With the number of known dead in Gaza, as past 30, 000 and climbing, the Biden/Schumer alliance is out of necessity rather than choice, to state the obvious: They must now see their unconditional support of Israel, as unsustainable in the face of the continuing Genocide, as practiced by the near American proxy Netanyahu. This quote from Aaron David Miller, in this New York Times essay, is indicative of the opinions of a class of political/moral conformist :
…
As the war enters its sixth month, Mr. Biden finds himself in an investment trap that’s difficult to escape. He is increasingly frustrated and angry with Mr. Netanyahu. And yet he’s still in love with Israel. How to stand up to the first without damaging the second is proving to be an excruciatingly difficult challenge for a president whose regard for Israel runs deep in his emotional and political DNA and whose re-election campaign may depend upon which way he turns.
…
A long excerpt for The Financial Times report:
Joe Biden appeared to deepen his rift with Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday, publicly praising a top Democrat’s remarks that called for the Israeli prime minister’s removal as a “good speech” that expressed “concerns” shared by many Americans.
His comments to reporters on Friday morning are the latest sign that the US president has all but given up on Netanyahu, who has angered his backers in the White House by failing to allow more aid into Gaza and pursuing war tactics that have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate and one of the most high-profile backers of Israel over his decades-long political career, sent shockwaves through the bilateral relationship on Thursday by calling Netanyahu an “obstacle to peace” who was weakening his country’s “political and moral fabric”.
Schumer, the most senior Jewish elected official in Washington, urged Israel to hold new elections to remove Netanyahu from office.
Biden confirmed on Friday that Schumer had given the White House advance notice of his speech and its contents. “I’m not going to elaborate on the speech,” the president said. “He made a good speech, and I think he expressed serious concern shared not only by him, but by many Americans.”
Netanyahu, who was close to former Republican president Donald Trump but clashed openly with Democratic president Barack Obama, has steadily lost support among the American left, an exodus that has sped up during Israel’s campaign in Gaza and has threatened to erode Biden’s base during a re-election year.
But until recently, the Israeli prime minister was able to rely on older Democrats in Washington — including Schumer and Biden — who have supported the Jewish state for decades.
…
Is it possible to be a Zionist and a United States Senator, whose main concern must be America ? This essay is instructive on that vexing question?
Headline: Schumer: I’ll live up to my name and be ‘Shomer for Yisroel’
Senator Charles Schumer told Achiezer’s gala on Sunday in Atlantic Beach the he would fight any “bad deal” with Iran and would continue his commitment to serve as a “Shomer Yisroel” (guardian over Israel).
“When Prime Minister Netanyahu comes to America and says that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to the state of Israel, he means every word. Existential means the existence,” Schumer said.
“Palestinians are trouble, but Israel can handle it,” he continued. “Hamas and Hezbollah are trouble, but Israel can handle it. But a nuclear Iran could wipe out the state of Israel.”
Schumer said he would support tougher sanctions if there is no agreement, and “if there’s a bad agreement, Congress should have the ability to undo it.”
Playing on his name, Schumer said his family had been shomrim of a ghetto’s wall in Europe. His name, modified at Ellis Island, was “Shoimer.”
“I will always will be shomer Yisroel,” he pledged. “I will do everything I can to see that Am Yisroel chai.”
Schumer praised Achiezer’s work and recounted how he helped Rabbi Yaakov Bender, the father of Achiezer’s president, establish Hatzalah on East 7th Street in Flatbush in 1977.
Achiezer honored community leaders at its annual dinner at The Sands Atlantic Beach.
As a critic, let me focus on these paragraphs of Harari’s History Made To Measure:
… It would be wrong to equate the situation of Israelis and Palestinians. They have different histories, live under different conditions and face different threats. The point this article makes is only that both have good reasons to believe that the other side wishes to kill or expel all of them. They consequently see each other not just as run-of-the-mill enemies, but as an existential threat constantly hovering overhead. Unsurprisingly, both sides wish to remove this. However, the Israeli wish to remove the Palestinian existential threat poses an existential threat to the Palestinians — and vice versa. For the only way to completely remove it seems to be to get rid of the other side.
