A few comments on three political stories.
The destruction of the Assyrian culture has accelerated.
These Allah's savages replaced sledgehammers with bulldozers as they are liquidating an Assyrian jewel of a town, Nimrud. UNESCO talks about war crimes. Czech archaeologists are shocked and say that by its intensity, this destruction is unprecedented even though the very concept of "liquidation of other nations' cultures" isn't a new concept in the history of the mankind. However, one of them talked about a silver lining: Nimrud has lots of heritage beneath the ground and it is not within the abilities of the Islamist scum to liquidate most of it. I hope he is right.
Another story, the Iran-Israel tension and Bibi's speech.
A few days ago, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his 45-minute address to the U.S. Congress. I found the speech very convincing and impressive. He is a great speaker and his English is more authentic than the English of any continental European leader. His deep voice helps to solidify his credentials of a leader. But if was especially the content that seemed unassailable.
He spent some time by praising the U.S.-Israeli relationships that go beyond partisan politics – even though numerous Democrats were absent. He has praised Obama's help to Israel as well. We heard that it's composed of aid that is well-known, aid that is not well-known, and aid that has to remain classified. As far as I could see, none of the things that Netanyahu said could have been interpreted as a criticism of Obama in person.
However, he criticized the bad deal that the U.S. wants to sign with Iran. There were lots of references to the history, the Bible, and so on. Iran and ISIS are two equivalent competing branches of the radical Islam. They only differ in the opinion who will rule the great Islamist empire. The intrinsic differences between them are small, we heard. Iran calls itself the "Islamic Republic" while ISIS is the "Islamic State"; ISIS loves to post things to YouTube while Iran prefers Twitter. ;-)
OK, I have probably improved this joke by Netanyahu a little bit (the previous sentence was a variation of the joke that the difference between Stalin and Hitler is that Stalin had 5-year plans while Hitler had 4-year plans.). But he did refer to a November 2014 tweet by the Iranian mullah-in-chief, comrade Khamenei, with the detailed 9-point plan to "eliminate" Israel (TRF blog post). Well, I would keep on thinking that Iran still has much more stuff that is connected with an ordinary, decent functional "country" than the ISIS but yes, the analogies are intense, too.
The U.S.-Iran deal which is being prepared by Obama and which would end the sanctions etc. is bad because it allows Iran to destabilize the region and help terrorists across the world; allows Iran to keep its centrifuges that may create a bomb within a year or less, depending on estimates; this plan really isn't a plan to prevent Iran from getting the bomb but rather a pretty good schedule for Iran to follow if it wants to get the bomb; the deal is bad because in 10 years, Iran may do anything anyway and 10 years is a short time in the life of a nation (and even an individual).
The lawmakers greeted Netanyahu as a hero. On the other hand, Obama wasn't there and responded by these two minutes of unemotional talk. He wasn't attending because of some lame excuse related to Ukraine. He didn't even watch the full Netanyahu speech on YouTube as 200,000 of us did. He only saw the transcript and Obama says that the speech contained no alternatives to his deal.
Now, this is complete bullšit, Mr Obama. Netanyahu's speech was full of detailed entries that should have been in a better deal as well as explanations why Iran is going to feel the pressure to agree with the deal; and why if that won't happen, no deal is still better than the deal that is being prepared by Obama. I believe that those of us who have actually watched Netanyahu's speech will agree that Obama's comment that it had no alternative to Obama's prepared deal is a plain dirty lie.
The Israel-U.S. relationships seem full of contradictions these days. On one hand, we see these comments about the special tight and eternal relationships and love and the hero's welcome of the prime minister in the U.S. Congress. Obama pays lip service to this relationship – although very calmly – too. On the other hand, Obama doesn't even watch this important speech by the most important leader of this hypothetical #1 ally – not even its recorded videos. And he dismisses it with four words or so, "there is no alternative".
I don't know what "classified help" Obama has provided to Israel and whether these comments are true at all, or just a trick for Netanyahu to make the relationships look healthier than they are. But the relationships don't look healthy to me at all. It seems clear to me that Obama is much more willing to have great relationships with the leaders of Iran than with the leaders of Israel.
Thankfully, the guy in the Nobel prize committee who was most responsible for the painful Nobel prizes for Obama and for the EU (but no longer for the Pachauri+Gore prize...) has been at least demoted – the first such demotion in the Nobel prize history.
Greek blackmail involving Islamists
Nikolaos Kotzias, the current foreign minister of Greece (independent, former communist, nominated by Syriza) has revealed a new "ace". I believe that it is the same "ace" that Tsipras claimed to have possessed that will force others to pour hundreds of new billions of euros to the country in between Europe and the Middle East.
We learned that if the ransom isn't paid to the Greek Marxist scum and Greece finds itself unable to perform certain functions, Greece will flood Europe with "thousands of jihadists and millions of Islamist immigrants" (the Czech media are full of this story).
That's a cute and friendly blackmail – as far as I can say, the communist aßhole should be assassinated immediately just for suggesting something like that – but it doesn't work in this way. The borders between Greece and the EU are opened because Greece is a functional member. It's Greece's responsibility – and we officially believe that it's in Greece's interests – to protect its own border which is the current EU border from "thousands of jihadists and millions of Islamic immigrants".
