Guest Article: Where Syria May Be Going

By

Karsten Riise*

The situation around Russia in Syria is up for debate. No doubt, Russia would like to lead a reconstruction effort in Syria, in harmony with all relevant partners, including the UN, the EU, the USA, China, India, Turkey, Iran, Israel, the Sunni Arab states including the Golf Council Countries (GCC-states), Egypt and Morocco. However, many of the parties on the list of wished-for partners are strongly hostile to each other, and it might therefore perhaps not be possible for Russia to make all these ends come together, or to cut through the proverbial “Gordian Knot”. If Russia cannot create a reconstruction for all of Syria, which is what Russia wants most of all, then Russia will have to think about a “second option” for Russia’s future presence in Syria.

What might be a “second option” for Russia in Syria?

It would not make sense at any rate for Russia to leave Syria completely. After all, Russia has spent a lot of blood and treasure to achieve the stabilization now achieved, it does not want a resurgence of Sunni extremism by groups like ISIS and similar, and it has strategic interests in Syria, including an air base and a naval base.

However, as a “second option”, if the preferred cooperation for reconstruction of all of Syria should not be achievable, would be for Russia to concentrate and reduce her presence to a part of Syria. Russia can entrench itself in north-west Syria, creating its own zone of exclusive Russian military control and administration together with Syrian forces which are sympathetic to Russia as well as to Syria’s current government. Such a “Russian” zone could consist of a square of Syria consisting of Latakia, Tartus, Homs, and Ma’arat-Al-Numan.

The area mentioned above is already mainly controlled by Russia (incl. Russia-friendly units). Good. The area contains the air and naval bases pivotal for Russian military power. Good. The area will enable Russia to keep naval and air supplies possible from outside. Good. The area is strategically located to enable Russia to reenter all other parts of Syria, north, east and south. Good. The region mentioned contains a great deal of Syria’s population, including many of the Alawites, of which a large part support the existing Syrian government under President Bashar Al-Assad. Russia can thus expect to achieve social stability, without having to allocate a lot of military resources to constantly handle large-scale hostile actions inside this zone. The area holds a great part of Syria’s economic and reconstruction-potential. Good. The ports are open for imports of food, medicine, and raw materials—and being the only ports of Syria, they even control import-export of goods to the rest of Syria. Excellent. The ports will facilitate a reconstructed economy in this area. Great.

Russia might create success here, and control this part of Syria more or less indefinitely. In time, because the area is limited, and the preconditions are favorable, Russia could lead a rather successful reconstruction of this part of north-western Syria. Even tourism on the coast might be redeveloped over time, because there is an airport for travel, and stability can be maintained.

Russia can even prepare the possibility for a “second seat” for the official government for Syria, to be used, in case continuation of official governing from Damascus should become physically impossible. In other words: Russia can if need be, offer Syria’s government a place to move to and continue the statehood of the UN-recognized sovereign government, if Damascus should fall into the hands of others. For this purpose, Russia could supply a small élite unit for the official protection (and if need may be, evacuation) of Syria’s government in Damascus, but otherwise, Russia would stay out of Damascus.

In neighboring Idlib, Russia will in time (now or later, as may be) act in a yet unspecified, but flexible and highly decisive manner as need be – in accordance with the developing situation . If opportune for Russian interests, with friendly forces after a clearing of the area Russia might establish control over some of Idlib, but not necessarily. Russia would stay then out of all the Syrian border-zone to Turkey and also stay out of Kurdish areas. In northern and eastern Syria Arabs, Kurds, and Turkey might then “negotiate” their own balance (maybe fighting bitterly).

If ISIS should rise anywhere in Syria again, Russia would offer the supply of air power to any party fighting ISIS—be as it may, Kurds, west-supported rebels, Iran, whomever – but nothing more than air power.

Bottom line would be, that the whole area south of Homs (including Damascus) all the way down to Golan, with such a Russian strategy, would be “free-for-all”. Between Golan and up to the south of Homs, Iran and Israel might then fight each other if they want to—as much as they please—and for as long as they please—without Russia interfering.

What might the consequences of such a Russian strategy be for different parties?

Russia probably can live with all this—not happily, but well enough, at least as long as ISIS does not reemerge.

Syria may be reconstructed in the north-west in the area under Russian influence, the Kurds will probably survive in a clamped position—but the rest of Syria, including the large population areas south of Damascus, may continue in some kind of chaos.

Turkey might also live with all this. The US might be okay or not too happy, but will not reenter Syria in forceful numbers when they are mostly gone—that is relatively certain (though nothing is of course ever certain in politics). The EU would definitely be very unhappy with such a situation because, with continuing hostilities in Syria, millions of Syrian refugees in Europe could not be sent back to Syria. But the EU would not be asked—the EU would just have to send more élite soldiers, if ISIS should reemerge. Lebanon would also not be asked.

Iran might be somewhat divided. Circles around the President and Foreign Minister of Iran might not be too pleased with such a situation. But it is imaginable, other important circles in Iran may even welcome and know to militarily fully exploit such an arrangement.

But Israel?
All the cost will lowest priced tadalafil obviously included in the combination. Going for levitra prescription these treatments very late can definitely prove hazardous. It all depends on discount viagra levitra the cause of the disease and how it poses as a challenge to male machismo. Therefore, it is one of the effective herbal remedies to treat erectile dysfunction, never delay to enjoy the benefit of female viagra canada as we have the branded levitra.
Potentially, such a situation can become absolutely devastating to Israel.

Iran and Hamas can use the area from Damascus and south to Golan for sending missiles into Israel from a big number of mobile and hard-to-hit positions. Iran can continue doing this again-and-again for years—indefinitely. Israel can hardly stop that, unless it controls and holds all of Syria all the way up to and including the great city of Damascus. However, if Israel invades to “clear-up” or even hold the area, Iran and Hamas have a fantastic strategic option simply to withdraw their forces further north, stretching the Israeli forces thin. This is what Hamas did several times in Lebanon.

So what would Hamas and Iran than have to do, to win?

The first thing needed for Hamas and Iran to win against Israel in southern Syria would be to not “hold ground”. When their enemy, the Israelis, advances, they fall back; when their enemy retreats, they advance. Their geography works to their advantage in that they will have plenty of strategic depth to fall back on.

The second thing needed for them to win is to protract the war indefinitely. “Losing” every battle, but winning the war. Both Mao and later Vietnamese general Võ Nguyên Giáp (two of the greatest military strategists and battle-leaders in history) very clearly stated this, and they both proved that it leads to victory.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would then have to fall back to positions closer down to Golan sooner or later—and Iranian forces and Hamas will then simply follow after the IDF down southwards, continuing to harass and attack the IDF and send more missiles into Israel. Hamas knows how to fight the IDF. Hamas are the only fighters who have ever defeated the IDF, and they have done so rather thoroughly with fewer means then they have now, backed by Iran. Very probably, Hamas and Iran will be able long-term to manage the situation and over years bleed-out the IDF here.

Hamas and Iranian soldiers with similar skills like Hamas. No air force needed for Hamas and the Iranian units, they’ll take the pounding from above, but will not be defeated on the ground. They need short and mid-range missiles to fight Israel, and they have plenty of those. Would that be possible? Yes. Though nothing is sure in war, it could very likely be possible.

Hamas has no air force but was successful in Lebanon. Hamas once even stalled an Israeli attack with top-modern Merkava tanks already at a short distance into Lebanon. Taliban also has no air force, but still is again (after fighting the Soviets, and now the US for another 16 years) successful. North Vietnam had little air defense against the USA—and Viet Cong had none. The Vietnamese won not only against the US but also without air force against France before that. The Algerians kicked France out—they also had no air force. So yes, even without air power, such a strategy, as I describe here, could actually be winning for Hamas and Iran against Israel in southern Syria.

What could Israel do to counter this?

Israel could then try 2–3 things, which they tried in southern Lebanon, but which eventually never gave Israel any peace or victory which they can live on.

Firstly, Israel could try to recruit, organize and supply friendly Syrians (a “free” Syrian force) to make them put up a buffer zone, a statelet or “free Syrian territory” by whatever name, they can come up with. From this area, the Israelis could use “free Syrians” as their own proxy-forces against Hamas and Iran. This strategy (even after criminal atrocities in Shabra and Shatila) eventually didn’t work for Israel in southern Lebanon—and it won’t work for Israel in a southern Syria either.

