Israel and Palestine

I feel an obligation to comment on the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Never ending attacks and revenge attacks popping up again and again. The pattern is so repetitive that it would be boring if it did not involve so much suffering.

But there is not much to add to what I already have written in "The Middle East, Rome and the United States". It is a fight between the all dominant Western civilization and the Oriental civilization fighting for survival. Israel is viewed by many in the Middle East as a Western occupation force, a spearhead for a foreign civilization on holy Oriental or Moslem ground.

Just two short banal points:

1) Compassion and forgiveness instead of retribution and revenge do not only concern Christians.

Psalm 145 speaks thus about the Lord:

The Lord is gracious and compassionate,

slow to anger and rich in love.

Allah is always referred to as:

Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.

2) Like the situations in Iraq and Ukraine, the conflict between Palestine and Israel shows why democracy and total independence must bee reduced through increased control from above and abroad. The policies in Israel, Gaza, Iraq and Ukraine are intolerable. The conflicting parties are intransigeant and bringing about instability, violence and suffering in the regions. And also spreading terrorism all over the world.

Poroshenko, al-Maliki, Netanyahu and even Lieberman and Hamas were all chosen democratically. But their acts are too harmful to be tolerated without limits set from stronger foreign powers. Such limits should be set, and they will be set by the worlds dominant powers out of responsibility or just loss of patience. This concerns both dictatorial and democratic countries.

Since 1789 there have been numerous wars. What is new is that the world has become too civilized, also outside Europe, to accept too much cruelty. New is also that many conflicts spill over and hit globally in the form of terrorism.

The uniting of "the world" under one country (or two) is the natural end of the modernity in every civilization. It can be of the reasons above or the hunger for power or both.

USA and Germany

We have two new cases of the US spying one of its closest allies, Germany, whose loyalty is only limited by pacifist considerations which are understandable after WW2.

This together with the whole extent of the spying by the NSA  should be a wakening up call for the old continent. For years it has not seen that the world and its big players are not ruled only by reason, good will and humanity. And it has not been willing to see that this concerns not only former enemies like Russia with its actions in Ukraine, but also the friends in Washington.

It is not true as many believe in the USA, that Europe and Germany would spy on the Americans like these do on us, if the Europeans had the same means at their disposal. As described in " The European Sung Dynasty" Europe has a naive view of at least the Northern rich world as ruled by good will and reason. You can laugh at this, but it is not exclusively ridiculous. It is driven by decency. After horrible wars Europe has realized what the ideal for relations between nations should be in a perfect world. The problem is just that the world is not perfect. In the EU the ideal is being approached more and more. But outside forces act out of hunger for power.

Europe and especially Germany are decent. What is naive is only that they expect their close ally to be the same. This explains the level of disappointment in the German government. From Germany there certainly is no attempt to stir up transatlantic tensions, just disappointment. Of course German security agencies have activities which go beyond what the public knows. But spying the Americans at the level these do in Europe is out if the question. It would be viewed as indecent. We do not give the Nobel Peace Price to Obama and then start to tap his phone!

That the Americans do such things should be no surprise in the present competition for world hegemony. Furthermore it underlines the US contempt for Europe and belief in its own right to rule. That we do not act likewise, is not a question of lack of capability, but decency.

It would also be recommendable for the Americans to take the public opinion in Europe into consideration. If public opinion is not the only factor, it is still very important for those who want to win the world. If new cases of US disrespect continue to come into the awareness of the public in Europe, not even strong American presence in the media and the internet can make it be forgotten.

what is ISIS?

What is ISIS?

The group ISIS has suddenly become prominent in our awareness after the rapid advances in Iraq. What does this signify? What is ISIS? At least three answers arise when we look at it from the Viewpoint of civilizations with distinct characters developing in parallel but displaced in time, see my blog "Comparative history"

1) Like corresponding groups they are bands of terrorists and fanatics with no respect fur even innocent human life.

2) At the same time they are defenders of the Oriental civilization. As I have written in "The Middle East, Rome and the United States" and elsewhere the only surviving of the old civilizations or high cultures is the Oriental-Arab. The others have become part of the all dominant Western civilization. As the Boxers in China a century ago fought Western dominance, so do many groups in the Middle East today. Organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS are extreme versions of this phenomenon.

3) But paradoxically at the same time they are also heralds of Western type nations. As I have written earlier the originally intermingled Oriental nations are being transformed into Western type territorial nations, see "Ethnic cleansing in the Arab world". ISIS is a part of this trend. They want to create a Sunni nation in the Fertile Crescent. A nation with no room for other nations, be it Shia, Kurdish or Cristian. All these nations used to live between each other in small to very small enclaves in the countryside and in the cities. But this type of patchwork coexistence is no longer tolerated. The Westernized nations now want coherent ethnically clean territorial nations. That ISIS wants this is a sign that they are partly Westernized. ISIS is talking about making Karbala a battlefield. This clearly is an ominous sounding expression of a plan to clean this holy Shiite city through blood.

