Three People I Would Interview About Afghanistan Aug. 19, 2021

 

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

As I watch events in Afghanistan unfold, I find myself trying to ignore all the commentary and longing instead to interview three people: President Lyndon Johnson, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Mohammed Zahir Shah, the last king of Afghanistan.

Friedman: President Johnson, what did you think of Joe Biden’s speech about quitting Afghanistan?
Johnson: I listened to it, and I have to say that I choked up. If only I had had the guts to give that speech on April 7, 1965, about America’s involvement in Vietnam — the war that I inherited and then expanded with that speech. Promise me one thing: You won’t link to that speech.

Friedman: Sorry, Mr. President, but I already did. Here are some highlights of what you said to justify sending more troops into Vietnam: Why are we in South Vietnam? We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954, every American president has offered support to the people of South Vietnam. … We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand, are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. … We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance.

Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Vietnam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. … Thus it became necessary for us to increase our response and to make attacks by air. This is not a change of purpose. It is a change in what we believe that purpose requires. … We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South Vietnam, who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties. … We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired.

Johnson: Yes, Mr. Friedman, I wish I had said what Biden did — and what his predecessors never would: “How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not?’’

Friedman: President Xi, what do you think of all the American commentators proclaiming China a winner from Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan?

Xi: Oh, my, these are what we call useful idiots. What planet are these people living on? We had a perfect situation going before Biden came along. America was hemorrhaging lives, money, energy and focus in Afghanistan — and its presence was making the country just safe enough for Chinese multinationals to exploit.

The Metallurgical Corporation of China and Jiangxi Copper had a contract to develop a copper mine in Mes Aynak, and the China National Petroleum Corporation was working on a field in the north of the country — and the Americans were funding the overall security. That is our idea of perfection! Alas, neither of these projects ever got off the ground because of the craziness in the Kabul government. But Afghanistan is hugely rich in minerals we need. Who will protect our investors after the Americans have stopped doing it for free? Not me.

Friedman: How about the Taliban?

Xi: The Taliban?! You think that we trust them? Have you noticed what their brothers in the Pakistani Taliban have been doing to our investments in Pakistan? Just read The Wall Street Journal from July 28:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A gunman opened fire on a car carrying two engineers in the southern port city of Karachi, the latest attack on Chinese nationals in close ally Pakistan. … Chinese nationals have been the victims of multiple recent attacks in Pakistan. Earlier this month, a bombing killed nine Chinese construction workers in a bus being taken to the site of a dam being built in northern Pakistan. Targets of other attacks in recent years include the Chinese Consulate in Karachi, the partly Chinese-owned stock exchange in Karachi and a hotel in the Chinese-run port of Gwadar.

Xi: Pakistan cannot even keep us safe from its own Taliban and Baloch separatists — in their own country — and we own Pakistan! And don’t even get me started on how the Taliban victory could inspire our Uyghur Muslims. … Joe, Joe, what did you do to us, Joe? You should have listened to your foreign policy experts and stayed in Afghanistan. The last thing we want is you refocusing all of America’s resources and energy on competing with us for the industries of the 21st century, instead of chasing the Taliban around the Hindu Kush.

Friedman: Mohammed Zahir Shah was the last king of Afghanistan, who ruled from 1933 until he was deposed by his brother-in-law in 1973, triggering nearly a half-century of coups, wars and invasions. He was the last of a 226-year dynasty of Pashtun monarchs to rule Afghanistan.

Your Highness, what do you think of Biden’s decision to just quit Afghanistan and of the Taliban takeover?

Zahir: Let me tell you a few things about my country. The first thing you have to know is that we are and always will be a mosaic of many different languages and cultures and ethnicities and approaches to Islam. There are 14 ethnic groups recognized in our national anthem — Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Balochis, Turkmens, Nooristanis, Pamiris, Arabs, Gujars, Brahuis, Qizilbash, Aimaq and Pashai. We have Sunni, Sufi and Shiite Muslims. The reason the country was relatively peaceful under my leadership, until my idiot cousin toppled me, was that people saw me as a unifying symbol to whom they could all relate.

The Taliban represent only one element in our mosaic — Pashtun Sunni Islamism. Since they were ousted by the Americans 20 years ago, all they have been thinking about is how to again own the Afghanistan they lost, not how to govern anew the Afghanistan that exists today.