Secondly, Israel could, for instance, try to bomb Damascus flat, in order to put pressure on the opposing forces. This, Israel did in Beirut, bombing large residential areas flat. It worked to some limited degree in Lebanon because Lebanon has a number of different factions who were impacted. But a similar strategy won’t work by bombing Damascus, because neither Hamas nor Iranian forces have families resident there—on the contrary, an Israeli large-scale bombing of residential areas in Damascus will only increase great hostility against Israel, creating even more enemies fighting against them.

Thirdly, Israel could assist Sunni circles to recreate ISIS-like fighting groups inside Syria, to weaken the Shia Iranians inside their strategic hinterland inside Syria. However, facilitating a reemerging ISIS in Syria would create a terrorism problem in the EU, Turkey, Russia in other places—and if discovered, would severely degrade international diplomatic support for Israel.

Looking at all the options, it remains hard to see, how Israel can ever win or even manage such a scenario. Not only will the military situation be difficult for Israel—the diplomatic situation would become very difficult for Israel too, especially in relations to the EU. Because the EU wants peace and stability, and wants to return millions of Syrians back to Syria—and the ongoing war in southern Syria would make that impossible.

 

* Karsten Riise is Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from University of Copenhagen. Former senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden with a responsibility of US Dollars 1 billion. At time of appointment, the youngest and the first non-German in that top-position within Mercedes-Benz’ worldwide sales organization. This article has been previously posted on RIAC.

I Hear Them Both Laugh

On and off for over a year now, our home on the outskirts of Jerusalem has been subject to extensive reconstruction. The kind that always leaves behind a little something that has not yet been completed and needs to be done.

The contractor, a blue-eyed, pure-bred Israeli, seems to have been involved in some pretty interesting stuff during his military service. One guy, a blond giant, came from the former Rhodesia. Another, a Greek, is here because he fell in love with an Israeli girl and wants to be converted so he can gain citizenship. An IT engineer by profession, he is doing this job until his papers come through. His name is Adonis. However, since “Adoni” in Hebrew means “Sir,” everyone calls him that.

The fourth member of the crew is a Palestinian Arab, let’s call him Ahmed. How often did all of us not share a simple lunch made up of Pita bread, humus, fried chips, an “Arab” vegetable salad, and a Coke! Here it is about Ahmed I want to write.

Ahmed is a big, white-bearded, very dignified, man perhaps fifty years of age. He always wears a white galabia and regularly says his prayers. By and by we learnt that he has five daughters, all of them married, and two young sons. He himself, he says, liked studying and used to be a good student; however his father pulled him out of school so he could help put bread on the family table. That is how he became a laborer, a fact he rather regrets. Unfortunately his teenage sons are more interested in living it up than in studying. They dress in fashionable shirts and jeans and go about with elaborate hairdos. However, he is confronting them and hopes that they will end up by attending a university, find good jobs, and won’t have to work as hard as he does.

The other day I happened to overhear a conversation he had with Dvora, my wife. Perhaps I should add that Dvora is the type who can make even a stone talk. A great gift, that.

Ahmed: I really do not understand why those people in Gaza are launching their rockets at Israel.

Dvora: I think it is because they have difficulty controlling their own population. They want to draw attention away from their own failures.
Actions of the tablets- The tablets work the same way of cialis sample and helped users to switch the medicine, if they have budget issues. These elements, when work cialis generic canada in a group, provide group functioning of the organ. It nourishes cheap levitra your brain and offers effective cure for male sexual dysfunction is called ‘Vajikarma Aushadhis’. While it is not realistic to ignore problems, it can be just as unrealistic (and much more harmful) to dwell on problems, to djpaulkom.tv order cheap viagra focus on defeat and failure, or to expect unpleasant things to happen.
Ahmed: I agree with you there. I think Netanyahu is a good prime minister and a good man. Look at how much Qatari money he got for Gaza! Yet they still go on shooting. It is all because of those bloody Iranians. They keep stirring the pot.

Dvora: I agree that Netanyahu is bright and even that he is a good prime minister. But not that he is a good man. His real problem is that he does not want a Palestinian State.

Ahmed: Me neither! Why? Because our leaders, unlike yours, steal whatever they can lay their hands on in order to feed their clans. And not just here in Palestine. That is how it works throughout the Arab world. That is why they always stay poor and exploited. Working for you, I feel respected. Back at home I have to pay baksheesh [a bribe]. Or else nothing happens. With you Jews things are different. Look at Netanyahu who has been buying himself cigars at the state’s expense and is now being put on trial. We Arabs do not have such laws.

Dvora: Before I was able to start rebuilding this house in which you have been working I had to obtain a zillion permits. One from the Department of Antiquities which had to confirm that the job would not disturb any archaeological remains. Next, the Israel Land Administration had to give its blessing. And the Firefighting Authority. And any number of other organizations. And our neighbors. And the engineer and the architect and safety expert I was obliged to hire. About the only people whose consent I did not need were the rabbis! All this, simply to add an elevator that would enable me, an elderly woman who has some difficulty walking, to reach each of our three floors (the cellar included) as well as the street. Never mind that the company that built and installed the elevator already has all the necessary permits to go on with the job. Regulations must be obeyed. Just getting everyone to sign took me eighteen months. To say nothing of the sum I had to pay, which might well be larger than your bribe. This is just the way a modern state operates. Everyone controls and supervises everyone else. Cover your ass, is what we call it.

Ahmed: Really? You don’t say! With us, as soon as you have paid your baksheesh you can start building. No one cares.

I hear them both laugh.

The Strange Case of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles, the hundredth anniversary of which will be remembered in June of this year, has attracted more than its share of historical debate. What has not been said and written about it? That it did not go far enough, given that Germany lost only a relatively small part of its territory and population and was allowed to continue to exist as a unified state under a single government (French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau). That it went much too far, thus helping lay the foundations of World War II. That it imposed a “Carthaginian Peace” (the British economist John Maynard Keynes in his 1919 best-seller, The Economic Consequences of the Peace). That it was “made in order to bring twenty million Germans to their deaths, and to ruin the German nation” (according to a speech delivered in Munich on 13 April 1923 by a thirty-four year old demagogue named Adolf Hitler). All these views, and quite some others, started being thrown about almost as soon as the ink on the Treaty had dried. In one way or another, all of them are still being discussed in the literature right down to the present day.

But what was there about the Treaty that was so special? Was it really as original, as unique, as has so often been maintained? Was the brouhaha it gave rise to justified? By way of obtaining an answer to this seldom-asked question, consider the following.

*

First, the transfer of territory. Throughout human history, control over territory and the population it contained has been one of the most important issues, often the most important issue, over which first tribes, then kingdoms, and finally states went to war against each other. Furthermore, right down to modern times war itself was seen as a normal method whereby rulers either gained territory or were forced to give it up. When the Allies, in 1918, deprived Germany of its colonies; when they detached Alsace Lorraine and gave them back to France; when they took away much of West Prussia and handed it to Poland; when they did the same in Silesia; when, having held a plebiscite, they gave northern Schleswig to Denmark; when they took away the Saar for a period of fifteen years; and when they gave Memel to Lithuania—in all these cases, they were doing little more than what rulers had always done. And as the Germans themselves had done, on a vastly larger scale, by the Diktat that was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk they forced on the Bolsheviks just fifteen months earlier. The one that made General Max Hoffmann, Ludendorff’s deputy, say that the only question regarding the Russians was which sauce they would be eaten with.

Second, disarmament. Some of the best-known articles in the Treaty sought to limit Germany’s armed forces. Conscription, which was introduced at the time of the French Revolution and had since become the preferred way by which most of the world’s armed forces obtained the cannon fodder they needed, was abolished. The army, which at peak had numbered about five million men (no women, incidentally, to share in the joys of the trenches) was limited to just 100,000 organized into seven light infantry divisions. Heavy warships, submarines, military aircraft, tanks, heavy artillery and gas were all prohibited; existing stocks were handed over or dismantled, and fairly successful attempts to prevent them from being rebuilt undertaken. The General Staff, which starting in the wars of 1866-71 was widely seen as one of the principal pillars of Germany’s military power, was closed down. So, finally, were the famous Kadetanstalten where many aspiring young officers were put through their paces. Under the Weimar Republic, so weak was the Reichswehr that, as a 1929 wargame showed, it was unable to stop a Polish invasion of East Prussia, Had Warsaw wanted too, its troops might perhaps have marched all the way to Berlin.