The tragedy of this conflict is that the problem arises not from unjustified paranoia, but rather from a sound analysis of the situation, and from each side knowing only too well its own intentions and fantasies. When Israelis and Palestinians take a good look at their own dark wishes, they conclude that the other has ample reason to fear and hate them. It is a devilish logic. Every side says to itself: “Given what we wish to do to them, it makes sense that they will want to get rid of us — which is precisely why we have no choice but to get rid of them first.”
Is there a way out of this trap? Ideally, each side should give up its fantasy of getting rid of the other. A peaceful solution to the conflict is technically feasible. There is enough land between the Jordan and Mediterranean to build houses, schools, roads and hospitals for everyone. But it can be realised only if each side can honestly say that, even if it had unlimited power and zero restrictions, it would not wish to expel the other. “No matter what injustices they committed against us and what threats they still pose, we nevertheless respect their right to live dignified lives in their country of birth.” Such a profound change in intentions is bound to manifest itself in action, and eventually ease the fear and hatred, creating space for genuine peace.
Of course, accomplishing such a change is extremely hard. But it is not impossible. There are already numerous individuals on both sides who wish well for the other. If their number increases, eventually it should change collective policies. There is also one important group in the region that collectively feels a part of both sides, and doesn’t wish to see either disappear: the close to 2mn Arab citizens of Israel, who are usually referred to as either Arab Israelis or Palestinian Israelis.
…
What of the the right of a captive people’s to resist their oppressor? On this vexing question, The Reader would be best served by reading Margaret Moore’s whole essay.
Terrorism and the Right to Resist: A Theory of Just Revolutionary War
Christopher J. Finlay, Terrorism and the Right to Resist: A Theory of Just Revolutionary War,Cambridge University Press, 2015, 339pp., $103.00 (hbk), ISBN 9781107040939.
Harari essay is both about story telling, wedded to speculation about both motives and the emotions of the political actors. Yet the very real power dynamic of these actors remains beyond his ken. This places his commentary in the confines of a partially denatured propaganda!
Headline: Words Over Deeds: Why Biden Isn’t Pressuring Israel
Mr. Miller has impressive credentials:
…
Between 1978 and 2003, Miller served at the State Department as an historian, analyst, negotiator, and advisor to Republican and Democratic secretaries of state, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process, most recently as the senior advisor for Arab-Israeli negotiations. He also served as the deputy special Middle East coordinator for Arab-Israeli negotiations, senior member of the State Department’s policy planning staff, in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and in the office of the historian. He has received the department’s Distinguished, Superior, and Meritorious Honor Awards.
Miller is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and formerly served as resident scholar at the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been a featured presenter at the World Economic Forum and leading U.S. universities. Between 2003 and 2006 he served as president of Seeds of Peace, a nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering young leaders from regions of conflict with the leadership skills required to advance reconciliation and coexistence. From 2006 to 2019, Miller was a public policy scholar; vice president for new initiatives, and director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
The opening paragraph of Miller’s essay posses a kind of literary flavor born of practice.
One could be forgiven for thinking that President Biden’s tough words on the Israel-Hamas war in his State of the Union address and his MSNBC interview on Saturdaywas the beginning of a much more critical U.S. policy toward Israel. After all, the president called for at least a temporary cease-fire, laying out, in his most emotional terms to date, the losses and suffering of the people of Gaza and delivered an unmistakably sharp signal that Israel must make the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Gaza a priority. Those callscame on the heels of Vice President Kamala Harris’s high-profile meeting with Benny Gantz, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rival and likely successor — a snub to Mr. Netanyahu who has been denied a White House visit.
The Reader needn’t fear there are Comic Moments in Millers analysis:
Early in his career, it was easy for an impressionable young senator who made his first visit to Israel at age 30 to connect with the saga of Israel’s struggle for independence and its fight for survival in a hostile neighborhood. In the years since, Mr. Biden has repeatedly recalled his father’s references to the Holocaust and the dangers of silence in the face of evil. No other president describes himself repeatedly as a Zionist; no other occupant of the White House has asserted that if there were no Israel, “We’d have to invent one.”