We can not have an extreme terrorist movement control large parts of Iraq (and Syria) as this would promote terrorism all over the region and the globe. That the Americans alone for this reason will have to intervene directly or indirectly is obvious. 

But something else is even more important. Groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS hitherto have been too extreme to gather much popular support. This could be changing. As said above ISIS is a part of the Westernization of the Oriental nations. Of course they are not alone in representing this trend. Other Sunnis and other groups in the Middle East have the same wish.

Because of the policies of the governments in Bagdad with their favoring of the Shiites and neglecting and suppressing the Sunnies, this last group now has an even stronger wish for their own coherent and independent territory. The same goes for the Sunnis in Syria oppressed by the Alawites.

But it would be a real disaster if ISIS become the main channel through which the Sunnis in Iraq and Syria try to achieve their territorial nation. Unfortunately a such development has become more likely exactly because of the al-Maliki governments policies. Already now we see all kinds of Sunnis fighting alongside with ISIS, even people from the Baath party. All these people could of course be thought with time to moderate the ISIS policies. But they could themselves become radicalized at the same time.

Of course the Shiites will act reciprocally. If not the government, then the militias. The country would become divided through wars and more ethnic cleansings. Perhaps with Iranian intervention.

Some kind of military action from the outside is needed to stop the fanatics. But at the same time the governments in Bagdad must be forced to make far more balanced policies uniting all Iraqis.

In conclusion heterogenous Middle Eastern countries which become unstable, cannot be left on their own. For the time being this concerns Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. At their present phase of history marked by the fight for survival of the Oriental civilization and the trend toward territorial nations with ethnic cleansings the destabilizing will cause that these trends easily become channelled through terrorist organizations. The anti-Western fight and the wish for nations are radicalized by and is also strengthening terrorism. Terrorism which spills over to hit globally. As this is intolerable so is even more the suffering for the people in the countries. Civil wars often result. And civil wars fought by terrorists are even worse than "normal" civil wars.

We have an obligation to intervene militarilly and politically before things spiral out of control. And this even more if intervention from the West like in Iraq is behind the destabilization. The intervention should not stop when the war is over or even a few years after this. An Iraqization or Afghanistanization  is not possible in the short or even medium term.

Unfortunately Western and especially US intervention and control risk triggering even more anti-Western sentiments. This underlines the need for very discrete and also extremely wise long term guidance from the outside. A policy not led by short term wishes to please voters at home and not changed by the changes of government in the USA. And certainly no more unlawful and destabilizing American invasions.

The great powers, the USA, China and Russia should forget the cold war rhetorics over the Ukraine and the Asian seas and cooperate and force through viable solutions for the Middle East. The best would be through a strengthened UN. 

Four models for Ukraine

Four models for Ukraine

It is getting increasingly annoying to watch the Ukrainian crisis. Its handling from the outside has from the start been marked by amateurism. And this continues today from all sides. Nobody seems to know what to do. Even though they do support different sides, it is not true that Obama, Merkel or Putin are plotting in deliberate ways to take over or invade Ukraine. All have talked themselves into positions difficult to escape and promised sanctions and actions which they dare not implement. All are in reality bewildered.


At least the following 4 models are logical:

1) Whole state Western dominance
Not viable. This is the present situation. It has been brought about partly by the one-sidedness of the EU. That it does not work is obvious: unrest, violence and separatism as seen in the votes n Eastern Ukraine. There is no doubt that Russia has contributed actively to the unrest. But it would be an error to think that without this factor everything would be fine, and the model would work. Too many Russian speakers would still resist. Even if some parts in the East split of, there will still be too many Russian-oriented people left in the country to be dominated. Continued unrest would follow.

2) Whole state Eastern dominance
As originally favored by Russia. It clearly did not work either. This is impossible now aswell. It would be the reverse of the present situation with the same result. The leaving of Crimea which has reduced the proportion of Russian speakers will also make this model less possible. The more areas separatists or Russia take away, the more Western dominated the rest of Ukraine will be.

So none of the above whole state solutions are viable. The two parts of the population are like two peoples. As said in earlier posts they come from different cultures or even civilizations. In a country with two distinct worlds one world can not just be subdued or assimilated.

What about the splitting of Ukraine into an Eastern and a Western state?

3) Two states
This may sound ideal as the two halves seem so incompatible. But where to put the border? The populations live so intermingled that there is no national border. This means that ethnic cleansings would be necessary. I will return to this below.

