, after dispatching Karlov, repeatedly shouted “Don’t forget Aleppo! Don’t forget Syria! Don’t forget Aleppo! Don’t forget Syria!”

Much of what Putin and Erdoğan say about the public murder of a prime symbol of Russian intervention on the side of Damascus-Iran-Hezbollah in Syria is likely to be propaganda. Turkey’s Ministry of Truth, for instance, was quick off the mark to insist American-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen had a role in Karlov’s death. Altintas, according to this conspiracy theory, was a member of FETÖ, the term invented by Ankara to demonise the Gulen movement as a shadowy, underground terrorist entity determined to subvert the Turkish Republic. Under the headline “Great Sabotage”, the pro-government Yeni Safak newspaper explained it this way: “The pro-FETÖ assassins of the CIA have been mobilised.”

So far, at least, Russia’s version of the Ministry of Truth has been more circumspect about blaming Western intelligence agencies, and yet a smattering of Putin’s allies in the Duma made some like-minded rumblings. Frantz Klintsevich, a significant figure in the Russian parliament, speculated on the “highly likely” possibility that “foreign NATO secret services” were behind the assassination. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, another ally of Putin’s in the Duma, spoke of a “false flag operation by the West.”

The grain of truth in such dissembling is that Mevlut Mert Altintas took the action he did to protest the nascent rapprochement between Putin’s Russia and Erdoğan’s Turkey. That said, Altintas seems an unlikely agent of FETÖ or the CIA. The dramatic footage of him murdering Karlov and then denouncing the fall of eastern Aleppo makes that abundantly clear: “Only death will remove me from here. Everyone who has taken part in the oppression will one by one pay for it one by one.” A spokesman for Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) later confirmed Altintas’ Salafi-jihadist sympathies. The slaying of Andrey Karlov, in other words, was retribution for Russia’s part in the Shia alliance’s recent victory in Aleppo.

The assassination of Ambassador Karlov suggests that major fault lines divide the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey; even if Tsar Vladimir and Sultan Erdoğan themselves would prefer an alliance between their two countries rather than enmity. Back in December 2014, for instance, Ishaan Tharoor, in an article titled “How Russia’s Putin and Turkey’s Erdoğan are made for each other”, captured the friendliness “between two of the most outspoken and demagogic statesmen on the planet” at the time of President Putin’s last visit to Ankara. President Erdoğan provided a welcome “with fitting pageantry: an escort of liveried cavalrymen on horseback, a full military salute and a series of discussions in the cavernous halls of Erdoğan’s vast, new presidential palace.”

Both leaders, Ishaan Tharoor contended, were “kindred spirits”. They were the opposite of “bleeding heart liberals” and pursued reactionary social agendas in their separate domains: Putin, the ardent nationalist and devotee of the Russian Orthodox Church, wary of gender equality and an enactor of legislation hostile to gays; and Erdoğan, the Muslim Brotherhood-style Islamist determined to roll back Turkey’s Kemalist legacy. Erdoğan and Putin were both despots who “squelched” any internal obstruction to their “creeping authoritarianism” and were united by a distrust of the West.

It appears that Iran literally gained nothing from the Moscow conference, meaning that its participation was merely of a ceremonial nature.

“The regime in Tehran is the source of crisis in the region and killings in Syria; it has played the greatest role in the expansion and continuation of ISIS. Peace and tranquility in the region can only be achieved by evicting this regime from the region.” — Maryam Rajavi, President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, and a leader of the opposition to Iran’s regime.

The recent three-party conference held in Moscow with the participation of Russia, Turkey and Iran came to a significant end. With mainstream media emphasizing how the U.S. Administration was completely sidelined in talks that discussed the future of Syria, a different perspective also sheds light on how Iran was sidelined to an unprecedented degree. Considering that this session ended with a document signed by all three parties, one can take a hard look at the results.