Joe Biden has always been a reliable loud-mouthed bully:
The Technocrat, Mr. Miller and his allies, operate within the bounds of political respectability : while the brazen Joe Biden, in his salad days, lectured his betters with the abandon of the Corrupt, the Powerful!
Reader, my patience with Mr. Miller wanes , so I will quote his last two paragraphs. I have highlighted the final paragraph. It is shit !
Perhaps most important, Mr. Biden needs Mr. Netanyahu to agree to a hostage deal and an extended cease-fire with Hamas. Without that agreement, Mr. Biden cannot hope to de-escalate the war, increase humanitarian aid in a meaningful way, put an end to the devastating images out of Gaza and have a chance to pursue a broader peace deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
As the war enters its sixth month, Mr. Biden finds himself in an investment trap that’s difficult to escape. He is increasingly frustrated and angry with Mr. Netanyahu. And yet he’s still in love with Israel. How to stand up to the first without damaging the second is proving to be an excruciatingly difficult challenge for a president whose regard for Israel runs deep in his emotional and political DNA and whose re-election campaign may depend upon which way he turns.
Mr. Friedman can’t stop himself from being the servant of The American National Security State, under the amped-up Senile Old Joe!
Call this Friedman Political Hysteria!
Israel today is in grave danger. With enemies like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran, Israel should be enjoying the sympathy of much of the world. But it is not. Because of the way Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist coalition have been conducting the war in Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank, Israel is becoming radioactive and diaspora Jewish communities everywhere increasingly insecure.
I fear it is about to get worse.
No fair-minded person could deny Israel the right of self-defense after the Hamas attack on Oct. 7 killed some 1,200 Israelis in one day. Women were sexually abused, and children were killed in front of their parents and parents in front of their children. Scores of abducted Israeli men, women, children and elderly people are still being held hostage in terrible conditions, now for more than 150 days.
But no fair-minded person can look at the Israeli campaign to destroy Hamas that has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza, about a third of them fighters, and not conclude that something has gone terribly wrong there. The dead include thousands of children, and the survivors many orphans. So much of Gaza is now a wasteland of death and destruction, hunger and ruined homes. Urban warfare brings out the absolute worst in people, and that is certainly true for Israel in Gaza. This is a stain on the Jewish state.
But Israel is not alone in creating this tragedy. The stain on Hamas is black as well. This Islamist militia started the conflict on Oct. 7 without any warnings, protections or shelters for Gazan civilians, and it did so knowing full well from experience that Israel would respond by bombing Hamas strongholds tunneled under homes, mosques and hospitals. Hamas showed a total disregard for the lives of Palestinians, not just Israelis. But Hamas was already branded as a terrorist organization. It is not a U.S. ally and never claimed to practice purity of arms.
Friedman has always been a Zionist Partisan, who screeches about Israel’s right to Self-Defence, yet he equates the resistance of a captive population, to the Zionist murder on the instalment-plan. Since, or even before, the creation of The Zionist State over generations, as possessing parity! The equation defies the very notion/practice of parity. Friedman is a Zionist Partisan, the highlighted third paragraph ending with ‘This is a stain on the Jewish state.’ Then meets the fourth paragraph that expresses the imagined ‘parity’ ,between a besieged population, and a State armed by American Weaponry. The Zionist Faschist State continues its Genocide, the only resistance is the The Houthis.
What might The Reader/Viewer think of Mr. Shapiros’ title ‘The Oscars Is Filled With Trash Humans’ as just convenient hyperbole, but that not just probably refers to Jews, in an industry once dominated by Jews? This story from The Hollywood Reporter provides insights on that very question:
Guest Column:
Headline: The Academy and ADL Explain Why Museum Needed to Tell Hollywood’s Jewish Origin Story With Upcoming Exhibit
sub-headline: An important element of this story is “the role the movies themselves played in exposing the effects of antisemitism in society,” write Bill Kramer and Jonathan Greenblatt.
