Displaying posts published in

April 2017

The Jihadi “Troubles”-Review of Troubled Dawn of the 21st Century: A Chronicle By Nidra Poller By Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin

The subtitle of Troubled Dawn of the 21st Century by Nidra Poller is revealing — “A Chronicle.” The word “chronicle” is generally defined as a “usually continuous historical account of events arranged in order of time without analysis or interpretation. Examples of such accounts date from Greek and Roman times, but the best-known chronicles were written or compiled in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. These were composed in prose or verse, and, in addition to providing valuable information about the period they covered [emphasis mine], they were used as sources by William Shakespeare and other playwrights.”[1] The word “chronicle” harbors its Greek root, which entered English through the Latin chronica, from Greek χρονικά, from χρόνος, chronos, “time”.

But when I read the subtitle, I associated to the Book of Chronicles in the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible, called Divrei ha-Yamim in Hebrew literally translated “Divrei – devar/dabar words or deed yamim “of days” i.e. the words and actions of the past: chronicles, history, legends of the past. For the Hebrews it was not a day by day listing of acts and sayings, but a coherent, orderly, revelation of the Divine Word in practical events and ordinary speech” as my colleague and friend Prof. Norman Simms notes. Indeed Poller has written a modern day divrei ha-yamin concerning Islamic Terrorism, turning the jihadi chaos into something comprehensible that demands responsibility in countering.

Why might this be important and why is this a profound collection of writings? The fundamental objective of Islamic terrorism is to wreak chaos in terror in order to soften the targeted population for conquest and its submission. This book may be thought of as a roadmap for the violent ground that Poller and we as readers have been forced to travel since September 28-30 2000 to the Gaza withdrawal and beyond. Unlike a dry historical presentation of fact Poller plumbs such events, and presents these writings in a chronological order while revealing the profound powers of good and ill, raising all sorts of questions along the way as to how and why Israel and the Jews have been repeatedly maligned by journalistic prejudicial framing. Poller did not start out her writing career focusing on Islamic terrorism. She was involved in creative writing, a 1969 graduate of the prestigious John Hopkins Writing Program. The fascinating and serious trajectory, which she has forged for herself is breathtaking. Poller is not only an accomplished novelist, writer of children books but also the gifted translator of many and most especially of Emmanuel Levinas. Her work began to cross over into the challenging realm of terrorism as she could not remain passive and silent. I wondered for a moment if her translation of Michel Jeanneret’s Perpetual Motion: Transforming Shapes in the Renaissance from da Vinci to Montaigne gives us a glimpse into Poller’s uncanny skill to detect and describe changes fluently because she does so with regard to terrorism’s chaos, violence and its never ending annihilation, particularly here in the Middle East. She herself notes that she gravitated toward terrorism as she sought to explain and describe the injustice and warped reality of Islamic terrorism. She understood intuitively its perverse reverse world: where good is bad and bad is good. In her Al Dura: Long Range Ballistic Myth (2004) Poller created and coined the invaluable and much needed term — the lethal narrative — narratives that incite and kill. The Al Dura hoax created a myth, which continues to incite Jew hatred leading to murder of Jews. Such narratives are part of the slippery slope to genocide. Troubled Dawn of the 21st Century lays out the background writings to her developing this important concept.

Marine Le Pen: France’s Very Own ‘Pinkwasher’? By Bruce Bawer

Israel is the only pro-gay country in the Middle East, and it’s not bigoted to say so.

In a 2011 New York Times op-ed, a radical socialist named Sarah Schulman rolled out a term that was almost certainly new to most Times readers: “pinkwashing.” Schulman, whose role as a longtime lesbian activist has earned her a position as “Distinguished Professor” at the City University of New York (despite having no academic degree beyond a B.A. from Empire State College), defined “pinkwashing” as “a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.”