Let me tell you, Mr. Friedman, more than 70 percent of Afghanistan’s population is under 25 years old. Most of them know nothing about the Taliban and have never heard of Mullah Omar — just like all those 20-somethings in Iran who have never heard of the shah and give Iran’s Islamic rulers grief every day. They have been raised in a different Afghanistan, in a different age, and they will not easily give up the freedoms they enjoyed these past 20 years, even if the country was a mess.

Tribes in this part of the world, Mr. Friedman, have a saying: Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my brother and my cousin against the outsider.

Americans were the outsider, and the Taliban could always find plenty of passive and active cousins for its project of getting you out. But now they and their brothers will have to deal with all their cousins inside — from those 14 different ethnicities — and that will be a different story. The Taliban have no idea how to govern a modern country. Vietnam’s nationalist leader, Ho Chi Minh, spent his exile in Paris. These Taliban guys studied, at best, in madrasas in Pakistan, where they don’t even teach science.

And then there’s the money. The American occupation was to Afghanistan what oil is to Saudi Arabia. You were like an oil well that didn’t dry up. But now that you’re gone, so is all that income to run the government and pay salaries. How are the Taliban going to replace it? You can smuggle only so many drugs to Europe. Sure, the Chinese will throw them some crumbs to keep them away from the Uyghurs. But there are no more sucker superpowers out there that want to come in and run this place, because they all now know that all they’ll win is a bill.

Here is my prediction: The Taliban will either form a national unity government with all the major ethnic and tribal groups, under loose centralized control — and it will sort of hold the country together and be able to enlist foreign aid — or they won’t. If they do, President Biden’s bet on getting out will prove right — that America’s presence was actually preventing Afghans from compromising and coming together to govern themselves. Maybe they will even find one of my family’s descendants to be the symbolic unifier. I repeat: My reign corresponded with one of the most peaceful eras in Afghan history.

But if the Taliban try to keep power all by themselves, with no cousins, watch out. The country will eventually resist it, the Taliban will crack down harder, and Afghanistan will not implode — it will explode. It will break up into different regions and hemorrhage refugees and instability. It will be very ugly, and America and Biden will be blamed for the chaos. But America will also be gone. Afghanistan then will be a huge problem for its neighbors, particularly Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran.

Friedman: Hmm. Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran? Maybe Biden had that in mind all along.

 Mr. Friedman's article in the NY times hits the point again, in my 18th Aug. blog I tried to suggest that the whole act of leaving it all to the Taliban, even strengthening and arming them is intentional, and with tacit agreement, very few commentators and political annalists touched on this nuance, most tried to criticize and even blame the Biden administration for abandoning Afghanistan, even accusing  it of naivety, I don't think it is the case, it's strictly political hypocrisy. It is more a careful and older policy plan in development, a plan that cannot be openly declared nor discussed, and Mr. Biden at this stage is only continuing to execute accordingly. All my thanks to my good readers, stay safe and well.

 

THE AFGHANI FISHY AFFAIR .....

 

For decades, elites told the American people we were winning this war, later they told us while Iraq was wrong, Afghanistan was the war worth fighting. They told us it was worth the lives, worth the money, worth the time, it was all lies. They spend trillions in tax Dollars telling us we're building up their country and army, now they tell us we cannot afford nation building right here at home. 

One would prefer if President Biden and the State Department didn't claim and ascertain that the Taliban surprised us by moving so swiftly to take the entire country including the capital Kabul, even the American intelligence agencies and the military advisors claim that they didn't expect all provincial capitals including Kabul would fall so quickly, without even shedding any blood, all these clearly indicate that the administration, the intelligence, Pentagon and State Department had in mind that the Taliban forces would take over all powers and control of Afghanistan as a government and the country, the only failure was the timing, which created some logistical difficulties to evacuate all Americans, foreigners and loyal Afghanis. But it's working fine after all, as planned. 

The American side were in serious negotiations with the Taliban for over a year in Doha, and the Trump administration released more than 5000 Taliban fighters including some of the highest ranks. And through the past 2 decades of our Afghani adventure we didn't seriously engage in fighting or destroying the Taliban machinery, on the contrary we were playing a go between policy with some drone bombing, among several Afghani factions. 

