RUTHFULLY YOURS

Only a direct and unequivocal US commitment can truly reassure Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia that their recent grim histories of invasion, occupation and oppression will not be repeated. Obama has proven himself unequal to the task. Will the next president be any better?
Next month, my wife and leave on a trip to Europe. First, we will visit Lithuania, my wife’s home country, for two weeks to catch up with her family and old friends. This is my second visit to Lithuania, and I hope to gain further insights to the hopes and fears of the local people, ranging from 90-year-olds, who lived under both Nazi and Soviet occupation, to young adults, born after independence.

For Lithuania, along with Latvia and Estonia, geopolitical vulnerability is a permanent fact of life. Historical experience has taught harsh lessons. The enforced incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union back in 1940, notwithstanding their declared neutrality, has impelled them to choose a side.

As soon as accession to NATO was offered, they jumped at the chance to shore up their security. After all, Article 5 of this mutual defence pact reads:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

But does anybody seriously believe that either Germany or France, or for that matter, any other European country would have either the capacity or willingness to come to the aid of the Baltic States, if a resurgent Russia decided to put the treaty to the test? Consider the historical record. The Baltic states have long been expendable pawns. Remember Germany’s seizure of Klaipeda (Memel) from neutral Lithuania in March, 1939, and the secret clauses of the Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact of August, 1939, which doomed the Baltic States to Soviet occupation.

Lest we imagine that the denial of freedom and independence for the Baltic states was merely a totalitarian exercise, we read in, The President, The Pope and The Prime Minister, by Quadrant Editor John O’Sullivan, that independence for the Baltic States was very nearly thwarted, not merely by the still existent Soviet Union but also by Jacques Delors, chairman of the European Commission, Francois Mitterand of France, Helmut Kohl of Germany and the Bush Administration. Only Margaret Thatcher’s heroic intervention at the Rome summit of the European Community in October, 1990, saved the day for Baltic freedom. Remember, this was after the fall of the Berlin wall. As O’Sullivan records on pages 322-323 :

The United States was already applying pressure on the Baltic states against independence. Secretary of State James Baker had told the Lithuanians in May 1990 that they should “freeze” their declaration of independence – and the United States continued to exert such public and private pressure throughout that summer. At Rome, European Commission chairman Jacques Delors further proposed that the EC issue a declaration in favour of preserving the existing external borders of the USSR. That would have meant formal European approval for imprisoning the Baltics indefinitely, and would have damaged their morale, which was already depressed by the lack of Western support.

To the casual observer, the drama playing out on the streets of France looks to be following a well-rehearsed script. It features protests and strikes, illegal blockades and burning tires, riot police, torched cars and tear gas. You will know the final act has come when the French government, as in 1995 or 2006, eventually backs down—in this case, over a labor law that would decentralize collective bargaining and undermine France’s rigid 35-hour workweek.

The current stand-off between Paris and its hard-line unions is unusual in one crucial respect. Its protagonists are all from the left. At stake isn’t just a piece of legislation, but control of the Socialist Party and the electoral future of the French left.

At center stage are two figures: Manuel Valls, the reformist Socialist prime minister, and Philippe Martinez, the leader of General Confederation of Labor, or CGT, France’s biggest and most militant union. Both men are in their 50s, of Spanish origin and, incidentally, supporters of the FC Barcelona soccer team. But the similarities stop there.

Not a graduate of France’s elite schools, Mr. Valls has spent more time than most thinking hard about modern social democracy, well before he got his current job. He has called his party passéiste (“outdated”), once campaigned to drop the word “socialist” from its name, and entered politics to support Michel Rocard, a moderate former prime minister, for whom he later worked.

Yet Mr. Valls’s market-friendly version of progressive politics, known as the deuxième gauche (“second left”), has long struggled to impose its ideas on the mainstream left. When he ran in the Socialist presidential primary in 2011, he secured less than 6% of the vote.

Across the burning tires stands Mr. Martinez, a one-time technician at Renault and former member of the French Communist Party, who sports a Mexican moustache and a permanent scowl. He took over the CGT a year ago and so still has a reputation to forge.

Mr. Martinez has taken class warfare to the barricades with bravado and with cause. He faces declining overall membership for unions—less than 3% of French workers belong to the CGT—as well as competition for members and political clout from more moderate unions that back Mr. Valls’s labor law.

The French have a historic sympathy for defiant figures of resistance. The CGT’s red and yellow flag, its megaphone politics and the images of burning braziers on the picket line form part of a romantic, muscular iconography of postwar struggle. Yet the prime minister is betting that the union’s hard-line tactics in reality represent the death throes of a worn-out movement, rather than genuine vigor or popular expression.