This document emphasizes Syria’s independence and territorial integrity as a multi-racial, multi-religious, non-sectarian, democratic and secular state; underscores the necessity of reaching a political solution; welcomes joint efforts in East Aleppo to evacuate civilians and armed rebels; highlights the need to expand a ceasefire across the country and facilitate access to humanitarian aid; supports a possible agreement between the Syrian opposition and the Syrian government; and accentuates continuing joint efforts against terrorism and especially the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), differentiating their forces from those of the armed democratic opposition.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (center) holds a joint press conference with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (left) and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu (right) in Moscow, December 20, 2016. (Image source: Russia Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

A closer look brings us to a preliminary conclusion that most of the articles are clash Iran’s interests. For example, Iran was, and remains, fully against the safe evacuation of civilians and rebels from East Aleppo.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani went so far as saying, “Various Islamic states… are worried about the fate of terrorists and seek their safe exit from Aleppo.”

In this document, there is no mention of the Assad regime or any language discussing its remaining in power. And importantly, while Iran went to great lengths to massacre all dissidents and annihilate the entire Syrian opposition under the pretext of fighting ISIS, this document specifically differentiates and recognizes the separate nature of ISIS and the Free Syrian Army.

The Moscow conference also emphasized the role of the United Nations in resolving the Syrian crisis, highlighting the necessity to abide by U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254. This resolution emphasizes the Security Council as the reference body, also enjoying support from the United States and Saudi Arabia. There is no reference to Assad’s future role; instead the resolution “expressed support for free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution, to be held within 18 months and administered under United Nations supervision, ‘to the highest international standards’ of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians—including members of the diaspora—eligible to participate.”

Taking these factors into consideration, it appears that Iran literally gained nothing from the Moscow conference, meaning that its participation was merely of a ceremonial nature.

The conference outcome makes it clear that Russia enjoys hegemony over Iran in Syria, and that Moscow has imposed its interests and road map to Tehran, leaving the mullahs no choice but to submit to the status quo. This setback of its hegemony seems a major reason why Iran needed to parade Revolutionary Guards Quds Force Qassem Suleimani in Aleppo: perhaps to boost an iota of morale into its dwindling social base.

Dear Prime Minister,

It was sickening to see that your government last week voted for the declaration of diplomatic war against Israel embodied in resolution 2334 passed by the UN Security Council.

Bad enough that Britain didn’t use its position as a permanent SC member to vote against this vicious resolution and thereby stop it in its tracks. Worse, far worse was that your government voted for it. In doing so, Britain signed up to propositions that repudiate law, justice and truth.

Now reports have surfaced that, yet more appallingly, Britain was actually instrumental in getting 2334 passed by helping draft the resolution and then stiffening New Zealand’s resolve in proposing it.

I don’t know whether that is correct. I suspect it may well be. I think, nevertheless, that you spoke from the heart the other week when you told the Conservative Friends of Israel of your admiration for Israel as a “remarkable country” and a “beacon of tolerance” and your warm feelings towards the Jewish people.

I also think, however, that you know little about the history of the Jews in the Middle East, the part played in that history by previous British governments or the infernal strategic aims of the people known as the “Palestinians”. I believe, therefore, you might not fully grasp the implications of supporting UNSC resolution 2334.

So let me spell out exactly what your government has done by voting in this way.

It has put itself firmly behind the attempt to exterminate the State of Israel under the cowardly cover of vacuous pieties about supporting two democratic states and opposing terrorism and incitement. It has done this by endorsing the inflammatory falsehoods and legal and historic fictions deployed by those whose purpose is to destroy the State of Israel.

It has shredded the concept of diplomatic integrity by delegitimising Israel’s legal actions in defence of its survival while legitimising the manifestly false claim to the land by those who want Israel gone.

It has put rocket fuel behind the discriminatory and bigoted BDS movement whose aim is to delegitimise Israel and bring about its destruction.

By declaring that Israel’s borders should be established on terms demanded by its mortal enemies, the British government has backed coerced surrender to aggressors bent on Israel’s extermination.