With the presumed conclusions of this pseudo war that cost us few thousands lives, trillions to maintain, equipment and arms, and training a totally unwilling to defend itself or fight its enemies army. I wonder who was responsible and who benefited the most all these years, but I know for sure that 85% plus, of these amounts went into the pockets of special American interests. and arms manufacturers and high ranking private army contractors as well as some commanders. 

We cannot pretend that we're so naïve and gullible by not understanding the nature of the Afghani people or some factions of it, after 20 years of living and governing them. As a matter of fact we openly admit help creating them and arming them some 40 years ago, to fight Russian communism, as well as the Al-Qaida mujahidin who turned against us later, we even used the invasion of Afghanistan to open the way to invade Iraq, which probably was the real aim. 

We simply thought with arrogant confidence that Afghanistan was an easy target, easy to subdue, for a good strategically located position in the center of Asia, so we went in and played a good role with all parties, but when it became too costly and Americans got tired of endless wars, we actively looked for someone to play the game on our behalf, and who better than the old Taliban our oldest partners. Even if we sacrificed part of the Afghani population that stood with us. We're promising them total control, lots of arms and equipment with only; do not harm our people while retreating and not to harbor openly any terrorist groups, and try to be more humane toward your people, your women,  which is maybe happening.   

They will be our newest creation of disturbances to all or most of their neighbors, and help us tremendously controlling the continent. China, India, Russia, Iran, even Turkey and Pakistan, plus a score of smaller players could all be threatened by a Taliban fanaticism and godly Islamic zealots. Now my problem with such a plan is to see if the Taliban would play our game or eventually change alliances and adversaries, that would be a totally failure of the whole scheme. 

This entire scenario is mine of course, but honestly I cannot fathom, nor make sense of simpler arguments of arrogance and naivety of our entire intelligence, war machine, administration with their State dept. we cannot be so simplistic, not in today's world and times and technologies, we cannot accept little assumptions and mistakes leading us to such failures and humiliations, while sacrificing thousands of Americans, allies and hundreds of thousands of Afghani along the way. 

Politically this administration will eventually win in performing a long term plan and claiming to get us out of war situation, and if it's well played we can boost and strengthen the Taliban again or any other faction , under our rules, satisfy the military industries and war machines with fresh prospects, it's a solid win win strategic situation for every one on our side. And if I'm wrong and it is indeed a case of desperate non understanding, naivety and misplay from our side, I would classify it as tragic, calamitous and sad, and maybe we deserve to loose more adventures so we finally learn from our past. 

My thanks to all my readers, stay safe and well.                                

ADDRESSING LEBANON

 

The Head of the British Embassy in Lebanon, Dr Martin Longden, bids Lebanon farewell this week. He shared his reflections in the following opinion piece on Lebanon’s present and future:

"There have been better times to be head of the British Embassy in Lebanon.  The crises buffeting this wonderful and troubled country – from the port explosion, to the Covid pandemic, to the economic collapse – have dulled Lebanon’s shine, impoverishing the people and putting both state institutions and the private sector under intolerable pressure.  With no prospect in sight of a government capable of gripping the situation, Lebanon’s situation looks increasingly precarious.

And yet my message, as I leave Beirut, is not just one of profound concern but also of hope.  For I see in Lebanon a place which, for all of its deeply serious problems, retains incredible potential.  This land of the cedars is a truly amazing country: of outstanding natural beauty – from the mountains to the sea, of a rich and diverse culture, and of a people whose hard work and creativity rivals anyone in the Middle East – and beyond.

But you will only unleash this better future if you can slip the shackles of your history. And change fundamentally the way in which politics and government are done here.  Lebanon today stands perhaps at its most important crossroads ever: which way will you go?

Forgive my bluntness: but there is something rotten at the heart of Lebanon.  The failure so far to hold anyone accountable for the disastrous port explosion last summer is just the most dramatic example of the impunity and irresponsibility that characterizes too much of Lebanese life.  State institutions are subverted; special interests are protected; and Hizballah’s militia operate freely, accountable to no one but themselves.  And the result?  An elite enriched, as the Lebanese people lose out at every turn. 