There is a deep connectivity between Jewish film artists and the fight against antisemitism. Take screenwriter and producer Dore Schary, for example. In the late 1950s, after experiencing antisemitism in his own life and seeing its deleterious impact on society, Schary went on to become national chairman of ADL. Most Americans may not remember his name, but Schary was a pioneer both in the industry itself and in standing up for the rights of leftist filmmakers during the anti-communist Red Scare. He paid an incredible price for his activism, but nevertheless became a courageous and valiant leader against antisemitism in the U.S. His name is largely forgotten by the American public — and shouldn’t be.
Another important element of this Hollywood story is the role the movies themselves played in exposing the effects of antisemitism in society. Take Gentleman’s Agreement, the groundbreaking 1947 film starring Gregory Peck. The story follows a journalist who decides to write an exposé about antisemitism by pretending to be a Jew himself. Directed by Elia Kazan, the film was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won three, including best picture. Films like this helped to raise public awareness about the detrimental impacts of casual antisemitism in society. … No one can be this willfully ignorant of the History and contribution of Jews to the Hollywood Mythology !
…
Mr. Shapiro political remit has expanded to Cultural Critic, from his usual Political Commentary? He has granted himself a new avenue of attacking ‘Liberals’ as the creature of his darkest thought configurations. The Reader is best served by quick rhetorical jumps, from minute by minute, to longer intervals, that makes Mr. Shapiro appear as a Max Senate Keystone Cops reel at high speed!
It takes The Reader five paragraphs before she reaches the beginning of Caldwell’s long soliloquy to Todd.
American leadership is failing: That is the argument of an eccentric new book that since January has stood near the top of France’s best-seller lists. It is called “La Défaite de l’Occident” (“The Defeat of the West”). Its author, Emmanuel Todd, is a celebrated historian and anthropologist who in 1976, in a book called “The Final Fall,” used infant-mortality statistics to predict that the Soviet Union was headed for collapse.
Since then, what Mr. Todd writes about current events has tended to be received in Europe as prophecy. His book “After the Empire,” predicting the “breakdown of the American order,” came out in 2002, in the flush of post-9/11 national cohesion and before the debacle of the Iraq war, to which Mr. Todd was fiercely opposed. Anglophone (his doctorate is from Cambridge) and Anglophile (at least at the start of his career), he has grown steadily disillusioned with the United States, even anti-American.
Mr. Todd is a critic of American involvement in Ukraine, but his argument is not the now-familiar historical one made by the dissident political scientist John Mearsheimer. Like Mr. Mearsheimer, Mr. Todd questions the zealous expansion of NATO under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the neoconservative ideology of democracy promotion and the official demonization of Russia. But his skepticism of U.S. involvement in Ukraine goes deeper. He believes American imperialism has not only endangered the rest of the world but also corroded American character.
In interviews over the past year, Mr. Todd has argued that Westerners focus too much on one surprise of the war: Ukraine’s ability to defy Russia’s far larger army. But there is a second surprise that has been underappreciated: Russia’s ability to defy the sanctions and seizures through which the United States sought to destroy the Russian economy. Even with its Western European allies in tow, the United States lacked the leverage to keep the world’s big, new economic actors in line. India took advantage of fire-sale prices for Russian energy. China provided Russia with sanctioned goods and electronic components.
…
Let me sample some sentences, paragraphs, featuring Mr. Todd:
Mr. Todd contends that Americans’ heedless plunge into the global economy was a mistake.
In an advanced, highly educated society like ours, Mr. Todd argues, too many people aspire to the work of running things and bossing people around.
Mr. Todd calculates that the United States produces fewer engineers than Russia does, not just per capita but in absolute numbers.
As Mr. Todd sees it, the West’s decision to outsource its industrial base is more than bad policy; it is also evidence of a project to exploit the rest of the world.
A specialist in the anthropology of families, Mr. Todd warns that a lot of the values Americans are currently spreading are less universal than Americans think.
Mr. Todd is not a moralizer.
Mr. Todd does believe that certain of our values are “deeply negative.”
