Displaying posts categorized under

WORLD NEWS

They Want to Kill You By Herbert London

Herbert London is Presidentof London Center for Policy Research http://www.londoncenter.org/

In the relentless rush to undermine the Trump administration the Left has adopted the view that the bellicose stance of the president towards North Korea, Iran, and yes, Russia is designed as a distraction. Presumably if one accepts this perverse logic, this hostile rhetoric, missile deployment and movement of military assets are a mere show of force to keep Americans from recognizing the destructive policies being introduced by the newly installed government.

What the president’s foes willfully underestimate is that there are national leaders who want to kill us. North Korea is not simply a police state and a moral outrage, it is an enemy intent on destroying the West. The attempt to develop an ICBM with range sufficient to reach California is an obsessive goal. Recently military forces redirected a North Korean satellite to take a north-south orbit rather than an east-west orbit so that it remains over North America for a longer period. The object is a possible EMP attack on the U.S. thereby paralyzing the nation. Kim Jong Un may be erratic, but he is not completely irrational.

Iran realizes that the United States led by by an assertive national security team is a counter weight to its desire for a Shia empire across the Levant, a reclamation of the Persian empire. After eight years of an Obama led foreign policy that tilted heavily to Iran, a new chapter is emerging in the Middle East that will not serve Iran’s interest. “Death to the Great Devil” is not an empty expression. While the Iranians do not have the capability of attacking the U.S. at the moment, they have been able to obtain North Korean nuclear technology and a deal from President Obama that virtually guarantees nuclear weapons possession some time in the future.

Russian strategy against the U.S. may be more subtle than North Korea and Iran, but it is not less dangerous. The Russians want to encircle American interests by creating a sphere of influence in East Europe and the Middle East. In order to accomplish its goal, it must force the U.S. to retreat from its present positions.

President Trump has his hands full. This is not a distraction, but a reality. The incremental withdrawal of American forces worldwide combined with a naïve belief that nations would rally to create global stabilization, has left foreign policy in tatters.

The Turkey Trap Erdogan thinks he can blackmail Trump. Kenneth R. Timmerman

Turkish autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdogan is coming to Washington, DC, on May 16 loaded for bear.

He has an ambitious agenda and apparently feels he can achieve it all because he holds “trump” cards against the President of the United States.

Erdogan and his proxies have publicly said they want to convince the United States to jettison its budding alliance with the Syrian Democratic Union (PYD) and its armed wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Kurdish group that has become the tip of the spear in the fight against ISIS in Syria.

On this point, they will encounter resistance from the U.S. military, which sent a U.S. U.S. Marines Stryker group into northern Syria recently to serve as a buffer between Turkish and Kurdish forces after the Turkish air force conducted air strikes that killed twenty of the U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters.

Erdogan can be expected once again to trot out “evidence” that the Syrian Kurds and their Iranian allies, known as PJAK, are puppets of the PKK, the Kurdish group that waged war against the Turkish state for 15 years before entering into negotiations in 1999.

Both the United States and the European Union consider the PKK a terrorist organization, while recognizing that the Syrian and Iranian Kurds have separate command structures. Neither the YPG nor PJAK has joined the PKK in military operations inside Turkey.

But Erdogan has more on his agenda than Kurds and Syria. He is also seeking the extradition to Turkey of former ally-turned-arch political rival, Islamist cleric Fetullah Gulen, who fled Turkey for Pennsylvania in 1999.

Erdogan accuses Gulen of having masterminded the failed July 2016 coup against him, a claim the cleric denies. Critics of the Turkish president who are not allied with Gulen have questioned the authenticity of the coup, citing the professionalism of previous coups by the Turkish military and the amateur nature of last year’s attempt.

This won’t be the first time Erdogan has demanded that the U.S. extradite Gulen, whom he has taken to calling the head of “FETO” – the Fethullah Terrorist Organization.

Since the botched coup, Erdogan and his strongmen have conducted sweeping purges of the military, police, criminal justice and even education system, firing more than 120,000 suspected Gulen supporters and arresting more than 40,000. Erdogan called the failed coup a “gift from God.” Indeed.

Many of those arrested have been accused of being “terrorists” because they were caught in possession of U.S. one dollar bills, which Erdogan claims Gulen supporters use as a “secret signal” to identify themselves to one other.

Palestinians: Abbas’s “Culture of Peace” by Bassam Tawil

Thanks to Abbas’s falsehoods, his media continues to this day dishonestly to talk about “Jewish invaders and settlers storming” Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. This and this alone is the source of the knife and car-ramming attacks against Israelis.