Who is Mohammed Usman Rana? He’s a 31-year-old Norwegian doctor and newspaper columnist who first appeared on my radar in 2007 when, as an undergraduate at the University of Oslo, he took part in a debate about Muslim attitudes toward gay people. Rana, who at the time was head of UiO’s Muslim Student Association, said that he personally opposed executing gays, but refused to criticize countries that punish homosexuality with death. Pressed further on the issue by his opponents, Rana pulled a slick switcheroo, charging that it was not he but they who were displaying intolerance. How dare they sit in judgment of Islamic law?

Did Rana’s failure to condemn the execution of gay people make him an outcast? Of course not – we’re talking about Scandinavia here, after all. Only a few months after the above-mentioned debate, he wrote an op-ed forAftenposten, Norway’s newspaper of record, in which he picked up where he’d left off. Norwegians, he complained in the piece, are “secular extremists” who are insufficiently respectful of orthodox Islam, who hope for an “Islamic reformation” that would in fact mutilate the religion, and who prefer to hear from secular Muslims and ex-Muslims (think Ayaan Hirsi Ali) than from genuine believers such as himself.

Rana’s essay won an award from Aftenposten – a victory that catapulted him into the top ranks of the nation’s commentariat and made him, in the words of author Ole Asbjørn Ness, “Aftenposten’s deadly serious house Islamist.” Who, by the way, chose to give Rana the award? A fellow by the name of Knut Olav Åmås, who at the time was an editor of Aftenposten and who happens to be openly gay. Yes, that’s right: a gay editor gave a major career boost to a writer who refused to criticize the death penalty for gay people. Welcome to Norway.

This year saw another milestone for Rana: his first book. It was published by one of Norway’s oldest and most distinguished houses, Aschehoug, and it was launched at a splashy event hosted by Fritt Ord, a free-speech foundation, where Rana was given an oddly jocund introduction by Fritt Ord’s CEO, none other than the aforementioned Knut Olav Åmås. Also on hand to praise Rana were Trine Skei Grande, head of the Norwegian Liberal Party (who took the opportunity to slam Fox News for its purported Islamophobia), and Hanne Skartveit, political editor of Norway’s largest newspaper, VG. (Interestingly, while Fritt Ord was given a media lashing in 2013 for supporting a book project by Islam critic Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, aka “Fjordman,” nobody publicly criticized Fritt Ord’s support for Rana.)

If any doubts remained about Obama’s malignant narcissism, historical ignorance, and geopolitical cretinism, the lame-duck-in-chief dispelled them with his abstention at the Security Council vote on a resolution slandering Israeli “settlements” as the foremost obstacle to peace. Undoing this despicable abandonment of a crucial ally should shoot to the top of incoming president Donald Trump’s to-do list.

Israeli intelligence has demonstrated that this diplomatic drive-by was orchestrated by Obama himself. “From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of what he rightly called a “shameful betrayal.” On the one hand, such back-door machinations are par for the course in the corrupt U.N. When the Bush administration in 2002 was trying to get a U.N. resolution authorizing the Iraq War, Germany lobbied non-permanent Security Council members Mexico, Chile, Cameroon, and Angola to vote against the resolution, which ultimately failed.

But German Chancellor Gerhard Schröeder had grubby political reasons for his meddling. He was running for reelection on a dismal economic record, and found a useful distraction by tapping into German anti-Americanism and reflexive pacifism. So too with France’s machinations and opposition to the war, which were aimed at ending the sanctions on Iraq so that France could get back to doing profitable business with Saddam Hussein, who in 1983 was buying half of all French arms exports.

These actions are bad enough, and are evidence that the U.N. exists to serve the interests of member countries, usually at the expense of other member countries. But Obama has no such utilitarian motives. He’s done with running for office. His reasons for betraying Israel comprise petty spite at Netanyahu for stoutly and publicly resisting Obama’s policies and actions that endanger his beleaguered country; and obeisance to left-wing historical fantasies about “colonialism,” the “two-state solution,” and Palestinian Arab “national aspirations.” In other words, the clichés one would expect from a badly educated university adjunct professor for whom left-wing bromides function as fashion statements and status assertion.