Schulman’s point, as I’ve written previously, was that “gays and others should look past Israel’s gay-friendly image (which, she claimed, is the product of an intentional Israeli effort to bolster support abroad), focus on the terrible suffering of Palestinian Muslims at the merciless hands of the Israelis, and stop ‘constructing’ Muslims as gay-hating.”

The obscene fatuity of the concept of “pinkwashing” should be obvious: Israel is the only gay-friendly country in the Middle East; Islam teaches that gay people should be executed, and many of Israel’s Muslim neighborhoods take that injunction very seriously; any gay person who goes to the Palestinian territories and shouts his orientation from a rooftop should expect to be thrown off of that rooftop to his death.

I go into this backstory by way of introducing an April 7 article by Associated Press writer Thomas Adamson. The headline: “’Pinkwashing’ populism: Gay voters embrace French far-right.” One need not read past the headline to get Adamson’s point: support for Marine Le Pen, head of the right-wing Front National, is growing among gay Frenchmen, and Adamson views those gay Le Pen supporters with the same disdain that Schulman directs toward pro-Israeli gays.

Adamson kicks off his piece with this statement: “A political party that would abolish same-sex marriage — one whose founder wanted AIDS patients rounded up and branded homosexuality ‘a biological and social anomaly’ — is now winning LGBT votes in France.” It’s true that Le Pen promised in February to replace same-sex marriage, which became legal in France in 2013, with civil partnerships, and my own view is that this is unfortunate. If I were French, however, I’d still vote for the woman, because replacing same-sex marriage with civil partnerships is a hell of a lot better than replacing it with mass arrests, acts of torture, and executions. And if the French ship of state isn’t turned around tout de suite, that’s what’ll happen before too long. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trudeau Unveils Bill Legalizing Recreational Marijuana in Canada By Ian Austen

OTTAWA — Fulfilling a campaign pledge, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced legislation on Thursday to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in Canada.

Many nations have either decriminalized marijuana, allowed it to be prescribed medically or effectively stopped enforcing laws against it. But when Mr. Trudeau’s bill passes as expected, Canada will become only the second nation, after Uruguay, to completely legalize marijuana as a consumer product.

“Criminal prohibition has failed to protect our kids and our communities,” said Bill Blair, a lawmaker and former Toronto police chief whom Mr. Trudeau appointed to manage the legislation.

Mr. Blair said at a news conference that the government hoped to begin allowing legal sales by the middle of 2018. While the government’s plan has been broadly shaped by a panel of experts, many issues still need to be ironed out.
“We do accept that important work remains to be done,” he said.

While the federal government will license and regulate growers, each of Canada’s provinces will need to decide exactly how the drug will be distributed and sold within its boundaries. The government will have to develop the marijuana equivalents of breathalyzers so that drivers can be checked for impairment at the roadside and workers can be tested for safety on the job. Diplomats will have to address conflicts with international drug treaties. And many in the medical field are concerned about the long-term health effects of increased use of marijuana by Canadians under the age of 25.

U.S. Drops ‘Mother of All Bombs’ on ISIS Tunnels in Afghanistan Pentagon says plane dropped one of the largest nonnuclear bombs in its arsenal on tunnel-and-cave complex By Jessica Donati, Ben Kesling and Dion Nissenbaum

The U.S. military dropped one of the largest nonnuclear bombs in its arsenal Thursday on an Islamic State tunnel-and-cave complex in eastern Afghanistan, the Pentagon said.

A U.S. plane dropped the nearly 22,000-pound Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb—nicknamed the Mother of All Bombs—just a few days after an American Special Forces soldier was killed during a joint U.S.-Afghan offensive against dug-in Islamic State positions in the same area.