I have discussed Lebanon’s political deadlock and the deteriorating situation with almost all shades of the political elite.  I have warned about the risks they are taking, and of the damage being done to people’s lives.  I have urged them to find a compromise that can establish a broad-based government, with a mandate to undertake the reforms and secure the IMF support that is so desperately needed.  But I regret that my words, like those of Lebanon’s other international friends, fall on deaf ears.

And this is a problem.  Because although the UK will always do what it can to stand by the Lebanese people – with a strong record of significant support for Lebanon’s security, education and humanitarian support– this assistance cannot be a substitute for urgent action by Lebanon’s politicians.  The international community cannot stop Lebanon’s fall.

 It would be easy to dismiss Lebanon’s political elite as out of touch and corrupt.  Many regrettably are.  But the problem is more profound than that.  For a political system rooted in the divisions of confessionalism can simply never be the basis for a successful twenty-first century country. 

For decades the real purpose of the Lebanese “system” has been, not to look after the national interests of the country, but to “balance” the interests of competing groups.  Some tell me this is what is necessary to prevent the fracturing of the delicate Lebanese mosaic.  Perhaps.  It is certainly important to ensure that Lebanon’s diversity is respected and protected in the framework of the country.  But what has been the consequence of this system?

It has been to focus on a zero-sum game, on ensuring that each group gets no less of its share of Lebanon’s wealth and resource than it believes it is due.  And in this relentless effort to take, Lebanon’s leaders have spent its resources recklessly – way beyond what it could ever truly afford.  Now the country stands on the verge of insolvency.  So focused were the political elite on dividing the cake, they never thought about how to bake a bigger one.

Some say it is the region that prevents progress.  Lebanon is a small country – a place in which the fault lines and tremors of others’ geo-politics play out.  For sure, yours is a difficult neighborhood: too many foreign powers take too close an interest in what happens here.  Their agendas are not always benign.  But the confessional instinct to lend one’s trust to foreign powers more than to fellow Lebanese has not helped.  The weaker and more divided the country, the more vulnerable Lebanon becomes to the predations of others. A neutral Lebanon, disassociated from the region’s other conflicts, is an essential feature of a better future.  And it would be a fatal error to conclude that Lebanon must wait for other nations to reconcile before change can happen here. 

None of this is easy to do: nothing of value ever is.  But in the midst of our current despair I do believe that change can and will come to Lebanon.  Last month I took a two day tour of the south, travelling as far down as Bint Jbeil.  One of the highlights was to call in on a rural public school and meet the young people to hear their views and aspirations for Lebanon.  They are – in every sense – Lebanon’s future.  For theirs is a generation less scarred by the divisions of the civil war.  But also more united, through technology, with their peers across the globe: they see the world beyond Lebanon – and thus what is possible here.

I do not believe that the old, corrupted practices will withstand youth’s excited impatience for a better future, and nor should they.  This at heart is what gives me hope for the future of Lebanon: as the new generation rides to the rescue of the old.  And the UK, as a long-standing friend and partner to the Lebanese people, will be proud to ride with you.”

The speech appeared and was reproduced from National News Agency (NNA), and as usual, my many thanks to all readers, stay safe and well. But my last word would be ; Are we in Lebanon and elsewhere honestly going steadfast into a Haiti example situation, or maybe duplicating what's happening in Myanmar, are we already there ..... 

THE STATE OF THE UNION......

 

Around 25% of Americans think, believe and behave in certain suspiciously dubious ways, concerning certain existential patterns. Are they all so naïve, so simple minded, so literally Christian zealots, so as not to see the realities of actual politics of today versus the original Christian writings and teachings. Or is it all instigated and covered by some motivational naivety, a soi-disant naivety and simplicity to let a political agenda proceed.

To allow a man to rule and become the shadow of God on earth, plus his family, oligarchy and lackeys, who will be the new Apostles and messengers. Many previous leaders tried it historically, and many more are still at it nowadays, they failed miserably in most cases. But not us in America, we are as always the most stubborn and obstinate, we belong to the unchanged minds even when it leads us to total failures even annihilation. We even keep handy religious scribes and dictates to back us up and keep us on the right path. No fear, God and the scriptures are with us, covering our obstinacy and naivety. 