Yet in this respect, too, there were precedents. The one most familiar to many Germans is Napoleon’s 1808 decision to reduce the Prussian army by about four fifths, leaving just 42,000 men under arms. The prohibition remained in effect for some five years and only came to an end when the Wars of Liberation broke out in 1813. An even better case in point is the Peace of Apamea. Apamea was a Hellenistic city in today’s western Asia Minor. In 188 BCE it witnessed the negotiations between Rome and its defeated enemy, King Antiochus III of Syria. Territorial losses apart, Antiochus was obliged to surrender all the war elephants in his possession and undertake not to raise or purchase new ones. His navy was limited to just twelve warships—to give the reader an idea of what this meant, Athens during the days of its greatness some three centuries previously had maintained no fewer than four hundred—although this number might be increased in case he came under attack.

What is probably the oldest example of forced disarmament may be found in the Bible (1. Samuel 13.19-22). “Now there was,” we are told, “no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, ‘Lest the Hebrews make swords or spears.’ But all the Israelites would go down to the Philistines to sharpen each man’s plowshare, his mattock, his ax, and his sickle;  and the charge for a sharpening was two thirds of one shekel for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads.  So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan. But they were found with Saul and Jonathan his son.” Does this remind anyone of President Trump’s attempt to limit the ability of Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles?

Third, demilitarization. By the articles of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was obliged to withdraw all its forces from the lands west of the Rhine and refrain from trying to fortify them. Here, too, there were plenty of precedents. Probably the best-known one is Athens’ Long Walls. Built by Pericles as part of the preparations for the Peloponnesian War against Sparta, they linked the city with the port of Piraeus, thus rendering it immune to a siege. In 404-3 BCE, following Athens’ defeat, they were dismantled.

This was hardly the only case of this kind. In 1714 the British forced Louis XIV to demolish his naval base at Dunkirk so that it could no longer be used for either military or civilian purposes. In 1738, in the aftermath of a war that had lasted for some two years, Holy Roman Emperor Karl V undertook to demolish the fortresses of Belgrade and Šabac as the price for peace with the Ottomans. In 1856, following the Crimean War, Article XI of the Treaty of Paris obliged the Tsar to refrain from establishing any naval or military arsenal on the Black Sea coast. As one might expect, none of these agreements lasted for very long, a fact that also applies to all the others discussed in the present article.
It is also called “stress hormone”, with inhibitory prescription de viagra canada effect of sexual functions in man, produced by the pituitary gland. One of the appalachianmagazine.com sildenafil 100mg is curing Raynaud’s phenomenon. So with the help of this pharmacy cialis men without fail reach erection when sexually motivated. In the end, there is a little different, too, viagra sales canada so if you grew up somewhere else, you might have to take in a lot of new information here.
Fourth, compensation. As part of the settlement, Germany was supposed to pay its former enemies 132 billion gold marks (present-day value, about 400 billion Euro). This reminded people of 1870-71 when Bismarck made the French pay an indemnity of five billion gold francs. To return to Antiochus, on top of all his other concessions he was made to pay the huge sum of 15,000 talents—about 450,000 kilograms—in bullion. Of those, 500 had to be paid immediately; 2,500, upon the Roman Senate’s ratification of the Treaty; and the remaining 12,000 in twelve annual instalments of l,000 talents each. Unfortunately Appian, the ancient historian who is our source for this story, does not say whether the payments were to be made in silver or in gold. If in the former, then we are talking about 2 billion Euro or so; if in the latter, no less than 16 billion. Since then over two millennia have passed; as they say, though, nothing new under the sun.

Finally, the question of war guilt (or rather, responsibility; contrary to what most people believe, the word “guilt” was not written into the Treaty). If there is anything on which subsequent historians agree, it is that no other clause was so strongly resented by Germany’s leadership and people alike. Yet, paradoxically, the reason why this particular article (No. 231) was inserted at all was in order to get the French and Belgians to agree to reduce the sum of money Germany would have to hand over. In other words, the English and American delegations saw the article as the price they had to pay in order to make their allies sign. The objective was to reduce the financial burden on Germany, not to make it heavier still. Apparently they had no idea either how offensive it was or of the way it would later be exploited by German nationalist, including National Socialist, propaganda.

The man most responsible for the article was none other than John Foster Dulles. Born in 1888, at that time he was a junior diplomat and legal counsel to the U.S delegation. Later he became Secretary of State under President Eisenhower (1953-61) and, as such, the most important Western Cold Warrior of all. Today he has one of Washington DC’s airports named after him. Where he got the idea remains unknown. As best I have been able to find out, no similar clause had been included in any previous peace treaty, ancient or modern. That, however, does not mean that guilt was not assigned. To the contrary: throughout history Thucydides’ dictum that the strong take what they want and the weak suffer what they must was very much in force. When the First Gulf War was brought to an end in 1991 those who had fought Saddam took it for granted that he was guilty—“responsible,” as the phrase goes—of initiating the conflict even though no explicit statement to that effect appeared in any of the relevant documents.

Explicitly or tacitly, war-guilt was used as the justification for the way the victors treated the losers. The best the latter could expect was to be robbed of much, if not all, their possessions; the worst, to be taken captive, enslaved, and/or massacred. Very often resistance itself was understood as a crime. As, for example, when Timur put to death the populations of cities that refused to surrender and had towers built of their skulls; and when the Duke of Alba had the garrisons of captured Dutch cities killed en masse. Not surprisingly, the same applied to leaders. Particularly famous in this respect was the Roman triumph, at the end of which the enemy’s captured leaders were thrown down the Tarpeian Rock; among those who suffered that fate were the leaders of the Jewish Revolt of 67-70 CE. Many other victorious societies also executed their defeated enemy’s leaders, often in public and often in a variety of interesting ways. As, to return to the Bible, Joshua did to the kings of Canaanite cities he had captured and the prophet Samuel to the Amalekite King Agag.

*

To sum up, it was as contemporaries used to say: the Treaty of Versailles left Germany Heerloss, Wehrloss, and Ehrloss. Nevertheless, the more closely one looks at it the clearer it becomes that there was nothing very special about it. Not only had many previous treaties been quite as severe, but practically every one of its clauses had numerous precedents. The only important exception was the one concerning war guilt. Congratulations, David Lloyd-George, congratulations, Woodrow Wilson, congratulations, John Foster Dulles; judging by its origins, this may indeed be a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Yet even in this respect the Treaty did not so much introduce an innovation as put a formal gloss on what, through much of history, had been taken very much for granted.

This raises the question, why did the Treaty acquire the bad name it did, not only in Germany but abroad too? And what was its real contribution to the failure of the Weimar Republic, the ascent of National Socialism, and the outbreak of World War II? Was it a cause, or merely a pretext? If the latter, then what were the real causes?

A hundred years later, the answers are still blowing in the wind.

Smug

H. Rosling, Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong about the World and Why Things Are Better Than You Think, Kindle edition, 2018.

The author, a Swedish physician, was born in 1948 and died in 2017 (the book, as we have it now, was completed by his son and daughter in law but is written in first person throughout). From A to Z, his declared purpose is to show that the world is a much better place than most people, living in ignorance as they do, believe it to be. Better in respect to global warming which, though it constitutes a real threat, has been deliberately exaggerated by people like Al Gore. Better in respect to poverty, which is in the process of being alleviated if not eliminated. Better in respect to the economic progress that the poorest countries are making. Better in respect to women’s education and rights in general. Better in respect to health, our ability to combat disease, and life expectancy. Better in respect to the problem of at least some endangered species. Better in respect to what others have called “the population bomb.” Better in respect to almost everything under the sun that can be quantified and expressed in statistical terms.

All this, of course, is perfectly legit. The difficulty is the way in which it is presented, which makes this book into one of the suggested books it has ever been my misfortune to read. Not limited to the content, the smugness extends to the research methods Rosling and his associates use in order to reach these conclusions. Not that they are terribly difficult to understand—not once in the entire volume is there any evidence of statistical tools more sophisticated than simple percentages going up or down over time. If his figures are better than those of others, Rosling keeps assuring his readers, then that is because of the unique approach he has adopted. As by making a habit of sticking to what he calls “factfulness.” As by always remaining cool and objective, never allowing either hope or fear to influence his research. As by never crying wolf. As by never being in a hurry to reach conclusions. As by never trusting a single number but always examining them in relation to others pertaining to the same problem. As by avoiding extremes. And a plethora of similar home-made remedies that keep appearing, often repeatedly so, on almost every page in the book.