“We have been waiting months to use it,” said an allied official in Afghanistan. “I think the loss of our soldier helped motivate leaders to approve it.”
The bomb is a precision-guided “smart bomb” designed to cause maximum damage to bunkers, tunnels and other areas that can typically withstand even large standard bombs or artillery strikes.President Donald Trump suggested Thursday that he had not personally been involved in the decision to use the giant bomb, which is deployed by parachute from the rear ramp of a transport plane. “I authorize my military,” Mr. Trump said. “We have given them total authorization.” CONTINUE AT SITE

The Russians are coming…to Nicaragua? By Silvio Canto, Jr.

Remember Central America and communist meddling in El Salvador and Nicaragua? Well, we are not sure what Mr. Putin is doing in Nicaragua these days. We can safely assume that he is not promoting U.S. interests.

According to Joshua Partlow, visitors to Guatemala are speaking Russian again:

On the rim of a volcano with a clear view of the U.S. Embassy, landscapers are applying the final touches to a mysterious new Russian compound.

Behind the concrete walls and barbed wire, a visitor can see red-and-blue buildings, manicured lawns, antennas and globe-shaped devices.

The Nicaraguan government says it’s simply a tracking site of the Russian version of a GPS satellite system.

But is it also an intelligence base intended to surveil the Americans?

“I have no idea,” said a woman who works for the Nicaraguan telecom agency stationed at the site. “They are Russian, and they speak Russian, and they carry around Russian apparatuses.”

Three decades after this tiny Central American nation became the prize in a Cold War battle with Washington, Russia is once again planting its flag in Nicaragua.

Over the past two years, the Russian government has added muscle to its security partnership here, selling tanks and weapons, sending troops, and building facilities intended to train Central American forces to fight drug trafficking.

The Russian surge appears to be part of the Kremlin’s expansionist foreign policy. In other parts of the world, President Vladimir Putin’s administration has deployed fighter planes to help Syria’s war-battered government and stepped up peace efforts in Afghanistan, in addition to annexing the Crimean Peninsula and supporting separatists in Ukraine.

Well, so what are these Russians up to?

Will Trump’s reversal on Syrian refugees make him a one-term President? By Ed Straker

Supporters of Donald Trump, many of whom prominently campaigned for his election, are outraged by all the campaign promises he has reversed himself on — NATO, military action in Syria, the Federal Reserve, and the repeal of Obamacare, to name a few. But the straw that may break the camel’s back is the issue of immigration and border security.

Trump campaigned against letting more Syrian refugees in; in fact, he was so firmly against them, he said he would deport the ones already here. But what has happened now is that not only is Trump letting in more Syrian refugees, he is admitting them at twice the rate that Obama did. On this issue, Trump is the political equivalent of not one, but two Barack Obamas.

President Donald Trump called Syrian refugees a “great Trojan horse” during the 2016 campaign, but his administration has resettled them in a quicker pace than President Barack Obama did.

Since Trump was inaugurated, 1,401 Syrian refugees have been resettled, State Department figures as of Wednesday reveal. This is more than double the 625 Syrian refugees resettled under President Obama in the same time frame last year.

“Bad, bad things are gonna happen,” Trump said about Syrian refugee resettlement at an August rally.

But not so bad as to stop Trump from accelerating the admission of Syrian immigrants.

Let’s be very clear about two points:

1) The judicial stay on Trump’s entry ban has nothing to do with this. A federal judge may have prevented a blanket ban on Syrians entering the country, but only the Trump Administration could grant refugee status to individual Syrians. President Trump has the power to deny admission simply by not granting refugee status.

2) These refugees are unvettable. There is no reliable government to check up on these refugees.

Trump has already left many supporters feeling betrayed by his failure to repeal the illegal “Dreamers” program.

Did George Washington Take ‘Emoluments’? He asked a British official to help find renters for his land. By Eugene Kontorovich

Much has been made of Donald Trump’s decision to retain ownership of his businesses during his presidency. Earlier this year a group of law professors and prominent attorneys filed a lawsuit in New York federal court that called into question the constitutionality of this decision. The suit argues that the Trump Organization’s hotel rentals to a Chinese state-owned bank—along with royalties on “The Apprentice” from state television in countries such as Vietnam—violate the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.

