Showing posts with label West. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West. Show all posts

Friday, June 25, 2010

STAND FOR ISRAEL,  STAND FOR THE WEST




































Versão em português


Support Israel: if it goes down, we all go down
José María Aznar

Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West’s best ally in a turbulent region

For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion.

In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organized a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.

Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.

Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbors using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathizers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.

Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.

For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.

The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.





















Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down.

To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.

The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies blinds us even when we are confronted by jihads promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.

It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defense of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.


José María Alfredo Aznar López, born in Madrid-Spain in February 25, 1953, Bachelor of Laws at the Complutense University of Madrid is one of the most important politicians "conservative" in Spain; he was the fourth President of Government of Spain, post-democratization, which began with the promulgation of the 1978 Constitution. Aznar served two consecutive mandates, between May 5, 1996 and April 17, 2004, by the Popular Party (PP). Currently is president of the Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies (FAES), which is known as "the ideas laboratory of the PP", which was planned to be a "think tank" of that party. Aznar, is also a member of the board of directors of News Corporation, Distinguished Scholar in the Practice of Global Leadership at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, besides promoting seminars on contemporary European politics and trans-Atlantic relationships in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. For more information about the author, visit your personal webpage: "José María Aznar". E-mail: info@jmaznar.es



Published in the newspaper "The Times" – (Columnists – Opinion).
Thursday, June 17, 2010.






A dança de Lula com os déspotas – Mary O'Grady







Friday, December 19, 2008

The Islam is determined to destroy the West!
We will let this happen?














































Versão em português


The Meaning of Mumbai
by Thomas Sowell

Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantanamo?

Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.

Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.

Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event-- the World Series, Christmas, New Year's, the Super Bowl-- was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.

They didn't strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn't want to hit America again?

Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?

Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.

A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: "This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us."

There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.

Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.

The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender-- and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.

How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?






































Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.

Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.

There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want-- what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways-- is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.

Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.

This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue-- and a warning.

The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.

They want our soul – and if they are willing to die and we are not – they will get it.






























Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina still young he joined the Marine Corps (U.S. Navy), where he became photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service in the Marines, Sowell came to Harvard University, graduated in economics, he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago. Thomas Sowell also taught economics at the following institutions: Cornell University, Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California, also published several books and numerous articles and essays. Sowell began his career as a columnist for newspapers in the late 70, came to win the prize "Francis Boyer" in The American Enterprise Institute in 1990. Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif. and maintains a column in the prestigious site "Townhall.com"


Published in "Townhall.com".
Tuesday, December 09, 2008




Previous post published in English: The Monster at the Bottom of the Abyss – J. R. Nyquist





Thursday, November 20, 2008

The History being repeated as farce, and certainly with the same
ruinous end for humanity.

Figure: Cartoon by David Low, published by English tabloid "Evening Standard" on 22 December 1939.































Versão em português


The Monster at the Bottom of the Abyss
by J. R. Nyquist

In an October 6 article titled "The German Question", STRATFOR's George Friedman poured a pitcher of cold logic on America's plan for NATO's future. It appears that Germany is determined to block NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. The long-term implications of this decision are stunning. "Since NATO operates on the basis of consensus," wrote Friedman, "any member nation can effectively block any candidate from NATO membership." The Russian invasion of Georgia has forced Germany into this position. The conflict in Georgia has forced the Germans to clarify their geopolitical thinking. What we see now, quite clearly, is Germany turning away from NATO. They can call it whatever they like. They are thinking as Germans. Russia's thrust into Georgia was a masterstroke because it successfully redirected Germany's political sensibility from a NATO-centered view to a German-centered view. In Europe there is one question that stands above all others, and the Germans must give the answer. Either Europe will confront Russia in a new Cold War, or Europe will become Russia's partner. According to Friedman's logic, Germany has already decided on partnership with Russia.

Imagine a partnership between Russia and Germany. The Russians supply the military muscle, the natural resources, and cheap labor. The Germans supply the technology, the money, and European finesse. Friedman says that Germany's energy situation is "desperate," and that German leaders are merely looking after their country's national interest. It is important to remember, however, that Germany sees a carrot as well as a stick. The German leaders are not merely avoiding pain. They are tempted by a Russian partnership, especially as global financial structures are imploding. As Friedman points out, Germany's "political problem" is its geographical position in the center of Europe. Does Germany face east or west? Does Germany align itself with Russia or the Anglo-Americans and the French?