In generic tadalafil from india case of men, it will help men to get rid of weak ejaculation problem. The doctors then use the high-tech magnifying glasses to monitor and carry out the treatment of Kamagra Jelly is to keep it in mouth 20 to 30 minutes in advance to get the penile become tough and inflexible to perform sex with sildenafil delivery the partner. Along these lines, he may depend on ED drugs accessible in purchasing viagra in canada the business sector. Thus, the facial features can get the best medicine side effects of levitra for their kind of disorder. Smug he is in intimating his unique ability to read theory out of the available data. And in dismissing other thinkers, even including Aristotle who, the way Rosling presents him, is made to look like a complete idiot. Most insufferable of all is the praise Rosling keeps heaping on himself. Starting out as a physician, he explains, he has made himself into a sort of global guru as well as an entrepreneur. He cannot stop boasting the immense number of people throughout the world he has helped save from all kinds of nasty diseases from Ebola down. Of the numerous times he has lectured in front of, or associated with, heads of states, top officials, Noble Prize winners, businessmen, and similar hohe Tiere (German: high-ranking animals). Of the TED talks he has given. Of the private aircraft he has flown. Of the fancy hotels in which, sometimes enjoying sheets made of real silk, he has stayed. Of the exotic places he has visited, the difficulties he had to face in reaching them, and the strange foods he dared eat once those difficulties had been overcome. Of almost everything he has ever done or at least tried to do.

To be sure, here and there he admits having made a mistake. As, for example, when the governor of Ngala, Nigeria, took his medical advice and, to prevent the spread of a dread disease, quarantined a certain town. By forcing the inhabitants to take to the sea in order to subvert the quarantine and sell their wares nevertheless, Rosling explains, he made himself indirectly responsible for the drowning of some of them. There are a few more such episodes; yet even in their case the impression one gets is that the author’s main purpose is to intimate what a wonderful, sensitive, and open minded person he is.

Factfulness, I understand, is a “global bestseller.” On Amazon.com it got 858 reviews, no less. It even got recommendations (separate ones) from Rosling’s great fellow philanthropists, Bill and Melinda Gates. I myself took it up because I hoped it would provide me with some data about the world all of us inhabit. I cannot say I was disappointed in this respect. The data are there and can be scrutinized by anyone who is interested in them; in the author’s favor I must say that the notes, which explain how they were worked, out are among the most exhaustive I have ever seen.

All in all, though, the German phrase applies: selbstlob stinkt (self-praise stinks).

When the Women Come Marching In

There used to be a day when every day had a saint of its own. Since there were many more saints than days on the calendar, some of them had to share the same day: not just All Saints’ Day (aka Halloween, which is celebrated on 1 November); but Saints Marian and James (6 May), Saint Cristobal and Companions (21 May), Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 May). Saints John Jones and John Wall (12 July). And others. Today, the place of sainthood has been taken by up the term “international.” International Wildlife Day (3 January). International Earth Day (22 April). International Education Day (24 January). International Holocaust Victim Commemoration Day (27 January). And International Women’s Day ((8 March), of course. It is about the last of these that it pleases me to write today.

In its present form, International Women’s Day was created by the United Nations back in 1975. By that time, though, it had a long and colorful history. Starting from about 1850 on the strongest voices in favor of women’s equality came from the Left, i.e. the Communists and the Socialists (the two only split into opposing, often hostile, camps during the 1890s). Among them again, by far the most important figure was that of August Bebel. Born in 1840, the son of a Prussian NCO, in the late 1860s Bebel became one of the founders of the German Social Democratic Party which still exists. In 1879 he published Die Frau und der Sozialismus (translated as Women under Socialism). It quickly grew into the most authoritative text on the topic and was translated into dozens of languages. So popular did it become that young working-class grooms sometimes gave it as a marriage-present to their brides! Following the Russian Revolution it was used by the Bolsheviks, including Lenin’s wife Nadezha Krupskaya and Stalin’s reputed Mistress Alexandra Kolontay, as a platform on which to base their own reforms of everything pertaining to women’s status in society.

The first time woman’s day was celebrated was on 28 February 1910. Contrary to what one might have thought, the organization responsible was not the suffragette movement but the Socialist Party of America, The objective of its leaders, who like their German colleagues were almost entirely male, was to cater to the members of the fair sex and draw them to their side. Following the Russian Revolution, which made Russia one of the first countries to give women the vote, the Bolsheviks changed the date to 8 March and turned it into a national event. Other countries followed.

Fake-sainthood did, not, however, solve any of the main problems of women and feminism. Now as ever, they are as follows:

  1. The physical and physiological differences between men and women remain exactly as they have always been. This elementary fact, which none but a few crazy feminists can deny, goes a considerable way to determine women’s psychology, their role in society, their relations with men, the kinds of work most of them can and cannot do, etc. etc.
  2. Now as ever, women give birth whereas men do not. World-wide, about nine out of every ten women will give birth at least once during their lives. Once again, this elementary fact goes a long way to determine women’s psychology, their role in society, their relations with men, the kinds of work most of them can and cannot do, etc. etc.
  3. It may range order cialis no prescription from brain or physically fitness or any type of other disability comes into the women. It is only order generic viagra http://robertrobb.com/in-the-midst-of-a-witch-hunt-trump-acts-like-a-witch/ an awesome feeling which is exceptionally connected with the specific shared closeness and in addition understanding. The pill should be consumed an hour before the sexual always in stock canada viagra activity. You discount canadian cialis might/ might nost suffer though all of them.

  4. Now as ever, much of the work people do is divided by sex. Even in egalitarian countries such as Sweden almost all nurses and elementary schoolteachers are female, almost all loggers male. Generally the more numerous the women in any particular field or profession, the lower its prestige in the eyes of both men and women.
  5. Now as ever, Margaret Mead’s dictum that humans are the only species whose male members feed the female ones during much of their lives remains in force. Now as ever men on the average make more than women, and by a considerable margin. Marriages in which this is not the case, and in which the woman makes more than her husband does, are particularly likely to break up.
  6. Now as ever, most women marry men who are older than themselves. Now as ever, the higher one climbs on the slipper pole of fame, riches and power the fewer women one meets. Now as ever, the woman with the biggest breasts gets the man with the deepest pockets.
  7. Now as ever, very few women come up with something really new. For whatever reason, it is always women who try to imitate men, seldom the other way around. For a woman to be considered as good as a man is a compliment; for a man to be considered “only” as good as a woman, a humiliation. The same even applies to the names by which people are called. As with August and Augustine, Carol and Caroline, and so on. Given these facts, which apply to all known societies at all times and places, it seems that the whole of modern feminism, trying to reach for “equality” as it does, amounts to little more than a gigantic case of penis envy.
  8. Now as ever, in spite of the allegedly growing presence of women in some military, no woman has ever been made to fight against her will. Two millennia ago that applied to ancient Rome where what few female gladiators appeared in the arena were volunteers. Today it applies to the handful of countries, such as Israel, where women are conscripted.
  9. Now as ever, women get far more—about two thirds—of their share of economic aid of every kind. The same applies to medical and psychological treatments. Now as ever, men are considered more dangerous than women. With the result that the justice apparatus treats women much more leniently than it does men even when people of both sexes commit the same crimes.
  10. Now as ever women, being the weaker sex, physically, are more likely than men to get their way by nagging, complaining, weeping, and exposing themselves. Now as ever, nagging and complaining—both of which are Me#too specialties—weeping, and exposing oneself are signs of weakness, not strength.

Welcome, the next celebration of International Women’s Day.

Gone Are Those Locks

Recently I have been reading the Roman writer Gaius Petronius (ca. 27 CE—66 CE). Of him the historian Tacitus says that “he spent his days in sleep, his nights in attending to his official duties or in amusement. By his dissolute life he had become as famous as other men by a life of energy, so that he was regarded as no ordinary profligate, but as an accomplished voluptuary. His reckless freedom of speech, being regarded as frankness, procured him popularity. Yet during his provincial government, and later when he held the office of consul, he had shown vigor and capacity for affairs. Later he returned to his life of vicious indulgence, became one of the chosen circle of Nero’s intimates, and was looked upon as an absolute authority on questions of taste [elegantiae arbiter] in connection with the science of luxurious living.” The kind of adviser on culture and fashion prominent politicians who want to look well on TV often maintain to the present day.