History, of course, tells a different story. There is no “Palestinian” people or “homeland.” There are Arabs whose historical homeland is the Arabian Peninsula. Any Arab living elsewhere is the descendant of invaders, colonizers, occupiers, and immigrants. There are no “occupied territories” or “borders,” but rather contested territories which are bounded by the 1967 armistice line, and the disposition of which will be decided through a negotiated settlement. The “West Bank” is a euphemism for the historical Jewish districts of Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem is not an Arab city, but for three thousand years has been the capital of the Jewish people, who have inhabited it continuously. The “settlements” are not colonial outposts created at the expense of their rightful owners, but towns and cities in the ancient Jewish homeland, most of them on land purchased from Arab landowners happy to make a profit on such barren tracts.

Nor is Israel an “illegitimate” country. Its existence is the result of international law as created by treaties, conferences, the League of Nations, and the U.N. resolution which established an Arab and a Jewish state, the latter comprising one-quarter of the territory mandated for Israel in the postwar settlement. Israel is as legitimate, and in fact even more legitimate, than the other states created in the region like Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, or the states like Hungary, Austria, the Kingdom of Serbs and Croats, and Czechoslovakia created after the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

UNSC Resolution 2334 stinks to high heaven but don’t count on me to belabor the obvious: the stab-in-the- back American abstention is confirmation of Obama’s real intentions, and the dastardly resolution won’t help the peace process. Pouah! Old news worn to the bone. 2334 is tailored more like an international suicide belt than a whip to beat the Jews.

Let’s look at how the UNSC vote was reported on France’s all-news channel BFM TV. A typical newscast begins with replays of the smashed Berlin Christmas market alternating with scenes in the backward Tunisian town of Oueslatia from which the truck jihadi Anis Amri set out to conquer Europe. Then comes a festive sequence featuring luscious Christmas delicacies displayed in our French markets and footage of shoppers rushing to grab up the last gifts…followed by frightening/reassuring shots of hefty policemen and soldiers guarding our churches. Our churches are targeted, frère, not our synagogues. The newscast closes with the evacuation of miserable refugees and rebels from the snowswept ruins of Aleppo. Underneath all this pertinent news, the scroll mentions in passing a UNSC Resolution “calling on Israel to halt its colonization.”

Stunning juxtaposition: Jihad truck attack, jittery Christmas markets, security details on the threshold of midnight mass, the festering boil of Syria…and the UN sets its sights on…Israel! In the good old days a slap in the face from international opinion would have stimulated an endless stream of insults and accusations against Israel. The Palestinian plight has lost its drawing power: from 23 December to Christmas Day, the perfidious resolution never made it from the scroll to the screen. The Berlin massacre remained front and center.

Apparently it took German police 24 hours to find Amri’s ID stashed in the mastodon killer vehicle. Naïve commentators wondered why these absent-minded guys-e.g. the Kouachi brothers that gunned down the Charlie Hebdo staff two years ago-leave their ID at the scene of the crime. They are still too far from understanding the allahu akhbar resonance of these prideful signatures. Meanwhile Amri was chilling out in Berlin’s “Daesh” mosque across the street from a police station. In the same meanwhile, New Zealand was chumming up with Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal, to stick the finger to the whole wide western world in a thinly disguised resolution that delivers you up, chumps, to all the Amris stalking your streets and public squares. You’re in the firing line, boys, and you don’t know what to do about it.

François Hollande’s UN diplomat was supporting the rotten Christmas pudding resolution when the aforementioned Amri slipped out of Germany-so riddled with shoah guilt they couldn’t even close their borders after the Berlin attack-and into France. He passed through Lyon and Chamberry on his way to Torino, Milano, and wherever his heart desired if it hadn’t been for two alert caribinieri who aimed straight from the heart of our endangered liberty.