4) Balanced whole state
The aggreement from just before the pro-Western forces took over in Kiev, was of course the beginning of a such plan. The balanced state solution would have been difficult to implement, but it would have been the ideal if we had wanted to avoid the conflict and violence seen since then. A new version of this path is also the only way out of the present chaos. But this solution has not become easier under todays circumstances. The window for this solution is closing. Hatred is rising on both sides as we saw in Odessa. Both sides and their external supporters must deescalate militarily, verbally and symbolically.

Some examples of factors aggravating the antagonism:

- Julia Timosjenkos comments about killing Russian speakers were certainly not helpful and they were in an awful way carried out in the burning alive of separatists in Odessa.

- The Ukrainian goverments use of symbols from the Nazi-collaboration can only add to the fears in the East.

- Still calling this goverment fascists is absurd.

- And only seeing the Eastern separatists as terrorists is also absurd.

- The rebels shooting a city mayor in the back, torturing people and taking hostages can only increase hatred.

- The Kiev goverments use of paramilitaries and perhaps even American mercenaries works the same way.

- Russia should make no further incitements of unrest in Eastern Ukraine.

- Ukraine must stop or be forced to stop all military attacks in the East. These attacks can only aggravate the situation further.

- Both Russian and Western politicians and media ought to stop the cold war rhetoric which incites populations to black and white thinking as we saw in the embarrassing shouts against the innocent Russian girls singing in the Eurovision Song Contest.

Such factors make the balanced solution more and more difficult and should be stopped immediately. The actions carried out by Kiev also show that the planned presidential elections can NOT be regarded as a step toward the balanced whole state. Instead like the actions of the opponents they increase the antagonism. The solution with one whole balanced state must be worked out at once and quickly implemented.

If we do not act along these lines only the two states solution is left. If we let things reach this point, the World must aid with the separation to avoid variants of the uncontrolled post-Yugoslavian scenario. The present separatism in the East is the first step in an uncontrolled process. But also with an aided controlled separation scores of people may have to be moved. And the economic consequences would be enormous. Allready now the price in Dollars, Euro and Rubels for saving Ukraine is immense.


The cultural differences of course also work against the balanced whole state solution. Seeing a bearded woman winning the Eurovision Song Contest will not convince the people in Eastern Ukraine that they should join Western Europe! But the costs in human and economic terms resulting from a splitting up of Ukraine are too big. And right now the balanced whole state solution is still possible. Many Russian speakers still prefer a united Ukraine. That a united state should have large autonomy for the regions is obvious. This so much more because the country will contain people from two distinct cultures or we may say civilizations: The West and Russia.

I am convinced that the balanced whole state solution is the best for Ukraine. But it is also the best way to prevent the World from coming closer to a renewed Cold War with all its negative global consequences.

The people in Western and Eastern Ukraine can no longer be expected to reach reason on their own. A concerted action by the USA, the EU and Russia must FORCE them. The inner-Ukrainian talks planned by the OSCE are a step in the right direction. But the parties in Ukraine should not have the right to decide who of the opposite side are participating. All parties must participate.



To be more precise:
The elections planned this month are too early. The new inner-Ukrainian talks need much longer time than 10 days to reach a point where all parts of the country are ready and willing to participate in elections.

And as said. If everybody takes part in the talks, an agreement without pressure from the outside is unlikely.

The Ukrainian government denies the separatists access to the talks in Kiev. As could be expected.

Angela Merkel supports that the separatists can only participate if they renounce violence. It should be obvious that reconciliation talks without both parts can lead nowhere! And what is the difference between the separatists using weapons and the government using paramilitary groups?

Germany thus demonstrates a continuation of the naive one-sided EU-support for the pro-Western forces up to the revolution. This is a clear choice of the
Whole state Western dominance solution.

If this is the general attitude of the Western powers, and/or Russia continues its own opposite one-sidedness, civil war and ethnic cleansing are pre-programmed; we are on the way to the
Two states solution.


______________
Note
A fifth proposal letting Russia absorb the Eastern parts can be dismissed. It is not possible internationally. And Russia does not have the strength to stand against the int'l pressure if it wanted to ignore the World.

Prospects and time for compromise!

How can a new Cold War make such a big difference for the American prospects as said in the last post? Two reasons:

1) The mentioned possible Sino-Russian alliance, a true Eurasian union.

2) A new Cold War would imply or reintroduce a clear demarcation line between the blocks. Without this line, as was the case till now, the American influence has just ever increased unnoticed through IT dominance, the media in general and immense cultural radiation. Given a clear political borderline, this gradual infiltration will not go on unnoticed. This influx could therefore actively be limited in the part of the world dominated by the competing powers. Even though this limitation is difficult in an already globalized world, it may succeed to a certain extent, and at least there will be a more conscious awareness about the influx. Alternatives in IT and culture will be put up, in the cultural sphere perhaps inspired by Orthodox Christianity and Confucianism?