Perhaps by a “culture of peace” Abbas means calling — as he and his top officials regularly do — Israel an apartheid and racist state. Or maybe “culture of peace” means calling all Jews “occupiers” and “colonists” — or denouncing and threatening Palestinian children who play soccer with Israeli kids. Or naming schools and electoral lists after convicted murderers?

Under Abbas, anti-Israel incitement and indoctrination is a business that has expanded exponentially. It has, in fact, grown to the point that a new generation has been raised on the glorification of jihadists — a generation impatient to draw yet more Jewish blood. If this is Abbas’s “culture of peace,” one has to wonder what he would consider a culture of war?

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas may soon be known for his sense of humor. Like many Palestinians, Abbas believes that Westerners will swallow his lies wholesale. Abbas, for instance, ended his May 3 meeting with US President Donald Trump with the following whopper: “We are raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace.”

Abbas did not provide further details about the “culture of peace” upon which Palestinian children are being raised. Nor did anyone bother to ask Abbas or any member of his entourage to provide examples of the “culture of peace” in Palestinian society. Yet major Western media outlets were quick to publish Abbas’s unmistakable lie.

Apparently, like his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, Abbas is convinced that Palestinians can fool “everyone all the time” about their true goals and intentions. Arafat lied to Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton when he told them that he and the Palestinian Authority were promoting peace and coexistence with Israel. Under Arafat, anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian media, schools and mosques intensified until Palestinians waged the Second Intifada in September 2000. This intifada was the result of seven years of vicious incitement and indoctrination that came after the inception of the PA. In a truly ironic turn of events, the Oslo Accords, signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993, gave the Palestinians media outlets, including television and radio stations, which were then sued to amplify hatred against Israel and Jews on a daily basis.

Arafat used these media outlets to tell his people — when former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in September 2000 — that Israel was planning to destroy the Aqsa Mosque. It was precisely this incitement that triggered the Second Intifada, in which Palestinians wage a massive and ruthless campaign of suicide bombings and drive-by shootings that caused the death of hundreds of Israelis.

More Lies from the UN by Maria Polizoidou

If the UN honestly wants peace, then it must accept that the modern Jewish state is the tugboat that will pull the whole Middle East into the 21st century. Rejecting the historic Jewish legitimacy in Jerusalem, is rejecting the quintessence of peace.

In historical terms, the modern Jewish state has greater historical legitimacy than most modern European states – and far more than at least the five Middle Eastern states artificially created out of the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement: the newborn countries of Greater Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. In Europe, what we now call Germany and France only appeared in the historical space of the Western world in the 3rd Century AD.

Or could it be that secretly the United Nations does not want “peace” but instead the obliteration of Israel and its replacement by another Islamist state?

You can run away from history, but you cannot hide from it. History does not care about your religious beliefs, your political beliefs or your political correctness. History records facts, regardless of how you feel about them.

UNESCO’s latest resolution about Jerusalem, which denies the Jews’ and Israel’s legacy over its historical capital, Jerusalem, is yet another proof of the UN’s corrupt decline. It not only offends the historical truth and archeology of the Jewish people. It also offends the Greek people, and all Christians, who for thousands of years have also had ties with the area and the nation of Jews. As it also offends the foundations of Greek Orthodox Christianity, the Greek government — to is honor — voted against this hallucinatory UNESCO resolution.

Here are more facts: The King of Sparta, Arius I, who lived between 309-267 B.C., sent a letter to Onias the First, the High Priest of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem:

“The King of Sparta, Arius, sends greetings to the High Priest, Onias. It is written about the relations between the Jews and the Spartans that they are brotherly nations and that they originate from Abraham. Now that we have discovered this, tell us how your prosperity is. We write to you that your possessions and your animals are ours and our own possessions and animals are yours”.

The king of Sparta, Arius, not only accepted that the relationship between Spartans and Jews are much older than his reign, but also that there was (as we would call it today) a federation.

King Arius further established the cultural privilege and right between Greeks and Jews to be called brothers.

What the King Arius was really saying here is that two states with different religions — without common economic interests, without a common border and without even the same geographical area — can interact in a political and cultural way. It is an important lesson for modern politicians. It also shows that for millennia, the cultural and historical depth of the Jewish people is undeniable, as well as the foundation for friendship among the Middle East nations. The problem of interacting with other people, as we can even see throughout Europe today, is on the Muslim side, not on the other side.

It’s Time the UN Stopped Congratulating Kim Jong Un By Claudia Rosett

Protocol has its uses, not least at the United Nations. But when it comes to lavishing on murderous tyrants the same pro forma felicitations accorded to the elected leaders of free nations, it’s time for Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to clean up the act of the UN Protocol and Liaison Service — which reports to him.