While Mr. Todd is, again, not judgmental on sexual matters, he is judgmental on intellectual ones.
The American hope early in the war that China might cooperate in a sanctions regime against Russia, thereby helping the United States refine a weapon that would one day be aimed at China itself, is, for Mr. Todd, a “delirium.”
For students of the Vietnam War, there is much in Mr. Todd’s book that recalls the historian Loren Baritz’s classic 1985 book, “Backfire,” which drew on popular culture, patriotic mythology and management theory to explain what had led the United States astray in Vietnam.
The final three paragraphs, featuring political moralizing!
One is constantly reading in the papers that Vladimir Putin is a threat to the Western order. Maybe. But the larger threat to the Western order is the hubris of those who run it.
Fighting a war based on values requires good values. At a bare minimum it requires an agreement on the values being spread, and the United States is further from such agreement than it has ever been in its history — further, even, than it was on the eve of the Civil War. At times it seems there are no national principles, only partisan ones, with each side convinced that the other is trying not just to run the government but also to capture the state.
Until some new consensus emerges, President Biden is misrepresenting his country in presenting it as stable and unified enough to commit to anything. Ukrainians are learning this at a steep cost.
Newspaper Reader & Political Cynic
To The Reader,
Malise Ruthven devastating review of Caldwell’s ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West’ . It is indicative of the Neo-Conservative World View, of it’s time and political place . ‘The Other’ is the focus of the successors of Western Colonizers that became ‘The War On Terror’ of the Bush/Cheney cabal:
AT WAR
At Least 37 Million People Have Been Displaced by America’s War on Terror
A new report calculates the number of people who fled because of wars fought by the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.
At least 37 million people have been displaced as a direct result of the wars fought by the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a new report from Brown University’s Costs of War project. That figure exceeds those displaced by conflict since 1900, the authors say, with the exception of World War II.
The findings were published on Tuesday, weeks before the United States enters its 20th year of fighting the war on terror, which began with the invasion of Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001; yet, the report says it is the first time the number of people displaced by U.S. military involvement during this period has been calculated. The findings come at a time when the United States and other Western countries have become increasingly opposed to welcoming refugees, as anti-migrant fears bolster favor for closed-border policies.
The report accounts for the number of people, mostly civilians, displaced in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya and Syria, where fighting has been the most significant, and says the figure is a conservative estimate — the real number may range from 48 million to 59 million. The calculation does not include the millions of other people who have been displaced in countries with smaller U.S. counterterrorism operations, according to the report, including those in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and Niger.
…
Mr. Caldwell now finds Emmanuel Todd’s riffing on the themes of Oswald Spengler, as a comfortable home, for the end point of his career as a Neo-Conservative? Or is Todd acting as a point of departure, for the coming War with Russia, China and others bid actors, like the Houthi?
Mr. Brooksseems to think/believe that his readership is gullible and or clueless?
…
In a magnificent 1949 essay on Churchill, Isaiah Berlin noticed that Churchill idealized his fellow Brits with such intensity that he lifted “a large number of inhabitants of the British Isles out of their normal selves and, by dramatizing their lives and making them seem to themselves and to each other clad in the fabulous garments appropriate to a great historic moment, transformed cowards into brave men, and so fulfilled the purpose of shining armor.”
…
Mr. Brooks ‘forgets’ that Berlin defamed Isaac Deutscher, and cost Deutscher an academic position.
The Hedgehog and the Hedgehog: Isaiah Berlin and Isaac Deutscher
By David Mikics August 10, 2013
Here is a descriptive paragraph of Caute’s argument about the Berlin, Deutscher controversy, that was once a secret of Academic Mendacity: as a way of viewing Berlin as ‘as elitist snob’ and seeing Deutscher as victim of Berlin’s abuse of the power of position, in Academic Life.