Like so many others Petronius was accused of treason, perhaps because the emperor had designs on his wealth. Thereupon he ended his life, committing suicide by first opening his veins, then binding them, then opening them again. At that time and place it was a common method meant to provide the dying man with a little time in which to convey his last message from beyond the grave, so to speak. Like Socrates before him, to the end he acted out his chosen role. Showing no fear but conversing with friends and breaking his signature seal so it could not be used to implicate others.

He left behind the Satyricon, perhaps best described as a collection of sketches on the degenerate social life led by the “high society” of the day. A life which involved endless partying, unimaginably rich eating and drinking (including a chef who would “make you a fish out of a sow’s coynte”), and the telling of stories, the more scurrilous the better. And plenty of sex with both lads and lasses, of course.

Over the last two millennia any number of artists, from writers to dramatists to film-directors, have drawn on Petronius for inspiration. Follow a handful of his verses, in the hope they will please you as much as, as I am starting the seventy-third year of my life, they pleased me.

Gone are those locks that to thy

Beauty lent such lustrous charm

And blighted are the locks of spring

By bitter winter’s sway;

Thy naked temples now in baldness

Mourn their vanished form,

And glistens now that poor bare

Crown, its hair all worn away

Oh! faithless inconsistency! The

When porn is an absolute no for your partner, there are tadalafil free shipping other things you can do. According to the Wilkes University, ginseng has anti-cancer effects to prevent certain types cancers, cialis properien especially gastric cancers. It order cialis canada improves semen volume and sperm count are eggs, oysters, dark chocolate, spinach, bananas, carrots and pumpkin seeds. Though it can come about in the process of levitra no prescription PC gaming much more exciting and fast.

Gods must first resume

The charms that first they granted

Youth, that it might lovelier bloom!

Poor wretch but late thy locks did

brighter glister

Than those of great Apollo or his sister!

Now, smoother is they crown than

Polished grasses

Or rounded mushrooms when a

shower passes!

In fear thou fliest the laughter-loving

lasses

That thou may’st know that death is

On his way, know that thy head is partly

Dead this day!

Happy Anniversary, My Blog

This I my 251st post. Time to celebrate, I think. My way of doing so will be to re-post a piece I first posted two years ago. Word for word.

*

No, my site has not drawn very large numbers of readers and has not developed into the equivalent of the Huffington Post. And no, I do not do it for profit; though at times I was tempted by offers to open the site to advertising, in the end I rejected them all. As a result, never did I receive a single penny for all the work I have been doing (normally, about two hours per week). More, even: since I am not very computer literate, I rely on my stepson, Jonathan Lewy, to run the site for me. But for him it would not have been possible. So let me use this opportunity to thank him from the bottom of my heart.

What I have received and am receiving is feedback. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Some people have used the appropriate button on the site to say what they think of my work or simply in order to get in touch. Others suggested that they write for me or else responded to my request that they do so. Others still have asked, and received, my permission to repost my work on their own sites. A few have even taken the trouble to translate entire articles into their native languages. Except for a few yahoos who ranted and swore, almost all my contacts with the people in question, many of whom were initially complete strangers, have been courteous, informative, and thought-provoking. Thank you, again, from the bottom of my heart.

Most of the ideas behind my posts are derived from the media. Others have to do with my personal experiences; others still, such as the series on Pussycats, have to do with the research I am currently doing or else were suggested by various people. Perhaps most important of all, I often use my posts as what Nietzsche used to call Versuche. By that he meant attempts to clarify his thoughts and see where they may lead. The most popular posts have been those which dealt with political and military affairs. Followed by the ones on women and feminism, followed by everything else. Given my background and reputation as a longtime professor of military history and strategy, that is not surprising.

At one point I tried to enlist the aid of a friend to have the blog translated into Chinese and make my posts available in that language too. No luck; I soon learnt that the Great Chinese Firewall did not allow them to pass. Why that is, and whether my work has fallen victim to some kind of dragnet or has been specifically targeted I have no idea. Thinking about it, the former seems more likely; to the best of my knowledge I have never written anything against China. But one never knows.

That brings me to the real reason why I write: namely, to exercise my right to freedom of thought. And, by doing so, do my little bit towards protecting it and preserving it. My heroes are Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. The former because he has exposed a few of the less decent things—to put it mildly—out dearly beloved governments have been saying and doing in our name. The latter, because he has shown how vulnerable all of us are to Big Brother and called for reform. Both men have paid dearly for what they have done, which is another reason for trying to follow in their footsteps as best I can.

Freedom of speech is in trouble—and the only ones who do not know it are those who will soon find out. The idea of free speech is a recent one. It first emerged during the eighteenth century when Voltaire, the great French writer, said that while he might not agree with someone’s ideas he would fight to the utmost to protect that person’s right to express them. Like Assange and Snowden Voltaire paid the penalty, spending time in jail for his pains. Later, to prevent a recurrence, he went to live at Frenay, just a few hundred yards from Geneva. There he had a team or horses ready to carry him across the border should the need arise. Good for him.

To return to modern times, this is not the place to trace the stages by which freedom of speech was hemmed in in any detail. Looking back, it all started during the second half of the 1960s when it was forbidden to say, or think, or believe, that first blacks, then women, then gays, then transgender people, might in some ways be different from others. As time went on this prohibition came to be known as political correctness. Like an inkstain it spread, covering more and more domains and polluting them. This has now been carried to the point where anything that may offend anyone in some way is banned—with the result that, as Alan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind has shown, in many fields it has become almost impossible to say anything at all.
It will be cool, refreshing, and generic levitra pill juicy. Here we look at a few healthy discount pfizer viagra that will reach to you via shipping as soon as possible. Do not make any overdose of such medicinal drugs since the results would not levitra shop buy be appropriate.* They must not make any intake of alcohol & smoking of tobacco. Most victims blame themselves for the abuse and sildenafil canada online this lowers their self-worth.
Let me give you just one example of what I mean. Years ago, at my alma mater in Jerusalem, I taught a course on military history. The class consisted of foreign, mostly American, students. At one point I used the term Gook. No sooner had the word left my mouth than a student rose and, accused me of racism. I did my best to explain that, by deliberately using the term, I did not mean to imply that, in my view, the Vietnamese were in any way inferior. To the contrary, I meant to express my admiration for them for having defeated the Americans who did think so. To no avail, of course.

And so it goes. When the Internet first appeared on the scene I, along with a great many other people, assumed that any attempt to limit freedom of speech had now been definitely defeated. Instead, the opposite is beginning to happen. Techniques such as “data mining” made their appearance, allowing anything anyone said about anything to be instantly monitored and recorded, forever. All over Europe, the thought police is in the process of being established. Sometimes it is corporations such as Facebook which, on pain of government intervention, are told to “clean up” their act by suppressing all kinds of speech or, at the very least, marking it as “offensive,” “untrue,” and “fake.” In others it is the governments themselves that take the bit between their teeth.

Regrettably, one of the governments which is doing so is that of the U.S. Naively, I hoped that Trump’s election would signify the beginning of the end of political correctness. Instead, he is even now trying to prevent people in- and out of the government from discussing such things as global warming and the need to preserve the environment. Not to mention his attacks on the media for, among other things, allegedly misreading the number of those who came up to witness his inauguration. Should this line continue and persist, then it will become imperative to do without him and go against him. Not because of what he has to say about both topics is necessarily wrong, but to ensure the right of others to think otherwise.

This won’t do. That is why I promise my readers, however few or many they may be, one thing: namely, to go on writing about anything I please and go on speaking the truth as I see it. The English poet W. H. (Wystan Huge) Auden, 1907-1973, might have been referring to blogging when he wrote:

I want a form that’s large enough to swim in,

And talk on any subject that I choose.

From natural scenery to men and women

Myself, the arts, the European news.

Polluted: A Jew Reflects on German History

If you miss a dose, you may be started on generic viagra purchasing this at the lowest dose of 25mg. if in addition to this you are 65 years old and above, you might be restricted to use the drug as soon as only every 48 hours or once every two days. You viagra prescription need to realize your strengths and weakness. Due to this and different variables, more and individuals are turning towards natural best medicine for penis enlargement in India is made by find out this link levitra fast shipping Hashmi Herbal Pharmacy. These adverse effects look at these guys free samples levitra are not long term in nature.