It was interesting to hear Mr. Valls, who invited a small group of foreign correspondents to his office last week, treat this conflict as a test case for socialism in power. Either he holds steady and proves that his politics can carry the day, or the left is condemned to obduracy and obsolescence. CONTINUE AT SITE

ISTANBUL—A car bomb targeting a police bus in central Istanbul on Tuesday killed 11 people and injured dozens, including civilians, officials said, in the latest in a string of attacks as Turkey fights Kurdish insurgents and Islamic State militants.

The blast hit at around 8:40 a.m. in the city’s Vezneciler district, not far from Istanbul University and the tourist landmarks of the historic center.

Istanbul Governor Vasip Sahin said a bomb in a car was detonated remotely as the police bus drove by. The explosion killed seven police officers and four civilians, and at least 36 people were wounded, he said.

Ambulances and police swarmed the scene. The impact of the blast left the police vehicle toppled over on its side, laying near the charred husk of a car. Several storefronts and a dormitory at the university had their windows shattered.

There were no immediate claims of responsibility, but the state run Anadolu news agency reported that Istanbul police had detained four people for questioning. CONTINUE AT SITE

Huh? Moshe Ya’alon’s nickname is “Bogey” should be short for bogus. He was justly sacked for failing to respect the position of the party he supposedly represented. Typical of Israel’s fractious politics, this is more of a tempest in a teapot than an earthquake…”Bogey” is more a chameleon than a hawk and his poor administration of the IDF was roundly criticized by all parties…..and, most egregious, he defended a member of the IDF who compared Israelis to Nazis…..rsk

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent decision to fire his widely respected defense minister, Moshe Ya’alon, and replace him with right-wing populist firebrand Avigdor Lieberman has triggered a political earthquake in Israel. Mr. Netanyahu now may face his most serious political challenge since taking office in 2009. His move also raises fundamental questions about the governance and character of the Jewish state.

Leading figures long associated with Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party have criticized his decision. Benny Begin, a Likud legislator, characterized it in a TV interview in Israel as “delusional.” Moshe Arens, a former defense minister, wrote in the Haaretz newspaper that “Choosing between an excellent defense minister serving in a narrow coalition . . . and obtaining a few more coalition votes should have been easy. But Benjamin Netanyahu made the wrong choice.”

Just months ago, a Likud press release had this to say about Mr. Lieberman: “He is a man who has never led even a single soldier to battle and never had to take a single operational decision in his life. He isn’t even qualified to be a television talking head on military issues.”

Mr. Ya’alon has resigned from the Likud Party and from the Knesset. But his withdrawal from politics is only temporary. In a letter to potential supporters, he writes: “I regard this period as a ‘time-out’ after which I intend to return and run for Israel’s national leadership.”

If he does, other well-known figures, such as former Likud Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar and former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, are likely to join him. A recent poll conducted for the Jerusalem Post found that a new party headed by Mr. Ya’alon would win as many seats in the Knesset as Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud. Parties that have been unwilling to enter the prime minister’s right-leaning government would be more inclined to join forces with Mr. Ya’alon to form a centrist coalition.

Moshe Ya’alon is no one’s idea of a dove. But his tough line is based on security, not ideology. “I’m not a supporter of ‘greater Israel,’ ” he has said. “I supported the Oslo Accords. I was willing to give up territory in return for peace. But the Palestinians are not partners for that kind of deal—at least not in the foreseeable future.” This argument suggests that Mr. Ya’alon would be open to the security-based proposals just unveiled by Commanders for Israel’s Security, a coalition of former members of the IDF, Shin Bet (the Israel Security Agency), Mossad and police forces. These proposals—including completing the West Bank security barrier, instituting strict border control along this barrier, and freezing settlement building—are designed to enhance Israel’s security while preserving the conditions for future negotiations for a two-state solution.CONTINUE AT SITE

The rift in the European Union between the older, mostly Western European, members and the newer ones from Eastern Europe has become increasingly clear lately over the refusal of most Eastern European countries to receive migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

The European Commission has proposed reforms to EU asylum rules that would see financial penalties imposed on members refusing to take in what it deems a sufficient number of asylum seekers, amounting to $290,000 for every migrant. The penalties, if passed, are particularly aimed at the newest EU countries, such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, since these are countries who have closed their borders to migrants or are in the process of doing so.

Disagreement over how to respond to the migrant crisis in Europe, however, is not the only issue dividing the Eastern European members of the EU from Western European ones. Israel is another such contentious issue.