…
Caute paints Berlin as something of an elitist snob, in his words a “coddled bourgeois.” Surely Berlin reveled in the good life, but to imagine with Caute that this fact invalidates his arguments is rather silly. And on Berlin’s aesthetic preferences Caute falls down completely. Caute faults Berlin for spending too much time in his most famous work, The Hedgehog and the Fox, discussing Tolstoy and Virginia Woolf, with their upper-class milieux, rather than (this is Caute’s suggestion) Walter Greenwood’s “memorable Love on the Dole (1933),” which Berlin’s Soviet hosts were shocked he had not read when they asked him about it on a 1945 visit. Caute laments the fact that Berlin never referred to Gorky and sees class prejudice in this omission. But Berlin would surely argue that his favorites Tolstoy and Turgenev tell us far more about the reality of human life than Gorky or the justly forgotten Greenwood. Caute seems to yearn for the good old days of socialist realism, when the worth of a piece of fiction could easily be deduced from whether it sympathetically portrayed working-class life and showed the wealthy to be corrupt fiends. These are the standards of propaganda, not art, and they had a devastating effect on writers in the Soviet bloc. Berlin, whose 1945 meeting in Leningrad with Anna Akhmatova was, according to his biographer Michael Ignatieff, the most important event of his life, cared deeply about the writers persecuted by Stalin. Deutscher, by contrast, seemed indifferent to the fate of art under Communism.
…
On the question of Michael Ignatieff , his fawning interview with Berlin is hard to understand, or even follow. Yet Ignatieff’s fawning ‘interview’ with The Great Man, evokes embarrassment in the befuddled viewer.
The Reader confronts JD Vance ‘often vitriolic Trumpist’ whose ‘criticism is essentially correct.’ Trump is the Political Monster created by The New Democrats, The Republican and the Neo-Conservatives: Constanze Stelzenmüller is part of that Neo-Conservative cadre!
Two weeks ago, Republican US senator JD Vance told an audience at the Munich Security Conference that “the time has come for Europe to stand on its own feet”. In a follow-up article for this newspaper, he singled out Germany as “the most important economy in Europe, but it relies on imported energy and borrowed military strength”.
The senator is a combative, often vitriolic Trumpist, and one of the fiercest opponents of a US aid package that includes $60bn for Ukraine, which is currently held up in Congress. Not a few Republicans find him an easy man to dislike. But recent events in Europe suggest that his criticism is essentially correct.
The next paragraph expresses ? and scolds via ‘disarray and fecklessness’
Yes, the Europeans managed to approve a €50bn aid package for Ukraine last month, and as Germany’s leaders never tire of pointing out, they are Kyiv’s second biggest supporters after the US. Major European states have signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. But at a time of multiplying security challenges, the overwhelming message from Europe has been one of disarray and fecklessness. That is particularly true of Berlin.
Here is a source that might cause Stelzenmüller more distress ?
April 20 2021
Illusions of Autonomy: Why Europe Cannot Provide for Its Security If the United States Pulls Back
The Abstract give The Reader valuable information:
…
Europe’s security landscape has changed dramatically in the past decade amid Russia’s resurgence, mounting doubts about the long-term reliability of the U.S. security commitment, and Europe’s growing aspiration for strategic autonomy. This changed security landscape raises an important counterfactual question: Could Europeans develop an autonomous defense capacity if the United States withdrew completely from Europe? The answer to this question has major implications for a range of policy issues and for the ongoing U.S. grand strategy debate in light of the prominent argument by U.S. “restraint” scholars that Europe can easily defend itself. Addressing this question requires an examination of the historical evolution as well as the current and likely future state of European interests and defense capacity. It shows that any European effort to achieve strategic autonomy would be fundamentally hampered by two mutually reinforcing constraints: “strategic cacophony,” namely profound, continent-wide divergences across all domains of national defense policies—most notably, threat perceptions; and severe military capacity shortfalls that would be very costly and time-consuming to close. As a result, Europeans are highly unlikely to develop an autonomous defense capacity anytime soon, even if the United States were to fully withdraw from the continent.
…
Stelzenmüller experiences gloom:
Imagine if they all had signed a detailed pledge to defend Ukraine and Europe, and then stood on the stage together to say: “Russia: your aggression will not stand. We will do whatever it takes to stop you. America: We still need your help (and thank you!), but we hear you, and are racing to become much more self-sufficient.”