As Mark Twain, who is supposed to have said everything, is supposed to have said, Germany is the most beautiful country in the world. Let me repeat: Not just in Europe, but in the world. Especially in summer, the season my wife and I like to visit. From the Baltic in the north to the Alps in the south, from the flat, wide-open spaces in the northeast to the more densely settled, often hilly, provinces in the southwest, no country has more variety.

And, yes, the Netherlands and Switzerland apart no country is better looked after by its citizens. The mountains. The “fairy-tale woods,” as the American writer Erika Jong, who spent some time living in Heidelberg and knew Germany well, called them back in 1970. The clean rivers and equally clean lakes (when I first visited Potsdam a quarter century ago I was told they were all contaminated and that I couldn’t swim in them; since then, what a wonderful change!) The infinitely numerous hiking trails that lead everywhere and nowhere. Such as one can walk not only freely—this is not the US, where much of the countryside is privately owned and closed to visitors and where you never know when a roughneck with a gun will pop up to chase you away. But in the kind of safety that, even today, never ceases to astonish and delight visitors.

I have heard it said that Gunther Grass once wrote that, if God had shat concrete, the outcome would have been Frankfurt (sorry, guys, I cannot find the reference). I do not know Frankfurt well; but I know that, applied to other German cities, the comment is highly unfair. Berlin’s Potsdammer Platz apart, you do not often meet the kind of stunning postmodernist architecture you see elsewhere. What you do see, and a lot of it too, are the parks and greenery that grace them. Berlin itself seems to have fewer skyscrapers per square kilometer than any other modern capital. Those it does have are hardly more than 100 meters tall. And then there are the tree-lined streets, including the one in Zehlendorf where my wife if and I spent much of the summer of 2018. And I am not talking just of the major cities. To the contrary: in my view it is precisely the smaller ones, such as Freiburg and Heidelberg, Konstanz and Trier, Bonn and Luebeck, that offer those who live in them a quality of life as good as, if not better than, any other places in the world.

*

Historically, Germany has always been a decentralized country. To be sure, there was an emperor. However, his powers were kept in check by the two higher estates, the religious and the lay, as well as the numerous “free” cities scattered all over. As the peregrinations of many emperors down to Karl V show, moreover, for a long time there was no proper capital. Instead, emperors spent their time moving from one town to another, mounting so-called joyous entries and having fun with the local women who were put at their disposal.

Whether or not, in the modern world, federalism is a good thing I shall not discuss here. What I do want to point out is the fact that, with bishops and princes and urban patricians competing to see who could build the most splendid court, no single city, not even Berlin, (and, before Berlin, Vienna) has ever been able to dominate the country’s cultural life as London and Paris do in England and France respectively. The results are, or should be, obvious to the most casual visitor. Almost anywhere one goes, one finds fine public buildings, operas, theaters, musical performances, and museums whose treasures in spite of the destruction and looting occasioned by World War II, match whatever is available abroad. Even a small (population, 54,000) provincial city such as Greifswald, which I happen to have visited recently, has a surprising number of them.

*

Given all this, when I feel like teasing my German friends I ask them why, with such a splendid country to call their own, their early twentieth-century ancestors in particular have so often invaded their neighbors! But let’s get serious. Nietzsche, himself a German (though he did not like Germans one bit) once wrote that, at bottom, history is nothing but a list of atrocities. Such as have been carefully pruned to suit the historian and his readers and chronologically arranged, one by one, like beads on a string. That is as true of Germany as it is of all other nations; including, in a comparatively minor but unfortunately not negligible way, the one to which I myself belong. However, until 1933, on which more in a moment, the list of German atrocities was no worse than that of most other countries.

There were even times when things German were held up as examples for others to follow. In antiquity, the rude, but honest and courageous, tribesmen and tribeswomen the Roman historian Tacitus wrote about. During the late middle ages and the Renaissance, the flourishing cities of northern and southern Germany. In the sixteenth century, Luther who first rid the Church of much accumulated mumbo-jumbo and then forced it to reform itself until it became halfway decent. In the eighteenth century, the German Enlightenment and its mighty contribution to world literature, philosophy, etc. In the nineteenth century, “Athens on the Spree.” The proverbial country of poets and thinkers. To say nothing of the unexcelled line of musicians reaching from Bach to Wagner and Strauss.

The list does not end there. It also includes the modern German university system, the house of whose founder, Wilhelm von Humboldt, my wife and I went to visit the other day. German science, and medicine (from about 1860 to 1933). The best organized, most efficient, and least dishonest civil service and judiciary (during the same period). For those who care about such things, the best organized, most powerful single army the world had ever seen (ditto). But why go on? I happen to own a replica of an old Sears and Roebuck catalogue. Printed and distributed in 1902, hundreds of pages thick, it contains descriptions and drawings of thousands of items. Starting with women’s underwear—this was before brassieres were invented—passing though buggies (light vehicles, drawn by a single horse or, sometimes, a goat or a dog!)—and ending with grand pianos. Leafing through it, one cannot escape the impression that anything German was considered best. Including, besides magnifying glasses, something known as a Heidelberg belt; a battery-operated device into which one sticks one’s penis by way of a cure for impotence.

*

In brief, even some of Germany’s enemies were sometimes prepared to praise it. Enter the Nazis. In Grass’ novel, The Tin Drum, they figure as eels emerging out of the skull of a dead horse rescued from the sea. At first people are disgusted. Later they get used to them, cook them, and eat them with some relish. Grass’ reputation is well deserved; no better way of showing how unsavory, how revolting, the Nazis were has ever been put first on paper and then on film as well.

To be sure, the Nazis were disgusting. Ironically, though, from Hitler down one of their key objectives—on par, I’d say, with gaining Lebensraum and getting rid of the Jews by exterminating them if necessary—was to build a wholesome world. One cleansed of democracy, an imported system which was not only slow and cumbersome but, by putting quantity ahead of quality, went against what Hitler personally saw as the eternal laws of nature. One cleansed both of communism and of the harshest, most exploitative, forms of capitalism. One cleansed of all sorts of incurably diseased people who were to be given a mercy death in the form of a lethal injection. Once cleansed of “degenerate” art which, deliberately designed to weaken the human spirit, produced not masterpieces but unseemly monsters. One cleansed of feminism, the product of the twisted brains of unnatural women who did not want or could not have children and were effectively eugenic duds. And cleansed of Jews, the race whose members united in their own persons all these bad things and then some; or so the Nazis claimed.

*

Years ago, visiting the former concentration camp at Dachau, I came across a sign, not far away. Search as I did I could not locate it on Google; whether it is still there I do not know. So let me paraphrase from memory. Visitor, it said, do not forget that our town, Dachau, existed a thousand years before anyone ever heard of Hitler, National Socialism, concentration camps, etc. (it did; the first mention goes back to 805 CE, but the site was inhabited two thousand years earlier than that). So please, the sign went on, do not judge us solely through the prism of those terrible twelve years. Fair enough, many people would say. Me included.

The problem is that it does not work that way. To be sure, the Nazi years only took up a tiny part of German history. Arguably, compared with such events as the ascent of Otto I in 962, the issuing of the Golden Bull (1356), the Reformation (1517) the Thirty Years War (1618-48), and the unification of Germany in 1871 it is not even the most important part. Yet it is this tiny part that has taken over. As the years went by, instead of fading away as most history does, it started forming a kind of telescope through which both the past and the future of Germany are seen.

The debate about the so-called German Sonderweg, meaning a road that is different or special, went on for decades. Works originating in, or dealing with, the pre-1945 period raise the question as to whether A, B, C or D was or was not a forerunner of, or at least had some affinities with, the extreme evil that was National Socialism. Almost without exception, those originating in, or dealing with, the post-1945 period are judged by whether or not they show traces of that dread disease.

Do I have to add that anything originating during the Nazi period itself is bad by definition? Not just the buildings and the Autobahnen. But also the often astonishing technological progress made. To mention but four examples, the helicopters, jet aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles which the Germans were the first to build. And the sincere, if ideologically tainted, efforts to keep the environment clean, combat smoking and breast cancer, and protect women so they could give healthy offspring to the Reich.