Where are the smarties that mocked Nicolas Sarkozy for “rubber stamping” George W. Bush, and snapped at the heels of “Bush’s poodle” Tony Blair? They’re ok with pudgy François Hollande yessirring BHO, the same BHO that chickened out on him when Syria’s Assad stepped across the disappearing red line. If you asked the phenomenally unpopular Hollande why France voted for UNSC 2334, he’d probably tell you it’s in the interest of peace. Hmph! Here at home our towns and regions are under constant threat of “two-state” solutions and Paris is in greater danger of division than Jerusalem. France is too busy whoring around at the UN to see the irony. Whatever you say, boys, we won’t make waves. Just put peace in the pudding and we’ll swallow it.

It took Tunisian authorities precious months to admit Anis Amri was a citizen, and accept his deportation. Too late. He had already killed and maimed victims that are hardly mentioned in the media, as if their concrete existence would upstage the mass of refugees whose needs must not be ignored. The outgoing French president never found a way to use existing legislation to deport thousands of dual-citizen jihadis that do not deserve our hospitality. Tunisians don’t want us to send back their rejects. Ordinary citizens are in the streets clamoring “No Jihadis Here.”

“A first thing to note is that the idea of a two-state solution is fanciful. The Palestinians hate and are taught to hate Israelis from an early age. Nothing short of Israel’s demise will ever satisfy them. Any leader offering less, without being tongue in cheek (i.e. practicing taqiyya), is likely to be assassinated. In case there is any doubt, Israel is not bordered by Belgians or by the Swiss. Second, the 1967, pre Six-Day War, borders are indefensible. Israel will never withdraw to them and if it ever did it would be no more than a first course for the Palestinians and their Arab allies, as Israelis know. Third retreating to 1967 borders would mean giving up historical Jewish sites, including the Western Wall in East Jerusalem. That is unthinkable for Israel. Now look at the resolution (particularly clause 1) which the United States was deeply complicit in passing. It effectively calls for the dismemberment and eventual destruction of Israel. Words have meaning. You can make all the excuses in the world for Obama’s legacy; this is an indelible stain. I use ‘indelible’ advisedly because the resolution can’t be undone. Any counter resolution is sure to be vetoed by Russia or China and probably (and pathetically) by France or the UK.This infamy is Obama’s lasting legacy. Was his personal enmity towards Netanyahu behind it? Unfortunately, it would not be the least surprising. His going can’t come soon enough. Good riddance!”
…..A petty, vainglorious and failed president has made a scorched-earth policy his exit strategy, sowing his successor’s path with last-minute executive edicts. No surprise, really. Slipping away from the messes he creates has been the Obama style for eight disastrous years.
It is seldom that we know that a new year will start well. Or, to put it more circumspectly, lest the jealous gods take umbrage, that one hugely pleasant event will occur in January – on the 20th to be precise. No, I am not referring to Donald Trump’s inauguration (though that is hugely pleasant too) but to Barack Obama’s exit.

Hussein is his middle name and mayhem and malaise will be his lasting shame. His legacy is a weakened America and, correspondingly, an infinitely more dysfunctional and violent Middle East than when he came to power. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have all grown more belligerent. ISIS – “the JV team” — was spawned and grew on his feckless watch. Millions of Syrian and other Muslim refugees fleeing conflicts have streamed into Europe creating havoc. And then we have his last dastardly deed; an abject betrayal of Israel, which I will come to.

At home in the US he encouraged identity politics and racial division. Among numbers of prejudicial utterances, who can forget him saying that the black thug Trayvon Martin, killed in self-defense by George Zimmerman, could have been his son. And how about the frequent visits of Black Lives Matter shysters to the White House – you know, the leaders of a racist anti-cop rabble, built on the lie that another black thug, Michael Brown, was unjustifiable killed by a cop. And the result: cops gunned down and inner-city black neighborhoods less safe for law-abiding people. According to the Chicago Tribune, shooting victims numbered 2989 in Chicago in 2015. By Christmas Day in 2016 the number had reached 4291.