But that didn’t happen. Germany’s key partners, French President Emmanuel Macron and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, didn’t even come. And things have been going swiftly downhill since then.
The essay builds upon the mendacity of the actors in her melodrama, to this end point:
This is the brutal truth: the two key actors in continental Europe are bungling the strategic response to Europe’s greatest security threat in a generation, while Ukraine’s future is hanging by a thread.
France, its president’s acrobatics notwithstanding, at least has a powerful deterrent in its nuclear weapons. Germany’s government — despite its immense financial commitments and frenetic efforts to produce more weapons — appears to think that clinging to the US is a grand plan. Where it ought to have a Europe strategy, or a Russia strategy, there is a conceptual void. And the only thing it is deterring is itself.
To put is bluntly Constanze Stelzenmüller is a de-facto member of The American National Security State, as she directs the Center on the US and Europe at the Brookings Institution.
Newspaper Reader offer a excerpts from Anthony Julius ‘T. S. Eliot , Anti-Semitism and literary form’ as an alternative to Noah Feldman’s ‘Second Front’?
March 6, 2024
@NoahRFeldman has opened the ‘Second Front’ in the Gaza Genocide! In defence of The Zionist Fascist State, by manufacturing an ‘Anti-Semitism crisis’ within American life and its politics. From his position ‘Professor at @Harvard_Law and as a columnist for Bloomberg @opinion and his ‘essay’ in Time magazine .
…
The means Israel has used are subject to legitimate criticism for killing too many civilians as collateral damage. But Israel’s military campaign has been conducted pursuant to Israel’s interpretation of the international laws of war. There is no single, definitive international-law answer to the question of how much collateral damage renders a strike disproportionate to its concrete military objective. Israel’s approach resembles campaigns fought by the U.S. and its coalition partners in Iraq in Afghanistan, and by the international coalition in the battle against ISIS for control of Mosul. Even if the numbers of civilian deaths from the air seem to be higher, it is important to recognize that Israel is also confronting miles of tunnels intentionally connected to civilian facilities by Hamas.
To be clear: as a matter of human worth, a child who dies at the hands of a genocidal murderer is no different from one who dies as collateral damage in a lawful attack. The child is equally innocent, and the parents’ sorrow equally profound. As a matter of international law, however, the difference is decisive. During the Hamas attack, terrorists intentionally murdered children and raped women. Its charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Yet the accusation of genocide is being made against Israel.
The mythical ‘West’ is sinking in the mire of Zionist Apologetics for Genocide, while the political awakening of the Global South, China, and BRICS ,which offers an alternative that other fading mythology of the ‘Post-War Liberal Order’ , and its cognates. Reader note that ‘the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has created a Council of Councils (CoC).’ as an expression of meta, as the beyond point of what has come before!
Headline: The BRICS Summit 2023: Seeking an Alternate World Order?
Mission Statement
The defining foreign policy challenges of the twenty-first century are global in nature. To help direct high-level international attention and effective policy responses to these threats and opportunities, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has created a Council of Councils (CoC). The CoC is composed of twenty-seven major policy institutes from some of the world’s most influential countries. It is designed to facilitate candid, not-for-attribution dialogue and consensus-building among influential opinion leaders from both established and emerging nations, with the ultimate purpose of injecting the conclusions of its deliberations into high-level foreign policy circles within members countries.
Eliot’s Anti-Semitic poetry is both of a very high order and profoundly noxious. It is art speech and hate speech.
…
Page 331:
I propose instead an adversarial stance. One that maintains one’s relation to the work. , but argues with it. This notion of adversarial reading is, if anything, self-defensive. It is not prosecutorial. It is a reading that acknowledges the offense to the reader. It does not suppress that offense, or wish it away. But nor does it reject the work. Indifference to the offense given these poems is a false interpretation. They insult Jews ,I argue. To ignore these insults e poems is to misread the poems. And if one is addressed as a Jew, isn’t it reasonable to responds as one?
StephenKMackSD's Blog 