What’s the problem? There are many problems, actually, and they stem from the UN’s morally incontinent practice of doling out to all member states — whether totalitarian or democratic; North Korea or Costa Rica — the same perquisites, including a lot of diplomatic swag for the most monstrous dictators on the planet.

Lest that sound too abstract, let’s turn to one of the latest outrages. This cameo starts with a UN communique to war-wracked Syria, where last month the state news agency, SANA, reported that President Bashar al-Assad had just received “a cable of congratulations from United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on the occasion of Syria’s independence day.” According to the SANA dispatch, (boldface mine) Guterres in this cable “expressed his warmest congratulations to the Syrian people and government on this occasion.”

For anyone even remotely familiar with the doings of Assad and the condition of Syria, that message sounds more than a tad out of touch. Assad is a despot who inherited power upon the death of his despotic father 17 years ago. During the first decade of his rule, operating as Iran’s chief mascot in the Middle East, Bashar Assad presided over a terror-sponsoring state (a patron of the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas), employed the help of North Korea in building a clandestine nuclear reactor with no evident purpose except to produce nuclear bomb fuel (the Al Kibar reactor, destroyed by an Israeli air strike in 2007) and — with his secret police, torture chambers, dungeons and related atrocities — oppressed his own countrymen so thoroughly and brutally that in 2011 they rebelled.

As we all know, Assad refused to give up power. He talked about elections, and offered a complete sham. He fought back, as head of a merciless tyranny. He has by now used everything from barrel bombs to chemical weapons against his fellow Syrians. In the UN’s official protocol list, Assad has kept his place as Syria’s official head of state — a position he has retained at the cost of a war that has brought the deaths of more than 400,000 people, misery for millions of refugees, the rise of ISIS and the return of Russia to the Middle East as the weapons-bearing godfather of Damascus.

In this context, it was hard to believe that Guterres would send a message of “warmest congratulations” to Assad, whatever the topic. Surely this report from SANA was just another piece of propaganda from the Syrian regime? CONTINUE AT SITE

What Happened in France? By Bruce Bawer

How could Marine Le Pen have lost in a landslide?

Why, after the Brits chose Brexit, and Americans chose Trump, did the Dutch fail Wilders, and the French fail Le Pen?

How could a country that has been hit by several major terrorist attacks in recent years, and that has undergone a more profound social transformation owing to Islamic immigration, vote for business as usual?

Wilders, buoyed by the Brexit and Trump victories, said that 2017 would be a “Year of the Populist.” So far, alas, it’s not turning out that way.

Yes, there are positive signs. The Sweden Democrats are on the upswing. And Wilders did gain seats in the Dutch Parliament.

But if you’ve witnessed the reality of Islamization in cities like Rotterdam and Paris and Stockholm, you may well wonder: what, in heaven’s name, will it take for these people to save their own societies, their own freedoms, for their own children and grandchildren?

I’m not the only one who’s been obsessing for years over this question. I’ve yet to see a totally convincing answer to it.

One way of trying to answer it is to look at countries one by one. For example, the Brits and French feel guilty about their imperial histories, and hence find it difficult to rein in the descendants of subject peoples. The Germans feel guilty about their Nazi past – and the Swedes feel guilty about cozying up to Nazis – and thus feel compelled to lay out the welcome mat for, well, just about anybody. The Dutch, similarly, are intensely aware that during the Nazi occupation they helped ship off a larger percentage of their Jews to the death camps than any other Western European country, and feel a deep need to atone.

Postmodernism, of course, is a factor. According to postmodern thinking, no culture is better than any other – and it’s racist to say otherwise. No, scratch that – other cultures are, in fact, better than Western culture. Whites, by definition, are oppressors, imperialists, and colonialists, while “people of color” are victims.

And Muslims are the biggest victims of all.

Not that that makes any sense. Over the centuries since the religion was founded, Muslim armies have gained control over much of north Africa, the Middle East, and large parts of Europe. Islam itself, by definition, is imperialistic. And whenever Islam has conquered non-Islamic territories, it has proven itself to be profoundly oppressive, offering infidels exactly three options: death, subordination, or conversion. But to say these things has become verboten.

Living in a Muslim neighborhood of Amsterdam in early 1999, I read up on Islam and realized very quickly what Europe was up against. Two and a half years later, when the terrorist attacks of 9/11 occurred, I assumed pretty much everyone else would get it, too.

But it didn’t work that way. Yes, some people did get it almost instantaneously, in both America and Europe. They caught up on a lot of reading, did a great deal of soul-searching, and underwent a major philosophical metamorphosis.