He also presided over an insipid economic performance. He is the first president in history to not have one year of 3% GDP growth. Incomes have been stagnant. Millions more people have been forced out of the workforce and onto food stamps. The national debt has doubled. A stream of new regulations, including EPA rules forlornly designed to cool the planet, are estimated by the Heritage Foundation to cost business over $100 billion per year. They have dampened growth and killed jobs. Then we have Obamacare, “the craziest thing in the world,” according to Bill Clinton before he tried to walk-back his ‘honest’ verdict.

Unfortunately, President Obama lives in his own world where all of his policies are meritorious. I would like to know his secret. That way I could see my own life of missteps and mishaps in a more positive light. Okay, it would be delusional but I would be happier. As it is brutal reality breaks through. This makes me much less happy but at least, maybe, I have learnt something. Maybe!

There is no chance of Obama learning anything. Hence he intends to go out trying to augment his lame legacy whatever the cost to the USA. He shows no class in his lame-duck days. His plan is to queer the pitch for The Donald, whose success, if it were to occur, would leave Obama’s legacy in shreds, in the dustbin of history. He would qualify to join the likes of James Buchanan (1857-61) and Warren Harding (1921-23) among the worst of presidential flops.

His rearguard trick is to do things which are not reversible or at least reversible only with time-consuming difficulty. Giving away $1.7 billion to the Iranians is irreversible. The Iranians are not going to give it back. He is hurrying to transfer another 22 Islamic terrorists from Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) before Trump gets the White House keys. They won’t volunteer to return.

The question remains, however, why any nation would want to throw out its sovereignty to institutions that are fundamentally unaccountable, that provide no mechanism for reversing direction, and whose only “solution” to problems involves arrogating to itself ever more authoritarian, rather than democratically legitimate, power.

Previous worries over unemployment and the economy have been side-lined: the issues now vexing European voters the most, according to the EU’s own figures, are mass immigration (45%) and terrorism (32%).

The Netherlands’ Partij Voor de Vrijheid, France’s Front National and Germany’s Alternativ für Deutschland are each pushing for a referendum on EU membership in their respective nations.

Given that the EU’s institutions have been so instrumental as a causal factor in the mass migration and terrorism that are now dominating the minds of national electorates, some might argue that the sooner Europeans get rid of the EU, which is now doing more harm than good, the better.

Attention is beginning to focus on elections due to take place in three separate European countries in 2017. The outcomes in the Netherlands, France and Germany will determine the likely future of the European Union (EU).

In the Netherlands, on March 15, all 150 members of the country’s House of Representatives will face the ballot box. The nation is currently led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, whose VVD party holds 40 seats in the legislative chamber, ruling in a coalition with the Dutch Labour party, which holds 35 seats.

In contrast, the Party for Freedom – Partij Voor de Vrijheid (PVV) – led by Geert Wilders, currently holds 12 seats.

According to an opinion poll, issued on December 21, Wilders’s party has leapt to 24% in the polls, while Rutte’s party has slid to 15%. Were an election to happen now, this would translate to 23 MPs for Rutte’s VVD, and 36 MPs for Wilders’s PVV.

Given the strict formula of proportional representation in the Netherlands, however, coalition governments are the norm. Should Wilders’s PVV come first in March, he will likely need to negotiate with one of his staunchest critics to form a government.

In France, two rounds of voting in the presidential elections are set to take place on April 23 and May 7 – with the two leading candidates from the first round facing each other in a runoff in the second round.

The most likely candidates to make it through to the second round, François Fillon, of the centre-right Les Républicains, and Marine Le Pen, of the populist Front National, remain tied in first-round polling.

A survey, published on December 7, gave each candidate 24%. Le Pen’s party, however, has previously fallen afoul of France’s dual-round voting system, in which voters for other parties have used the second round to swing behind the more moderate candidate.