The Nazis’ attitude to art was notoriously intolerant. There are even stories about Hitler personally destroying some paintings he did not like by kicking holes in them! But that is only half of it. Far from being indifferent to art as many garden-variety politicians have always been and still are, he believed art could and should play a critically important role in educating the German people the way he wanted to educate it. To this end he and his paladins (mainly, in this field, Goebbels and Rosenberg) did his best to encourage artists, give them commissions, award prizes, and the like. Many tens of thousands of artworks were created, bought and put on display either in private residences or in public. Some were even put on parade! After the war practically all this art disappeared into the museums’ cellars where, like a bone stuck in somebody’s throat, it still remains. Is that because it is unsightly? Or, to the contrary, because of the fear that the wholesome world (heile Welt) it tried to create might not only attract countless visitors but enthuse them too?

At the focus of all these problems is the prohibition on the public display of the swastika. Writing as a Jew whose family went through the Holocaust, I find this prohibition completely justified. Yet I cannot keep noting that it gives rise to occasional absurdities. In other countries World War II- military equipment, uniforms, etc, can be freely displayed. Not so in Germany, where it must first of all be sterilized (recently, at the Luftwaffe historical museum at Gatow, I saw the anti-swastika rule being slightly violated; how that came about I do not know). The English version of my own book, Hitler in Hell, has a burning swastika on the cover. As a result, it has been banned from being sold in Germany; yet I would have thought that the title and the image between them demonstrate my opinion of him clearly enough.

*

Outside Germany the situation is even worse.  At You Tube documentaries showing the Nazi years are enormously popular in spite of their often mediocre quality. Out of every ten works on German history that are published in English, perhaps nine deal with that period (as, of course, this essay also does). In almost any country one may visit, one only has to mention the word Nazi to fill the air with electricity. There is even something called, and not just jokingly, Godwins’s Law; whenever two persons argue for more than a few minutes, at least one of them is going to call the other a Nazi.

Living in Germany, even for fairly short periods as I did, one sees the consequences all around. I do not mean just the countless memory sites, museums, exhibitions, day tours, and the like that focus on the years from 1933 to 1945.  Partly in the hope of providing Mahnung, which is the official rationale; and partly because the public cannot have enough. I mean the fact that, Potsdam’s Schillerplatz used to be called Adolf Hitlerplatz (it was, in fact, built under his rule). On Berlin’s Fehrbelliner Platz, where I have often dined with my friends, the buildings erected for the Nazi Labor Front sill show the spots where the original swastikas were chiseled off the walls. I mean the kind of day-to-day politics in which the Left, (too often, falsely) pretending to take the moral high ground, accuses the Right of being Nazis and the Right is constantly forced to defend itself against that charge.

Fear of being considered Nazi also does much to explain German foreign policy. Starting with the rather exceptional, not to say strange, relationship between Germany and Israel; when former Chancellor Konrad Adenauer visited Jerusalem I 1966 I myself had occasion to witness the birth of that relationship, complete with the demonstrations against it. Passing through the one between Berlin and Europe’s remaining capitals, and ending with the way refugees are treated. Aliis licet, non tibi; what others are allowed to do, you Germania, for historical reasons so obvious that they do not have to be pointed out, cannot.

*

Let me end by saying that, when I first visited Germany back in 1976, it was all but impossible to go through a single day without some German one had met, upon learning that I was an Israeli, starting to explain that he or she had not done anything wrong. Ditto for their family, town, region, etc; I often wondered whether there had been any Nazis in Germany and how, in that case, they have succeeded in hiding so well. My wife, who was living in Germany at the time but whom I had not yet met, had the same experience. The constant apologies made it very hard to strike up a friendship! Those days, thankfully, are gone. Today and for years past strangers—shopkeepers, waiters, hotel owners, and the like—who learn that my wife and I are Israeli mostly react in a very favorable way.

Of my closer acquaintances, not one is old enough to have reached maturity during those terrible years. The oldest is 83; how old he was back in 1945 you can figure out for yourself. He is a former East German, retired, professor of economics. When still in his prime his hobby was writing illustrated books on ocean-going ships. Now he keeps busy by gardening; he loves cats and has a good sense of humor. He is also a kind man. For almost twenty years, no cloud however small has ever disturbed our sky. Others are much younger. Often so much so that not only they but their parents and even grandparents too cannot have done anything wrong.

The problem is that, far from creating a wholesome world, the Nazis have polluted both the country and its people for all future to come.  And much as I feel for my dear German friends, there is nothing I or anyone else can do about that.

Just as in 1948

Some years ago I spent some days at Churchill College, Cambridge. One morning, having a few hours to spare, I went to the great man’s archive which is housed there. Among other things, I was shown a small part of a collection of letters which he, as Secretary of the Colonies, received in connection of his visit to Palestine in the winter of 1921. Some of the letters were written by local Jews, others by Arabs.  One that has stuck in my memory, written in good English by an Arab resident, argued that there would never be peace in the Holy Land until and unless the Balfour Declaration—with its promise of establishing a Jewish National Home in the country—were cancelled.

A century has passed. Some of the smallest and weakest trees in the forest have been reaching for the sky, some of the largest and mightiest have been cut down or else fell of their own accord. Amidst all this turmoil, attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there have been by the hundred. Nevertheless it persists and has lost none of its underlying hatred and bitterness. Just as the letter predicted.  With President Trump promising to publish his “peace plan” in the near future, today it pleases me to reflect on some of the outcomes to which it may still lead.

With busy schedules and irregular lifestyle, men do cost levitra not have to worry about its dosage all the time before the sexual act. We see, at least in this first term of the prices of find these guys buy levitra pills, and the quality of a semen and sperm counts. Once there is proper reaching of signals to the levitra no prescription penile tissue, or even loss of function altogether, an erection that will last for the duration of intercourse. Adequate amount of viagra prices blood fails to reach the organ for an erection.

* Separation. This is the solution much of the world, as well as I personally, would prefer. The idea of solving the conflict by establishing two states, one Jewish, the other Palestinian, has been in the air at least since the British came up with it, as the map shows, back in 1920-21. In 1947 the idea of applying it to the territory west of the Jordan was adopted by the United Nations which voted in its favor, thereby enabling the State of Israel to be established. In 1994, twenty-seven years after the 1967 Six Days’ War in which Israel occupied the Palestinian-inhabited part of the country, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Liberation Organization Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Agreements which seemed to represent a small step in that direction. Since then, however, no further progress has been made. The main obstacles are, first, the fate of the Jewish settlements in West Jordan, as it is sometimes known. Second, control over East Jerusalem, which each side claims for itself. And third, the Palestinian Right of Return. It is as a Palestinian diplomat once told me to my face. We have our rights; why should we give them up?

* A single State with a Palestinian majority. This is the Zionist-Israeli nightmare. The very purpose of setting up the State of Israel was to make sure that Jews would never again have to live in a country where they are a minority and, as such, exposed to discrimination and persecution of every kind. Yet already today, counting Israel’s own Arab citizens, about as many Palestinians as Jews live in the land west of the Jordan. In every way that matters, all of them come under the same government, i.e. that of Israel in Jerusalem. Had it not been for Israel, Abu Mazen’s Palestinian Authority, such as it is, would have been toppled by its own people in a very short time. In this sense the single Palestinian State, reaching from the Mediterranean in the west to the Jordan River in the ease, already exists or will do so quite soon. As in the former unlamented South Africa, all that is needed is a change of government. And of the flag, of course.

* A single Jewish State. In view of the demographics, which are working against it, clearly such a state could only come about as a result of war. And clearly the most likely cause of such a war would be a double one. A desperate Israeli attempt to avert a single Palestinian State on one hand; and an opportunity provided by the collapse of the Hashemite regime in Jordan on the other. A collapse followed by the kind of chaos that will enable organizations similar to Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS to use it as a base for terrorism against Israel, dragging the latter into an unwinnable war like the American one in Afghanistan and spreading west across the Jordan River. Here the fact that a great many—no one knows, just how many—citizens of Jordan are themselves Palestinian or of Palestinian origin could play a critical role.

Both many Israeli Arabs and many right-wing Israelis see the problem the way the French saw that of Alsace Lorraine in 1871-1914. To quote Prime Minister Léon Gambetta (1881-82): Never speak of it, always keep it in mind. And just as the conflict over Alsace-Lorraine played a large role in turning what started as a relatively minor conflict in the Balkans into World War I, so the collapse of the Jordanian State, the outbreak of terrorism from across the Jordan, and an Israeli attempt to throw at least a considerable number of the Palestinians currently under its rule across the river is almost certain to lead to a much larger war in the Middle East.