But even after other horrific attacks occurred – in Madrid, London, and elsewhere – a lot of people refused to accept the plain truth. The plainer the truth got, in fact, the more fiercely they resisted it. And as skilled propagandists began to represent Muslims as the mother of all victim groups, many Westerners were quick to buy into it all.

How, again, to make sense of this?

Yes, the mainstream media have played a role, routinely whitewashing Islam, soft-pedaling the Islamic roots of jihadist terror, and staying silent about the dire reality of everyday Islamization. But no one who actually lives in western Europe has any excuse for ignorance about these matters. The truth is all around them. Even in the remotest places, however dishonest the mainstream media, the truth can be found on the Internet.

But – and this is a fact that some of us are thoroughly incapable of identifying with, and thus almost thoroughly incapable of grasping – some people don’t want to know the truth. And if they do know the truth, they want to un-know it. CONTINUE AT SITE

North Korea Detains Fourth U.S. Citizen for ‘Hostile Acts’ Kim Hak-song works for Pyongyang University of Science and Technology By Jonathan Cheng

Four U.S. citizens are currently detained in North Korea and a number of others have been held and released there since 2009.

SEOUL—North Korea’s state media said officials detained a U.S. citizen tied to a Christian-backed university in North Korea, two weeks after arresting one of his colleagues.

Saturday’s arrest of Kim Hak-song for committing “hostile acts” brings the number of known U.S. citizens detained in North Korea to four, adding another twist to troubled relations between Washington and Pyongyang as the U.S. seeks to slow the North’s nuclear and missile program.

According to Sunday’s report by North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency, Mr. Kim works for the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, a university founded in 2010 by James Kim, a Korean-American Christian businessman.

Two weeks ago, North Korea detained Tony Kim, a Korean-American accounting professor at PUST, as he was preparing to depart North Korea at Pyongyang’s main international airport, citing “hostile acts.”

PUST, while not officially Christian, hires largely Christian faculty, and says on its website that “churches can support PUST through prayer and through spreading the news about this project among congregation members.”

North Korea has arrested a number of U.S. citizens doing Christian-related work in the isolated country. Kenneth Bae, a Korean-American missionary, was sentenced to 12 years’ hard labor for hostile acts, and was freed after two years in November 2014.

In 2014, American Jeffery Fowle was detained and held for six months after leaving a Bible in a nightclub bathroom.

A spokesman for PUST’s leadership confirmed Kim Hak-song’s arrest on Saturday, just as he was about to leave North Korea after a visit of several weeks. The spokesman said Mr. Kim was at PUST to do agricultural work at an experimental farm operated by the university. CONTINUE AT SITE

Israeli Politicians Pressure Trump on Mideast Promises U.S. leader expected to travel to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe later this month By Jay Solomon

NEW YORK—President Donald Trump came under increased pressure from the Israeli government to follow through on foreign policy pledges he made during the election campaign, including moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, just days before he embarks on his inaugural trip to the Middle East.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warmly welcomed Mr. Trump’s election, following eight years of butting heads with former U.S. President Barack Obama on issues ranging from Israel’s building in disputed territories to the nuclear deal with Iran.

But Mr. Trump’s pledge this month to resume Mideast diplomacy has unnerved members of Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet, many of whom spoke at a conference Sunday in New York. The U.S. leader is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe beginning on May 19, and peace between Israel and the Palestinians is expected to be high on his agenda.

Some of Mr. Netanyahu’s top aides questioned the nature of the Mideast peace process, which for decades has sought to establish an independent Palestinian state on lands in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They sharply criticized the leadership of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whom Mr. Trump welcomed to the White House last week.

“Can the Palestinian Authority be a genuine partner for peace in the Middle East?” asked Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s energy minister, who sits on Mr. Netanyahu’s national security cabinet. He accused Mr. Abbas of leading a government that was corrupt, anti-Semitic and divided.

Other members of Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet were more blunt on Sunday. “As long as I’m a minister, the Palestinian state won’t be created,” said Ofir Akunis, Israel’s minister of science and technology.

Another, more pressing issue, is the status of the American embassy in Israel.

Mr. Trump repeatedly pledged during the campaign to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv once he took office. Both Israel and the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of their states, making its status among the most contentious issues in the peace process. CONTINUE AT SITE

Europe’s French Reprieve Macron beats Le Pen, but without growth the extremes will be back.

French voters chose a centrist reformer over the nationalist right on Sunday by electing Emmanuel Macron as their next President. The question now is whether Mr. Macron can deliver on his promise to reform France’s sclerotic economy and diminish the Islamist terror threat.