But surely the German's understand that their destiny lies with the West! Such a conclusion, however, may be sensible to someone viewing affairs from a distance. It is not immediately sensible to the German leadership, tempted as they are by the prospect of a vital "reforming" role in Europe. The European Union is not functioning properly and the Euro may be headed for the ashcan of history. The NATO system, dominated so long by America, is increasingly inconvenient from the German point of view. It may, in fact, be a harebrained scheme to partner with the Kremlin – which prefers Asiatic methods. But such a partnership appeals to German vanity as well as to Germany's practical sense. The Russians value the Germans. The Russians whisper sweet nothings into Germany's ear. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is a fluent German speaker who even possesses German traits, sympathizes with German thinking, and thereby flatters German feeling. It is a complex case of seduction.

How do the Germans feel, deep down, about Russia's intentions toward Georgia and Ukraine? The Germans are ready to think in terms of their own national interest. They are tempted to disregard NATO. Perhaps they are sick of being NATO's prisoner. After all, Germany was defeated in World War II and became trapped in the Cold War between Russia and America. This is not a situation that bears repeating. Conflict between Russia and NATO is not in Germany's national interest. Friendship with Russia holds promise – even if the promise is a false one.

France and Britain are willing to challenge Russia's new aggressive stance. Germany doesn't want this at all. The United States seeks to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Germany doesn't want this at all. There is a serious rift in NATO. Will the Germans find a way out of NATO? Conventional wisdom supposes that this is unthinkable. Everyone knows Russia is dangerous. Partnering with Russia is like playing with fire. Sooner or later Germany is going to get burned. At the same time, however, recent events in Georgia have educated the Germans. Suddenly Germany is confronted with an unpleasant choice.

"NATO," noted Friedman, "as an institution built to resist the Russians, is in an advanced state of decay. To resurrect it, the Germans would have to pay a steep economic price." Quite clearly, the Germans have already decided to abandon NATO's mission in pursuit of their own short-term economic interest. Where this will lead in the long-run is obvious. One day Russia and Germany will come to blows, and America isn't going to be around to help Germany. Perhaps the financial crash on Wall Street has underscored the future irrelevance of America for Germany. America is collapsing, after all.

NATO is therefore in trouble. It may not exist much longer. The Russian's are shrewd in playing their diplomatic, economic and military cards. Luring the German's into partnership opens the way to NATO's destruction by diplomatic means. "NATO has no real military power to project to the east," wrote Friedman, "and none can be created without a major German effort, which is not forthcoming." The logic of Friedman's analysis cannot be disputed. The Kremlin looks at the collapse on Wall Street and sees an opportunity. During an October 2 joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said, "One of the complicated issues we discussed was the financial crisis. We have realized once again that the current global financial security system, like the international security system, doesn't satisfy present needs. The flaws in the economic … model pursued by the United States of America … are serious, and we are paying for this today." In a speech before the Russian-German Public Forum, the Russian president translated today's financial crisis into geopolitical language. "What have recent events shown?" he asked. "They have demonstrated that the time in which one economy and one currency dominated the globe is irretrievably gone. And we need collective solutions to resolve the financial crisis brought on by financial selfishness…." In other words, let the Americans suffer their fate. Europe is face-to-face with Russia now. Does Europe want to oppose Russia on its own? The Russians are forcing Germany to make a decision. "It is possible that today some people would like to go back to the primitive division of the world into ours and theirs, right and wrong, but in Russia we are convinced that this time is irretrievably gone. It is impossible to revive the Berlin Wall, just as it is impossible to return to the Cold War – there is no reason to do so."

President Medvedev is winking at the Germans. You know what to do, he says to them. You don't want to fight us. You need us. The wickedness of the KGB cabal in Moscow is not the issue. One must look "beyond good and evil," to the hard realities of the situation. Does Germany want to feel the chill of winter, without the benefits of Russian oil or Russian natural gas? This is not a sensible position, and Germany knows which way to turn. NATO is finished and America is going to collapse. Therefore Europe needs a new "security architecture." In other words, Europe now belongs to Russia and the Germans should cut a deal while the Russians are in a generous mood. If the French Prime Minister says that the world stands on the "edge of the abyss," the monster at the bottom of the abyss is Russia.


Jeffrey R. Nyquist, is a columnist, editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations. Jeffery Nyquist is trained in political sociology at the University of California, is also the author of "Origins of the Fourth World War". He has contributed articles to web sites such as sierratimes.com, worldnetdaily.com, financialsense.com, and newsmax.com. Nyquist advocates the view that the fall of the Soviet Union was a deception designed to encourage the West to disarm, and that the Communists are still in control to this day. This view was first written about in a book by the Soviet defector, Anatoly Golitsyn, in his book "New Lies For Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation". J.R. Nyquist also keeps the site: "JRNyquist.com".



Published in "FINANCIAL SENSE".
Friday, October 10, 2008.




Perdão seletivo – Vannuchi e Genro acham que a anistia ampla e irrestrita não vale para inimigos – Augusto Nunes




 
Copyright © 2004-2019 Bootlead