Several Eastern European countries, while having pasts rife with virulent anti-Semitism and atrocious records of behavior toward Jews during the Second World War, differ greatly in their policies toward Israel compared to their Western European counterparts. That does not mean that everything they do is in favor of Israel, far from it. The entire EU, including those Eastern European countries, voted in favor of the latest U.N. resolution to slander Israel, when they voted that Israel was the world’s only health violator. There must be some diplomats sitting around with very bad tastes in their mouths.

Nevertheless, Eastern European countries today represent the only part of Europe that, out of national interest or a genuine sense of solidarity, stands with Israel in one form or another. This is already saying much on a continent where, for example, Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders only recently declared that calls to boycott, divest and sanction Israel are considered by the Netherlands to be “freedom of speech” and therefore legal. (It would appear that there are some serious cognitive issues in the Dutch government: What happens when the calls actually lead to real action, such as municipalities refusing to do business with Israel or refusing to buy Israeli goods and services? Would that be legal, too, according to the foreign minister? As discussed previously in this column, a Spanish court recently declared such municipal boycotts of Israel to be in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, the same convention that Koenders invokes in his condoning of BDS as “free speech.”)

After many years of being gagged, Fatah’s young guard is finding its voice. But while members of this faction wish to see a “changing of the guards at the Palestinian palace,” this does not mean that they have changed their attitude towards Israel.

Fatah’s young guard is neither interested in, nor authorized to, give up the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees — or even take the basic step of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. In short, the actors might change, but the same show will go on.

The international community, meanwhile, is busy burying its head in the sand of Abbas’s very messy backyard. The participants at the Middle East peace conference held in Paris last week may have missed the latest revolt against the PA president. Had they been paying attention, instead of calling for a two-state solution, they might have demanded that Abbas and his Fatah faction get their acts together, and include Israel in the show. Perhaps they also would have mentioned that this ought happen before Hamas takes over the West Bank and creates another Islamist regime there, too.

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas is once again facing insurrection — this time from the young guard in his ruling Fatah faction.

Even autocracy has its limits, and after many years of being gagged, Fatah’s young guard is finding its voice.

This renewed power struggle between the young and the old guard is probably a positive sign. It seems to signal the Palestinians wish to see new faces in power. However, just because members of this faction wish to see a “changing of the guards at the Palestinian palace” does not mean that they have changed their attitude towards Israel.

This young guard, in fact, is neither interested in, nor authorized to, give up the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees — or even take the basic step of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

Professor Bardakcioglu is under a disciplinary investigation launched by the university’s rector for his tweet, in which he criticized the conquest of Constantinople in 1453.

After losing his job and being condemned and ostracized by his community, Bardakcioglu defined his deleted tweet as “an ugly and wrong expression that was not my own view.” The professor, sadly, apologized for telling the truth.

Publicly debating historical events recognized by most scholars in free societies is, in Turkey, a criminal offense. You can lose your job, your freedom or even your life.

Turkish state officials constantly claim there is nothing in Turkey’s history that they should be ashamed of, so they continue persecuting and jailing journalists or professors who express differing ideas, and slaughtering non-Muslims and non-Turks.

Erbay Bardakcioglu, a professor at Adnan Menderes University (AMU) in Aydin Province in western Turkey, was suspended after posting a tweet, in which he criticized the conquest of Constantinople, present-day Istanbul, in 1453.

Professor Bardakcioglu’s tweet, on May 29, read, “Today is the anniversary of the invasion of Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, a magnificent civilization, by a barbaric and fanatic tribe.”

After the tweet caused an outrage on social media, Bardakcioglu deleted it.

The professor is also under a disciplinary investigation launched by the university’s rector for his tweet.

The university’s rector, Cavit Bircan, on his Twitter account, also condemned the professor and declared that he was laid off from his job.

Describing Bardakcioglu’s tweet as “unacceptable,” Bircan wrote on his Twitter account:

American traitors like these should be sent straight to Gitmo for hard labor….rsk
Disenchanted followers of the extremist group are trying to get out of Syria.

Disenchanted Islamic State members recruited from the West have increasingly been contacting their governments and asking for help in getting home, according to diplomats and a Syrian network that aids defectors.

Some have turned up at diplomatic missions in Turkey, and others have sent furtive messages to their governments seeking assistance in escaping from territory the extremist group controls in neighboring Syria, according to the diplomats, who represent six Western missions in Turkey.

The calls for help from Westerners come as Islamic State loses ground and faces fresh assaults on its Raqqa stronghold and on Fallujah, Iraq, where it has ruled for more than two years.