Mr. Macron’s decisive victory is as much a rejection of the far-right National Front as an endorsement of his platform. Despite Marine Le Pen’s yearslong effort to whitewash her party’s reputation for anti-Semitism and Vichy nostalgia, the keys to the Élysée Palace proved as elusive to her as they did to her father, Jean-Marie, in 2002’s presidential runoff against Jacques Chirac.

Mr. Macron deserves credit for his initiative. The 39-year-old former investment banker quit the incumbent Socialists to launch his independent centrist movement, En Marche! His outsider status and optimistic vision proved attractive to voters fed up with traditional political parties. He offered a clear if modest reform alternative, with proposals to shrink the bureaucracy, cut corporate taxes and modify the job-killing 35-hour workweek.
He was also lucky. The center-right Republican nominee François Fillon, a self-proclaimed Thatcherite, was felled by allegations of nepotism. Independent, hard-left firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon divided the socialist vote. In the runoff Mr. Macron was the default choice of voters who wanted to block the National Front.

This means President Macron will have a fragile mandate and a narrow window to press his agenda. France needs radical reform of a government that in 2015 took 57% of national GDP and an economy with a jobless rate that is 10% eight years after the financial crisis.

Yet political failure is the recent French norm. Successive Presidents have failed to undo the 1999 35-hour-workweek law amid militant union protests. Mr. Mélenchon and his “Unbowed France” movement are promising chaos if Mr. Macron dares to advance what the socialist calls “neoliberalism.” Mr. Macron’s best bet is to go big and abolish the 35-hour workweek as Mr. Fillon promised, rather than seek marginal fixes and pay the political price anyway. The same goes for cutting the corporate tax rate to 25% from 33.3%, especially as the U.S. heads toward a 20% rate.

George Thomas: Encouraging the Unwell

Being smart doesn’t make psychiatrists, as a body at least, immune to irresponsibility and foolishness. One of author Tanveer Ahmed’s pet peeves is the way every mental affliction, from sadness upwards, is being medicalised, labelled a condition and therefore in need of treatment.

Fragile Nation
by Tanveer Ahmed
Connor Court, 2016, 212 pages, $24.95
_____________________________

Tanveer Ahmed demonstrated his commonsense optimism in his memoir The Exotic Rissole (2011). That book ended with his success, on the third attempt, to convert his medical degree into qualifications to practise as a psychiatrist. Fragile Nation is his report on the mental state of the nation, based on his subsequent professional experience.

The first and most obvious thing about the book is that it is surprisingly cheerful and hopeful. Ahmed is fascinated by people and by the challenges his work presents. His predominant theme is that his patients are not helpless victims, no matter what the cause of their suffering, but people who have somehow lost the ability to live fully. He sees his task as guiding them to ways of rediscovering the ability to cope with life’s vicissitudes.

He finds that such guidance, offering a proper balance of sympathy and firmness, and reminding his patients of the rewards and penalties that are the consequences of their behaviour, leads in most cases to satisfactory improvement and allows his patients to get on top of their problems and resume normal life. He attributes their recovery to “their extraordinary courage and grace in the face of tremendous adversity” and their “wide variety of responses to crafting a meaningful life”.

He does not claim to cure his patients. He can only show them how to cure themselves; which is where the courage is required. This is one crucial way in which psychiatric medicine differs from medicine more generally. Physical ailments are cured largely by following medical advice and waiting. Recovering from psychiatric ailments takes courage.

The courage psychiatric patients need is not the passive courage they may have used to try to put up with their troubles, or the destructive courage they may have used to lash out wildly in desperation, but the positive courage that draws on their virtues and recovers their full humanity. It must be truly encouraging to people at the end of their tether to be shown how they can make their way forward again using their own inner resources.

Ahmed recounts a wide variety of his cases, across a range of social classes, ethnic groups and geographical areas. He approaches each patient as an individual with unique circumstances. He is not bound by theory. While he has studied and read widely and continues to do so—the fifty or so references in the book would supply a year or two of fascinating and instructive reading to most of us—he does not try to fit his patients to his theories, but rather uses his theories where they can help each patient.

He explains, for example, that while the usefulness of prescription drugs has its limits, drug therapy can work in many cases. Patients suffering from their own damaging behaviour brought on by anxiety can often be treated with anti-depressants. Where their anxiety has led to bad mental habits—severe neuroses, we might have said in the past, but Ahmed does not use that term—and the bad habits in turn have intensified the anxiety, a course of anti-depressants can take away the anxiety, and the bad habits, for a few months while Ahmed brings his patients to an understanding of where they have been going wrong and how they can avoid relapsing in future. A bad habit can be extremely difficult to break, but an encouraged person who has broken a bad habit and understands its dangers can avoid a relapse relatively easily.