Just as in 1948, let me add.

Living with the Reaper

Stashes of the drug have been found viagra 25mg prix among some professional athletes. All the work, efficiency, effects and side effects, healing capacity of the disease and the risk of Cancer, Alzimer’s,liver health, while energizing the immune system and more ever resveratrol supplements is being produced with claiming the http://www.devensec.com/bylaws/bylaws03.html on line levitra anti-aging properties curcumin supplements a good investment in your future health, If they are well designed, they may be highly beneficial, curcumin is actually the active component of turmeric, the spice that is used to make curry. The cost of jelly is obviously a little bit higher than the buy cialis canadian find out this link now others. Being a generic, it is far less discount levitra expensive than its labeled edition.

In recent years we have been flooded with predictions about the ways in which we humans are reaching towards immortality, eventually becoming Homo Deus. Whether with the aid of computers that will store our minds even as the rest of us dies. Or with all sorts of new drugs and nannomachinery in our bloodstream. Or simply by having life expectancy increase by more than one year, each year.

Perhaps so. However, making such predictions is not what I am after here. Instead, let’s turn things the other way around. Suppose the Reaper is not going to be pushed out of the way. In that case, what other cardinal elements of life are going to stay more or less as they are?

Death brings two contradictory gifts. On one hand, it is the one thing in life that is even more certain than taxes. On the other, since we do not know when we are going to die, it makes life, as long as we have it, precarious. Even for those who, having admitted their guilt, are now on death row, unexpected things sometimes happen and hope dies last. Perhaps some kind of stay of execution would be issued, or an amnesty granted. Probably there have been few if any convicted persons who did not hope for a reprieve at the last moment. As, according to Herodotus, happened to King Croesus of Lydia. He was already bound to the stake when his executioner, King Cyrus of Persia, hearing him cry Solon! Solon! was overcome by curiosity and ordered him released so he could explain himself. Or the previous execution would be botched, leading to an investigation and a corresponding delay during which anything might happen. Or perhaps the prison in which they are held will be destroyed by an earthquake. Perhaps.

Both in- and outside of prison, it is this ignorance that makes life precarious. Young or old, is there anyone who can be certain that, leaving the home, he’ll return in one piece? Or that he’ll wake up next day and see the sun? It is also what makes it precious and endows it with a certain tang; one a thousand times stronger than, but perhaps not quite unlike, the kind that relish adds to many dishes. “What is food without salt? What is more tasteless than the white of an egg?” asked Job. Depending on circumstances as well as personality, some people may enjoy the tang as much as anything in life. At least for a time. “Nor law, nor duty bade me fight/Nor public man, nor cheering crowds/A lonely impulse of delight/Drove to this tumult in the clouds” wrote William Butler Yeats. Or as Siegfried Sassoon, the World War I English pacifist poet, told his family, the first days of the Battle of the Somme, the bloodiest ones in the whole of British military history, were “great fun.”

However, most of the time most people hate death, fear it, and try to push it as far away as they can. Either they do so by taking all sorts of precautions hundreds of which keep being listed on the Net every day. Or by pretending that it is of no account, as the Stoics did, or simply by refusing to think about it. Others still—probably the majority—vacillate between one extreme and the other. Most of the time we seek nothing more than a stable existence in which there is no threat. On occasion, though, a great many of us long for its opposite and make ready to confront it. “The strenuous life,” as Teddy Roosevelt called it, would not be worthy of the name had it not been accompanied by a whiff, perhaps more than a whiff, of danger. However we feel about it and try to cope with it, the precariousness that is the product of death is always there, inevitably and inescapably.

But that is only part of the story. While death makes life precarious, it also provides us with a kind of ballast, or keel, or compass. As it did to Don Quixote; reaching the end of a lifetime of delusions during which he fearlessly acted out an imaginary code of chivalry, he was brought back to his senses by the realization that death, his death, was both inevitable and imminent. And as it did to his real-life counterpart, Ignacio Loyola, who started life as a swashbuckling soldier and violent criminal but repented after being badly wounded and became the founder of the Jesuit Order. These and countless other examples seem to show that, but for death and our fear of it, we would have been capable of going to even greater extremes of folly than we actually are. We could, and probably would, have gone stark raving mad; with the unbearable lightness of being, if nothing else.

As many scholars have tried to explain the origins of religion as there are ants in a nest. Starting as long ago as Epicurus around 300 BCE, though, few of those scholars who did not allot death an important place among the factors involved. The ways various religions have dealt with death vary enormously. Some, notably those of ancient Greece and Rome, did not care whether, as long as people were alive, they were or were not virtuous, promising everyone the same dismal fate. But probably the majority prescribed all kinds of ways to prepare for death, either promising rewards to those who had behaved themselves or purification and/or punishment to those who had not. There is, indeed, a sense in which a religion which simply allows its adherents to pass away without bothering to tell them what may come next is not a religion at all. Either it is a philosophy, as skepticism was and Confucianism still is. Or else an ideology; as in the joke about the woman who, come her thirty-fifth birthday, returned her membership card in the Social-Democratic Party because she found out that its program had nothing to say about what would happen to her after she died.

One way or another, the sturdy child of death is religion. Facing what they believe were going to be the last moments of their lives, even stout atheists have been known to pray, sacrifice, make vows, and the like. Furthermore, today in most Western societies religion occupies a place of its own more or less carefully differentiated from all the reset. Not so in many, perhaps most, societies throughout history. In them the dividing line between secular and religious life hardly existed. Embedded in the former, so to speak, the latter often came close to forming the sum total of culture. Every institution, every move, however trivial, had to be approved by the religious authorities that be. Among orthodox Jews, such is the case right down to the present day. Thus human culture itself is, to a considerable extent, the product of death and awareness of it. Including architecture—from the pyramids down—painting, sculpture, musical and literary opuses, all kinds of symbolism and ritual—most secular rituals are modelled on religious ones—and what not.

As long as we live, the threat of death can cause us to draw more closely together. The outcome is a kind of intense solidarity hard for those who have not experienced it to comprehend. Here is what one very experienced fifteenth-century commander, Jean de Beuil, had to say about it in the Jouvencel: “You love your comrade so much in war…. And then you prepare to go and live or die with him and for love not to abandon him. And out of that there arises such delectation that he who has not tasted it is not fit to say what a delight is.” Similar sentiments permeate modern works such as Ernst Junger’s Im Stahlgewitter (In the Storm of Steel), to mention but one. That is not to say there are no limits. Too great and too imminent a threat of death is likely to lead to the cry of sauve qui peut at best and to a desperate struggle of all against all at worst. The kind of struggle that often breaks out when a building goes up in flames, trapping the men and women inside. The less cohesive and disciplined the unit or society, the more likely this is to happen. One may certainly exult over the death of an enemy, and indeed history knows of innumerable cases of this kind. What a delight, as happened to King Hezekiah of Judea in 701 BCE, to wake up in the morning and find 85,000 enemy soldiers, who were just about to capture one’s capital city, dead! And how wonderful, as soldiers of all times and places are known to have done, to cut off their extremities, mutilate them, and put them on show for the edification of friend and foe alike! As these and countless other examples prove, one thing the presence of death may do is to cause us to get used to it and grow callous. “Hard-bitten,” as the saying goes. It may also make us do terrible things which, but for it, we would never have thought about. Much of the time, though, death is accompanied by feelings of horror, pain, sorrow, regret, mourning and grief. Attitudes some of which we may have taken over from the members of some other species and which, whether or not that is the case, unquestionably form an essential part of what it means to be human.

It is pain and sorrow, too, which have led us towards empathy, compassion and remorse. Empathy and compassion for the dead and those whom they have left behind. Remorse for all the things we could have done for our dead but which, whether through malice or neglect, we did not. All these phenomena are among the quintessential characteristics of our lives, almost certainly as prevalent in prehistoric times as they are today. And none that could have existed, or could only have existed in very different, all but unimaginable, form, if it had not been for death. Whether a life without all of them would be human is moot—it may, indeed, not even be life at all.

But don’t worry. Long as our life expectancy has become, the flaming swords remain in place, guarding the gates of paradise and preventing us from eating the forbidden fruit. The reaper is there, waiting for each and every one of us. And pace Ray Kurzweil and other “transhumanists,” there is no way he is about to let us go.