Some Westerners seeking to escape from Islamic State are fighters, and others are people who were enticed to move to the group’s so-called caliphate and declared their loyalty, and now find themselves in dire straits, the diplomats said.

“Their troops are now starting to leave. There are a lot of French people who are coming back,” France’s national intelligence coordinator, Didier le Bret, said at a recent security conference. “They’ve got a feeling it’s not going that well.” He said citizens of other European countries are also returning.

The Western diplomats said about 150 citizens from just their six countries have sought help to flee or did so on their own since the departures began to ramp up in the fall. The overall number of Westerners who joined Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and then returned home isn’t known, but Western officials have said several hundred fighters have come back to Europe. CONTINUE AT SITE

Two high-profile French novels, dissimilar in timing and tone, portray two influential visions of France in the future. Not just good reads (and both translated into English), together they stimulate thought about the country’s crises of immigration and cultural change.

Jean Raspail (1925-) imagines a racial invasion coming by sea, of rafts and boats taking off from the Indian subcontinent and heading slowly, inexorably for the south of France. In Le Camp des Saints (The Camp of the Saints, 1973), he primarily documents the helpless, panicked French reaction as the horde (a word used 34 times) “kept coming to join the swelling numbers.”

It’s a stark dystopian fantasy about the white race and European life that corresponds to fears articulated by no less than Charles de Gaulle, the dominant politician of post-war France, who welcomed non-white French citizens “on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are, after all, primarily a European people of the white race.”

Camp also anticipates the notion of “The Great Replacement” (Le Grand Remplacement) conceptualized by the French intellectual Renaud Camus, which anticipates the quick replacement “of the historic people of our country by peoples of immigrant origin who are overwhelmingly non-European.” Roughly this same fear – of immigrants pushing the indigenous French people aside and taking over the country – inspires the National Front party, now polling close to 30 percent of the vote and growing.

Michel Houellebecq (1956-) tells the story not of a country (France) but of an individual (François) in Soumission (Submission, 2015). François is a weary, somewhat decadent professor of the decadent movement in French literature. He lacks family, friends, and ambition; although only in his mid-40s, his will to live has eroded through the ennui of take-out food and a procession of interchangeable sex partners.

When an ostensibly moderate Muslim politician unexpectedly becomes president of France in 2022, many radical changes to French life follow quickly. In a surprise twist, what begins ominously (a corpse in the gas station) soon enough turns benign (delicious Middle Eastern food). Lured by a well-paying and satisfying job with the perk of having access to marry multiple pretty, covered students, François readily abandons his old life and converts to Islam, which offers him the rewards of luxury, exoticism, and patriarchy.

If the 1973 novel never mentions the word Islam or Muslim, its 2015 counterpart dwells on them both – starting with the title: Islam in Arabic means “submission.” Conversely, the first book focuses on race while the second hardly notices it (François’ favorite prostitute is North African). One takeover ends hellishly, the other agreeably. The earlier book is an apocalyptic political tract disguised as entertainment, the later one offers a literary and sardonic take on Europe’s loss of will while not expressing animus toward Islam or Muslims. The one documents an aggression, the other a consolation.

Over the past year and a half France has been hit by a wave of terror attacks. The worst have been the January 2015 attacks at the Charlie Hebdo office and the Hyper Cacher market in Paris, which killed 20, and the concerted November 14-15, 2015, attacks in Paris that killed 130.

And on May 19, 2016, EgyptAir Flight 804 left Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris and ended up crashing into the Mediterranean, killing 66, in what is seen as a terror attack.

Meanwhile France has been suffering record unemployment and severe domestic unrest.

Amid these grave problems, however, on Friday, June 3, France saw fit to convene a conference of 29 foreign ministers (including Secretary of State John Kerry) in Paris to deal with that old, invincible focus of attention: Israeli-Palestinian peace, or the lack of it.

This gathering came only a week after a governmental shakeup in Israel that saw Avigdor Lieberman replace Moshe Yaalon as defense minister. With Lieberman’s five-man faction joining the governing coalition, it now numbers a more workable 66 Knesset members instead of the previous paper-thin 61.

The Washington Post, in an editorial that came out before the Paris conference, used this sequence of events to do some vintage Israel-bashing.

The Post called Lieberman “a hard-line nationalist with an abysmal international reputation,” blamed Netanyahu for failing to add the left-of-center Labor Party to his coalition instead of Lieberman’s right-of-center faction, and called on Netanyahu to prove his peace credentials by implementing a “partial settlement freeze.”