In conclusion the end fight will be much more confrontational and carried out in the open (but probably not in a directly military way) instead of being a gradual proces of infiltration.

BUT the scenario described in this comment as a possible result of the Crimea crisis, is an extreme one. In the globalized and interdependent world it is more likely that we will end somewhere between the present condition and the described extreme scenario.

Also no matter the possible gains in territory and global power for Russia, the price for the whole of the world including Russia in terms of economy and imternational cooperation is too high. Putin should refrain from officially annexing Crimea and indeed from going further. It would be completely irresponsible. It is time for compromises.

There is probably also a limit for Chinese support. After thousands of years with frequent insurrections, the very historically minded Chinese will not risk damaging the economic prospects through a new Cold War for fear of social unrest.

Be careful!!

Update on the Crimea analysis

Right now it would seem as if the hawks in America have taken command of the public, political and government opinion towards Russia.

This opinion is guided by a typical American combination of lack of updated knowledge of the world outside with the will to power and domination. People think as if the Cold War still was a fact. As if the USSR had not lost and Russia had not been humiliated by loosing large territories inhabited by Russian speakers.

 

A comparison between Russia and Putin with the USSR and its Communist leaders is out of proportion. And comparing Putin with Hitlerr is simply grotesque! Nazi Germany was acting aggressively as part of an unlimited expansion. Russia is acting defensively in reaction to the West in a political and cultural sense threatening to take over a directly neighboring country housing an important naval base. The situations would be more comparable if a weak and defensive Germany had occupied Heligoland, because the UK had aided the Frisian islands to independence after WW1 -Germany keeping its naval base on Heligoland - and then supported an anti-German revolution here. And certainly Putin is not a Nazi or even a Stalinist or a Communist!

Of Course the Americans are cheered by West European idealists and East European countries wanting revenge for Soviet dominance.

No matter what possible economic and energy delivery considerations lie behind, the cautious among the European attitudes is now to be applauded. 

If it is really the case that the official American policy and actions are now ruled by the right wing, then this could risk being a crucial turning point, perhaps the most important international development since the fall of the USSR, a turn to the far worse what concerns world relations.

It could herald the beginning of an era of high international tensions and conflict setting us decades back. Russia and China could become allied more closely in response to exaggerated Western or rather American pressure and arrogant belief in its right to rule the rest of the world. A new Cold War between the West and an alliance of Russia and China could follow. A fight between military and economic giants through proxy- and internet wars.

I have earlier stated that the USA is about to win the end fight in the Western civilization. But opposed to Russia and China in a united front, this is by no means obvious!

_________

Also for the here and now the consequences could be difficult to contain with the economic interdependencies in the globalized world. No one can afford sanctions and the resulting trade wars.

And what about the ISS?!

Everybody, also Putin should caution before we get so far. A de facto completely independent Crimea nominally staying within the Ukraine may be the best solution.

Crimea

Of course the EU and the USA should critisize Russia for its actions in Crimea. But except for some fools in Europe and some hawks in America this criticism should be ritual only. Fortunately sudden economic considerations with respect to trade with Russia force the fools to react cautiously! The major problem may be US republicans who still live in the Cold War. They react like the Europeans in strong condemnation of Putin, but do it because of power interests and not the idealism of the Europeans.

The fact is that the difference between the former Yugoslavia and the Ukraine is minimal. In both cases the same magnitude of heterogeneity. Both had or have the same internal political distance between pro-Western and anti-Western political forces. Like Yugoslavia the Ukraine has a similar mixture of ethnicities and religions: Catholics, quasi-Catholics, Ukrainian Orthodox,Russian Orthodox and Moslems. And what may be most important: In both countries there was or is a division line between two different cultures or civilizations. In Yugoslavia Oriental vs Western, in the Ukraine Russian vs Western.

In Yugoslavia NATO did not hessitate to assist the division along such lines. Of course the Ukrainians have not commited the same genocide and ethnic cleansing as the Serbs, but still the divisions in this country are strong enough to allow a splitting up.

The Western powers should let Russia aid Crimea to independence from the Ukraine. This peninsula has always been Russian and was only by accident given to the Ukraine in Soviet times. It has the only major Russian naval base to the South. What would the Americans do if a left-wing Ecotopia in the west broke away with all American naval bases along the Pacific coast?

Russia has already been pressed too much with the breakup of the USSR loosing large areas inhabited by Russians.

The West would be well advised not to press Russia further. Let it get Crimea. Pressed more there is a danger of a real new Cold War. A Russia with its back against the wall could become very strong in a desperate defensive resistance.

And Russia would be well advised to be satisfied with Crimea. Taking more would give uncontrollable international tensions and also reduce the proportion of Russian-speakers in the Ukraine and thus reduce the chance of Russia later getting more control over the rest of the Ukraine as the mood here changes for economic and cultural reasons.