Whether it's the pandemics and their deadly viruses, or the election frauds, and the cheatings of more than half the country or our economic inequalities and vulnerabilities and well being, nor our real problems of social welfare, wealth distribution, nor our foreign meddling, adventures, policing and regime changing in every corner of the world. Our failing to achieve healthcare for all, and provide reasonable prescription drug pricing, and teach our younger generations plus retraining of our older workers, and to top it all our non approach to global warming changes and green energy necessities.

We surely must be so brainwashed by traditional corporate power, and rich tycoons, and lately by this new breed of pretentious and greedy leaders governing our lives in the present as well as the future of our descendants. I cannot believe, in all honesty, that roughly 25% of American adults, people from all walks of life, are so naïve and so blinded by cheap rhetoric and pure propagandist demagogy, I might accept and understand it in some fourth world countries, or some failed states in Africa or the Middle-East, even Latin America, but to behave and think like this in a top Western superpower is literally unexplainable and unacceptable.

 Some malignant sarcasm is being spread nowadays, stating that when more and more Republican voters are in the jaws of death due to ideological refusal to vaccinate and apply other Covid precautions, only then maybe the majority of Americans will wake up realizing the stupid fix we've willingly placed ourselves in, following blindly empty slogans and empty fake demagogy. 

Our democracy is being tested and eroded like never before, voter suppression laws are being advanced in nearly every state across the country, our wealth inequality and our social benefits plus our infrastructure and our scientific research accomplishments and competitiveness are all vanishing rapidly, we are only contemplating as policies to punish or destroy our competitors, not to elevate ourselves and advance, not to lead in constructive advancement and competitiveness on the human levels, but to perpetually destroy and annihilate the others to prove our supremacy. 

This trajectory is evidently a clear sign of what could be coming to the West in general and to America if left unchecked and uncensored, the world and humanity paid a dear price for such politics and behaviors in the first 50 years of our past century, we ought to revive our memories and learn our lessons. It's time for America to join the world as a member state, and not as the only feared one sided policeman. 

My, as always, many thanks for your time and patience, stay safe and well.                                

THE MAKING OF A NEW LEFT IN AMERICA ....

 

While you are reading these words, somebody in this country will die needlessly. Under cause of death, the coroners’ report should read, “political neglect.” We made the political choice to let them die

One of the most straightforward ways to measure our lethal neglect is through deaths by uninsurance. The lack of health insurance is killing someone as we speak. By my calculations (which I explain here), slightly more than 30,000 people die every year from lack of insurance in this country. That’s nearly 83 deaths per day, or 3.45 deaths every hour. That’s one death, on average, every 17 minutes or so.

Those figures don’t include death from under-insurance, but that’s common in the United States, too. Americans routinely tell pollsters that they have put off needed medical care because they can’t afford the copayments and deductibles. Sometimes they die as a result. Those figures are not easy to find, but they certainly bump up the likelihood that someone will die because of our political choices while you’re reading this.

That someone may well be a child. Before the day is over, more than thirty children will be dead because of our indifference to economic inequality, structural racism, and the destruction of our environment. That’s based on the UN Rapporteur’s finding that 600,000 children had died needlessly in the United States over a 50-year period. That comes to 32 children per day, or more than one child per hour.

We haven’t even factored Covid-19 into these figures yet. The pandemic may have peaked, but people continue to die from it. And the death toll increased exponentially because of our political choices. According to one analysis, one out of every three COVID-19 deaths in this country “are linked to health insurance gaps.” That’s slightly more than 200,000 deaths in the last year.

As of this writing, the weekly rolling average for Covid-19 deaths is 192 per day, sharply down from pandemic highs. If the ratio holds, that means 64 people are still dying every day from deaths associated with inadequate insurance coverage. That’s 2.6 deaths per hour, or one death every 22 minutes on average.

Then there’s air pollution. According to one study, it kills nearly 200,000 people in this country every year. That death toll disproportionately targets Black, Brown, and poor communities. That comes to more than 520 deaths per day, or one death every 1.65 minutes. Political neglect causes other deaths, too, but how much mortality can the human spirit take at one time?

If you read at the college-educated average of 300 words per minute, you’ll be done with this material within two or three minutes. That doesn’t give you much chance of outracing the Grim Reaper, but you’ll never know for sure. That’s the point, isn’t it? We never know these anonymous people, the faces and lives that make up these statistics. That’s why we don’t feel it. That’s why we let them die.