Mr. Trump is not the first president to have business dealings with foreigners. That was actually George Washington, whose conduct in office has been a model for every president.

By the 1790s, Washington was wealthy primarily because of real estate—renting and selling his vast holdings. When Washington became president he did not sell his farm and estates. Rather, his nephew George Augustine Washington managed them while Washington remained involved. As with Mr. Trump’s hotels, Washington’s renters or purchasers could include foreigners.

The president received constant reports from his nephew and subsequent managers and wrote to them weekly. His letters could run 10 pages, with granular instructions on what to buy, sell and plant. This wasn’t an anomaly: Thomas Jefferson, the third president, also continued to supervise his business while holding the nation’s highest office. This belies the notion that the Constitution limits a president’s management of, or benefit from, his existing business ventures.

The new view of the Emoluments Clause advanced against Mr. Trump is that any pecuniary advantage constitutes a forbidden “emolument.” That would mean Washington and Jefferson would have had to ensure that no U.S. or foreign official stood on the other side of any transaction. Yet neither president, despite their close supervision, appears to have taken any such steps to curtail who they did business with.

One letter written by Washington deserves great attention in the current debate. On Dec. 12, 1793, Washington wrote to Arthur Young, an officer of the U.K. Board of Agriculture, an entity newly created and funded by Parliament at the initiative of William Pitt. The president asked for Young’s help in renting out his Mount Vernon lands to secure an income for his retirement. Not finding customers in America, he wondered if Young, with his agricultural connections, could find and organize some would-be farmers in his home country and send them over.

Washington noted that the land would surely increase in value because of its close proximity to what would become the nation’s capital in 1800. Large public-works projects were taking place—a circumstance over which he had some control.

Such a direct business solicitation of a foreigner with foreign government ties would surely lead to cries of constitutional breach if Mr. Trump did it. But the emoluments restriction only applies to benefits from “foreign states,” and what entities count as parts of a “foreign state” for these purposes remains fuzzy. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump’s Big Bomb Let’s hope the right people noticed this blast against Islamic State.

As demonstration effects go, it would be hard to top the bomb the U.S. dropped Thursday on Islamic State in Afghanistan. The 21,000 pound GBU-43, or “mother of all bombs,” landed on Islamic State installations in eastern Afghanistan.

What happened at the receiving end of the bomb isn’t known, nor would White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer say whether President Trump personally gave authorization, which isn’t needed to deploy the GBU-43. But like the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles that struck a Syrian airfield last week, the right people no doubt noticed this display of American purpose.

At the top of the list would be Islamic State, which Mr. Trump has promised to eliminate. The terrorist group has seized territory in Afghanistan’s Nangahar Province, near the border with Pakistan. The Afghan army, supported by the U.S., has taken significant losses in its attempt to dislodge ISIS. The commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, called the GBU-43 smart bomb the “right munition” to “maintain momentum” against ISIS.

Momentum is an important concept in this fight. The armed forces of Iraq, for example, are on the brink of recovering Mosul from Islamic State and have taken huge casualties to do so. But it will be difficult to consolidate an achievement like that unless other nations are willing to make similar commitments to support the fight, whether in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or Yemen.

Momentum routinely wilts beneath the politics and factions across the Middle East. The strike against Syria and now the use in Afghanistan of the biggest non-nuclear bomb in the active U.S. arsenal makes clear America’s resolve to our allies. Islamic State won’t be defeated without buy-in from those allies.

We may also assume that the missile-launching crowd in Pyongyang noticed the deployment of the GBU-43. Far be it from us to suggest that the U.S. drop one on a North Korean nuclear factory. But in the space of a week, Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Bashar Assad, Xi Jinping and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, wherever he is hiding, have learned that the U.S. considers it to be in its interest to push back hard against its adversaries’ aggression.