Of course that if and when Greece fails to play the role, the effective border will move closer to Berlin, so to say. The transition of the people between Greece and the EU will no longer be free. If Greece became a full-fledged failed state, I think that even the most Eurofanatical people in Brussels would understand that such Greece must be immediately removed from the Schengen zone.
After all, this "linkage of Greeks to the Islamists" has a moral dimension, too. If Greece were really using Islamists as a weapon, we should treat Greece as a bunch of allies of the Islamists. They would deserve a similar kind of a treatment, perhaps one including bombardment of the Greek territory. At any rate, it's amazing how deeply the cradle of the Western civilization has dropped thanks to the four decades of economic and moral devastation by the left-wing governments.
Thousands of years ago, the Greek heroes would defeat the Persians and similar stuff. Our beloved history teacher at the basic school would describe the beginning of the Greco-Persian wars as follows: "There are so many of us," the Persians would say, "that we are able to shield the solar radiation." – "That is great," the Greek heroes responded, "because we love to fight in the shadow!"
And what do we get now? A bunch of losers who can neither produce anything nor fight and who are blackmailing Europe with their Islamist friends. It's pathetic, Greece.
I must say that it's so pathetic partly because Europe doesn't view itself as one empire. Its citizens don't really want to protect such an empire and its size. We don't really think about the world's territory as being sharply divided to the "territory inside the EU" and the "territory outside the EU". Whether someone is "like us" is a continuous function that is decreasing somewhere along the "fuzzy borders". For example, my identity is primarily 1) Czech, then 2) Pilsner, then 3) Slavic, then 4) Central European, 5) Western European, 6) Eastern European (post-socialist European), 7) former Czech American, and only much lower in this list, you will find things like the "EU citizen". ;-)
If Greece were Texas and it would blackmail the politicians in the D.C. by claiming that it can make the U.S. smaller and weaker and flood the smaller U.S. with Mexican illegals, perhaps that would be a sufficient reason to flood Greece/Texas with hundreds of billions of euros/dollars. The Americans think about themselves as if they are primarily Americans. But the Europeans don't. Europe is primarily a geographical (in some sense, I want to say "geological") entity without immediate human emotions and the European Union is just an artificial heterogeneous construct. Everyone in Central Europe knows that the people in Greece (and elsewhere) are "different" in many respects.
Greece has been an EU member while Turkey has not but we realize that the difference between those two is comparable to, and perhaps smaller than, the Greek-German difference, for example. So by moving the borders of the EU or the Eurozone or the Schengen zone etc. closer to Berlin, we're not really "losing anything". We are just drawing some boundaries that discretely approximate the existing continuous differences between nations and territories. After all, the EU, the Eurozone, and the Schengen zone have grown their territory many times in the recent decades (and Czechia+Slovakia are "relatively recent" additions – or, more precisely, returned kids – to the family of European nations). So why could't we see a change in the opposite direction, at least once?
And do we care whether the "total territory controlled by the Western civilization" shrinks? I do care but I am not sure whether Greece as we knew it in recent decades – and especially the Greece represented by Syriza today – should be counted as a part of the Western civilization. I don't have a clear opinion on whether this communist mess is better or worse than what we see in some countries with lots of Islam. It's probably worse than what they have in some moderate Islamic nations: a moderate Muslim who understands that he must only spend what he earns is probably better than a Greek communist parasite.
And if Greece got filled with lots of Islamists, would it be a threat for other European nations?
First of all, I don't believe that the Greeks would really easily accept the occupation of their country by lots of Islamists etc.; and I don't believe that NATO would allow its member Greece to be turned into an Islamic stronghold. But even if that happened (and perhaps even if Greece left NATO – and I don't think this is even considered because NATO is independent of the EU and financial issues), there would still be lots of room for the European nations to defend themselves against this time bomb waiting in Greece. After all, I would say that the European nations are largely failing to fight against the radical Islam and especially against excessive Islamic immigration even on the "EU proper" territory. Of course that if people agreed that there's a visible threat coming from Greece, more anti-immigration parties would gradually take over the political systems (or the existing ones would move to the "right") and a more assertive fight against this threat could begin.
It isn't even easy for Greece to "acquire" the millions of Islamic immigrants (that Mr Kotzias would need to actually make his point) – Greece doesn't have any land-based border with the Muslim world – which is why the attempt to mix Greece's financial problems with its hypothetical geopolitical importance is silly.
So Comrade Kotzias, you are just a pathetic clown. You are still wasting tons of money for ludicrous things that the Syriza program is composed of. But if you're forced to live for your own money, you will suddenly see what is important and what is not. People will care about their own survival and the nation as a whole will care about its being completely overtaken or not overtaken by someone else. You will suddenly see that the fourteenth salaries for redundant government employees or the ban on privatization, not to mention hundreds of other sick communist policies, won't be too important. You will see that there's still a lot of room that is compatible with the survival. Greece has to go through this experience. There is no other way for it to be cured.
A few comments on three political stories.