At this point. mainstream Democrats and their supporters will often step in to point out that the Affordable Care Act has saved a lot of lives. That’s true. Before the ACA was passed, an estimated 45,000 people died every year in this country from a lack of health insurance. That figure has been reduced substantially, which raises what you could call an interesting philosophical point: Should we celebrate the lives that have been saved, or focus on those that continue to be lost?  It’s a “morgue half full, morgue half empty” question, I suppose.

Except that the deaths haven’t been reduced by half, but by roughly one-third. And the problem isn’t numerical, but moral. It seems to me we’re obligated to focus on the lives we aren’t saving, not the ones we’ve saved.  Those lives include the uninsured, the under-insured, the children dying from poverty and neglect, and the massive death toll from environmental pollution.

Which brings us to the progressive Democrats in Congress. They haven’t been saying much lately about Medicare For All, and they seem to be deferring the Green New Deal for another day. They’ve been focusing on tactical gains: lowering the Medicare eligibility age, broadening its coverage, and expanding other forms of health care access. I have to admit I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, I applaud them for attempting to embrace the responsibility that comes with proximity to power (if not power itself). But I can’t forget that somebody’s dying right now.

Those incremental gains would save more lives. But one of the left’s greatest strengths has been its moral clarity, its urgent insistence that every life matters. If it leaves single-payer healthcare and the Green New Deal on the battlefield, it will have lost the moral clarity that makes its message so compelling. That clarity contributed to the Bernie Sanders phenomenon, to the rise of a new left contingent in Congress, to the progressive shift among millions of rank-and-file voters. It will also leave thousands of lives on the battlefield.

This is arithmetic, but it’s arithmetic that hurts. It’s an arithmetic of the heart. As long as progressives stay silent about the lives that are still being lost, something doesn’t add up. Nothing does, in fact, except the number of lost lives – a number that went up while you were reading this.

Copied from Absolute Zero; A news letter from Richard (RJ) Eskow

https://eskow.substack.com/p/before-youre-done-reading-this-someone?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMjI1NzkzOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6Mzg1NDM5MDgsIl8iOiJkK09TKyIsImlhdCI6 

SET AND CLEAR INTERNATIONAL LAW ......

 Agence France Presse, (July 9th 2021).

GENEVA: A top UN rights expert called Friday for Israeli settlements to be classified as war crimes, urging the international community to finally demand accountability for a practice it has long deemed illegal.

Presenting his latest report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Michael Lynk, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, said the settlements constitute a "violation of the absolute prohibition against settler implantation".

This practice, which involves an occupying power transferring parts of its civilian population into an occupied territory, was designated as a war crime in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Lynk insisted that "this finding compels the international community to assess the plentiful accountability measures on its diplomatic and legal menu."

It was time, he said, "to make it clear to Israel that its illegal occupation, and its defiance of international law and international opinion, can and will no longer be cost-free."

Israel, which does not recognize Lynk's mandate and has never granted him access to the Palestinian territories, boycotted the session.

The expert pointed to the wide range of UN resolutions labelling Israel's settlement activity as illegal.

"The illegality of the Israeli settlements is one of the most settled and uncontentious issues in modern international law," he said.

But, Lynk added, "it is a tragic paradox that, while the Israeli settlements are clearly prohibited by international law, the international community has been remarkably reluctant to enforce its own laws."

The UN expert said the number of Jewish settlements had reached almost 300 in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, with more than 680,000 Israeli settlers.

The settlements have become "the engine of Israel's 54-year-old occupation, the longest in the modern world", Lynk added.

International action, not just words, was needed to resolve the situation, he said.

"As long as the international community criticizes Israel without seeking consequences and accountability, it is magical thinking to believe that the 54-year-old occupation will end and the Palestinians will finally realize their right to self-determination." 

This report is a repeat of many like it by different UN and international experts, law makers, annalists, and human rights watchers, unfortunately the entire world keeps its mouth shut, but the main culprit without any doubt are the successive U.S administrations, mostly the last one. Who not only encourages and funds such behavior but vetoes any international resolution condemning it. It is high time we start reanalyzing our positions and fairness, and consider our double standards in international affairs and politics, especially in the Middle-East.

As always, my profound thanks to all my good readers, stay safe and well.  

REVISITING AN AMERICAN DILEMA .....