The Kushner-Cohn Ascendancy The Trump White House has more conservatives than Steve Bannon.

All new Presidencies are works in progress, though the Trump Administration is less fully formed than most. Amid a shaky early start, leaks and personal feuds, power seems to be shifting away from chief White House strategist Steve Bannon and toward President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. This makes sense if it helps Mr. Trump put his White House in order and puts results over melodrama.

The transition from running a boutique family business to an election campaign to the most powerful and complicated government on the planet has a steep learning curve. Mr. Bannon, the former Breitbart website publisher, was an architect of Mr. Trump’s populist insurgency, and he entered the West Wing with the President’s ear.

Yet Mr. Trump told the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin this week that “I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late.” He followed up with Journal reporters, noting that “I do my own policy, I’m my own strategist” and calling his aide-de-camp “a guy who works for me.” The Time magazine cover story in February billing Mr. Bannon the “shadow president” probably didn’t help his standing with a boss who doesn’t like to be upstaged.

Mr. Bannon was also the author of the Administration’s early miscalculations, including a divisive inaugural address and especially the immigration executive order. The travel ban was overbroad and poorly drafted, got blocked by the courts, energized Democrats and created dozens of media hardship stories.

Mr. Bannon is also getting blame—perhaps more than he deserves—for the ObamaCare repeal-and-replace failure. He couldn’t deliver the ornery conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus, despite issuing a typically blunt ultimatum that they had no choice. But most of the fault lies with the Freedom Caucus’s refusal to compromise that is giving Mr. Trump doubts about the utility of working with conservatives.

Consumers of media may have whiplash from Mr. Bannon’s ebbing influence. Only weeks ago pundits were characterizing Mr. Bannon as the White House’s Rasputin, or Trotsky, but apparently the revolution will be postponed. In recent days sometimes you could almost mistake Mr. Trump for a normal Republican President.

All of this is empowering Messrs. Kushner and Cohn, who are preaching competence and calm. The real-estate heir and former Goldman Sachs No. 2 are expanding their portfolios and Mr. Cohn is running the economic decision-making process.

Trump’s Comprehensive Volte-Face View all posts from this blog By: Srdja Trifkovic

During the presidential campaign and in the immediate aftermath of his election victory, Donald Trump had made a number of conciliatory remarks about Russia’s president Vladimir Putin and the possibility of substantial improvement in relations between Washington and Moscow. On the campaign trail he also made the well-publicized statement that NATO was obsolete, and last July he declared that “Crimea is none of our business.” He had also promised to end regime-change operations, advised Obama to stay out of Syria, and indicated that President Bashar al-Assad staying in power was not to be discounted.

In his first ten weeks in the White House President Trump has made U-turns on all key fronts. In the course of a single day—Wednesday, April 12—he made no fewer than four public statements which repudiate his previous positions. Standing next to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at an East Room news conference, Trump declared that NATO was “no longer obsolete.” Only days after unleashing cruise missiles against Syrian government forces he described Bashar al-Assad as a “butcher” over alleged chemical weapons attacks on civilians, sounding like an avid advocate of regime change. In an interview that aired also on Wednesday, Trump said that Putin was partly to blame for the conflict in Syria and denounced the Russian president for backing Bashar. At a White House press conference later in the day he said that “right now we are not getting along with Russia at all; we may be at an all-time low in terms of relationship with Russia.” Asked whether Syrian forces could have launched the chemical attack without Russia’s knowledge, Trump replied that it was possible but unlikely.

When asked by CNN’s Jim Acosta about apparent reversals, White House press secretary Sean Spicer replied, “Circumstances change.” Trump’s embrace of establishmentarian positions was confirmed in an interview with the New York Post last Tuesday in which he openly criticized his political chief strategist Steve Bannon, whose political future now seems uncertain. Bannon was excluded from the National Security Council last week, in a move that was widely interpreted as a victory for supporters of the bipartisan imperial consensus.