 America loves always to have some type of a worthy adversary, we make them sometimes starch enemies, and we deal with them harshly when convenient, after the cold war with the Russian empire, and the war on terrorism taking us to different countries around the globe, and defending Israel by destroying all its unwanted neighbors, we are now in the process of creating a new adversary to re-energize our populations and internal differences, it is China, we are slowly building our enmity and justifying it by all means. of course different administrations have their different approaches and tactical variations, but the essence is the same.

Here's a good article by a smart man of political experience, as he served under various administrations and as secretary of labor under the Clinton administration. and is still actively involved in our political process as a writer, progressive thinker and an astute analytical mind, Robert Reich is an economist, a professor and a political commentator, I hope I'm not infringing by republishing his thoughts in my humble blog, he has a fair description of how and what should be done vis-a-vis our newest bitter enemy. 

China’s increasingly aggressive geopolitical and economic stance in the world is unleashing a fierce bipartisan backlash in America.

That’s fine if it leads to more public investment in basic research, education, and infrastructure – as did the Sputnik shock of the late 1950s. But it poses dangers as well.

More than 60 years ago, the sudden and palpable fear that the Soviet Union was lurching ahead of us shook America out of a postwar complacency and caused the nation to do what it should have been doing for many years. Even though we did it under the pretext of national defense – we called it the National Defense Education Act and the National Defense Highway Act and relied on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration for basic research leading to semiconductors, satellite technology, and the Internet – the result was to boost US productivity and American wages for a generation

When the Soviet Union began to implode, America found its next foil in Japan. Japanese-made cars were taking market share away from the Big Three automakers. Meanwhile, Mitsubishi bought a substantial interest in the Rockefeller Center, Sony purchased Columbia Pictures, and Nintendo considered buying the Seattle Mariners. By the late 1980s and start of the 1990s, countless congressional hearings were held on the Japanese “challenge” to American competitiveness and the Japanese “threat” to American jobs.

A tide of books demonized Japan – Pat Choate’s Agents of Influence alleged Tokyo’s alleged payoffs to influential Americans were designed to achieve “effective political domination over the United States”. Clyde Prestowitz’s Trading Places argued that because of our failure to respond adequately to the Japanese challenge “the power of the United States and the quality of American life is diminishing rapidly in every respect”. William S Dietrich’s In the Shadow of the Rising Sun claimed Japan “threatens our way of life and ultimately our freedoms as much as past dangers from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union”.

Robert Zielinski and Nigel Holloway’s Unequal Equities argued that Japan rigged its capital markets to undermine American corporations. Daniel Burstein’s Yen! Japan’s New Financial Empire and Its Threat to America asserted that Japan’s growing power put the United States at risk of falling prey to a “hostile Japanese ... world order”.

And on it went: The Japanese Power Game, The Coming War with Japan, Zaibatsu America: How Japanese Firms are Colonizing Vital US Industries, The Silent War, Trade Wars.

But there was no vicious plot. We failed to notice that Japan had invested heavily in its own education and infrastructure – which enabled it to make high-quality products that American consumers wanted to buy. We didn’t see that our own financial system resembled a casino and demanded immediate profits. We overlooked that our educational system left almost 80% of our young people unable to comprehend a news magazine and many others unprepared for work. And our infrastructure of unsafe bridges and potholed roads were draining our productivity.

In the present case of China, the geopolitical rivalry is palpable. Yet at the same time, American corporations and investors are quietly making bundles by running low-wage factories there and selling technology to their Chinese “partners”. And American banks and venture capitalists are busily underwriting deals in China.

I don’t mean to downplay the challenge China represents to the United States. But throughout America’s postwar history it has been easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.

The greatest danger we face today is not coming from China. It is our drift toward proto-fascism. We must be careful not to demonize China so much that we encourage a new paranoia that further distorts our priorities, encourages nativism and xenophobia, and leads to larger military outlays rather than public investments in education, infrastructure, and basic research on which America’s future prosperity and security critically depend.

The central question for America – an ever more diverse America, whose economy and culture are rapidly fusing with the economies and cultures of the rest of the globe – is whether it is possible to rediscover our identity and our mutual responsibility without creating another enemy.

Thanks for reading,

Robert Reich

As always, my thanks to all, be safe and well.