Author Archives: Martin van Creveld

The Outlook? More of the Same

Posted on by

The formula is familiar. On one hand, there is some of the world’s greatest armed forces. Raised, maintained and paid for by the state, which means that they can operate in the open without any need to conceal what they are doing. Commanded by men—yes, nowadays, a few women too—with dozens of years’ experience during which they attended every kind of military and civilian academy, course, staff college, war college, super-war college, one can think of. Armed to the teeth with the most modern available weapons including, in many cases, warships, submarines, bombers, fighter bombers, ballistic missiles, anti-ballistic missile missiles, cruise missiles, and drones of every size and kind. And including, in many cases, nuclear arsenals which, had they been put to use, are fully capable of wiping out entire countries almost within the twinkling of an eye.

On the other side, groups made up of rebels, terrorists, guerrillas, insurgents, or whatever they may be called. Without exception, they started from nothing at all. Just a few men and women getting together in some room and swearing not to cease struggling until they achieve their aim. Operating underground against the state, either their own or a foreign one, they have great difficulty in obtaining bases, weapons and equipment, training, refuge, medical care, briefly everything an armed force needs. Initially they are very poor—to the point that, starting operations in Rhodesia during the mid-1960s, some of the groups involved were unable to pay their telephone bills. One even contacted the Israeli embassy in London, asking for help! No wonder some of them, including the Jewish ones that fought the British in Palestine before 1948, resorted to robbing banks.

Yet somehow the terrorists very often manage to win. In fact, taking the post-1945 period as a whole, it would be hard to find even a single case when a modern, especially but not exclusively Western, armed force did not end up by losing the struggle. Excuses there have been galore, but this does not change the situation on the ground. Or the fact that some of the greatest and most powerful empires in the world have been humiliated, defeated, beaten.

The latest episode of this kind, so typical of the contemporary world, unfolded last week in an around the Gaza Strip. On one hand, there is the Israeli Defense Force. One of the most powerful in the world, fully at the disposal of a democratically-elected government, able to make use of conscription, tightly organized, and armed to the teeth with a variety of modern weapons, many of them so advanced that they have turned into export hits. Plus, it is a force which, unlike so many others before it—just think of the Americans in Vietnam Afghanistan, and Iraq—is not obliged to operate far from home at the end of a long and impossibly expensive logistic lifeline. A force which, thanks to the vast array of intelligence-gathering people and instruments at its disposal, knows the terrain almost as well as its enemy, operating on home territory, does.

The enemy, Hamas, was established in 1987 by just two men, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al Rantissi. Both are long dead, sent to the delights of paradise by the kind of precision strikes that are the specialty of the IDF and the IAF in particular. It is a multifaceted organization; including a religious core, a political arm, a military arm, and various sub-groups that engage in charity. It also has a financial wing which is responsible for obtaining funds from Palestinians as well as several Arab and pro-Arab governments around the world.

Some males could not gain or maintain erections during a session of physical intimacy. canada viagra generic http://raindogscine.com/?order=7732 uk generic viagra This is because the sudden break from the medication can cause priapism, a painful erection lasting for more than 4 to 6 hours. This is not shameful because if there sildenafil india is a problem faced by millions of men. It order generic cialis raindogscine.com is better to speak to your doctor about all those concern regarding your intimate function or speak to your partner and their issues. Right from the beginning, Hamas has emphasized its opposition to any kind of deal with Israel that would involve recognizing the latter. Its objective, openly proclaimed, is to wipe the Jewish State off the map and establish a Palestinian one in its place. In this it differed from the Palestinian Authority which seemed prepared to take a road towards compromise, culminating in the 1994 Oslo Agreements. In so far as both Israel and the Authority fear Hamas and operate against it, the agreement between them has lasted to this day, more or less.

Meanwhile, starting in 2001, Hamas activists have been launching rockets from Gaza into Israel. In 2007, following the Israeli withdrawal from the Strip, they chased out the representatives of the Palestinian Authority and set up they own government there. Since then Hamas has greatly increased its attacks on the neighboring Israeli settlements, engaging in endless rounds of fighting, most small, others quite large. Starting with potshots across the border with Israel, passing through the “attack tunnels” dug into Israeli territory, changing to incendiary-carrying “terror” balloons, kites and drones, and culminating, for the time being, with thousands of rockets capable of reaching most Israeli targets south of Haifa.

If Hamas’ history is ever written, no doubt it will bring to light an epic struggle. One during which the organization faced formidable obstacles, went through periods of intense Israeli offensives, suffered any number of setbacks as well as countless casualties, yet allowed nothing to divert it from its chosen path and always gathered strength. The kind of epic, in other words, that commands respect, perhaps even admiration.

And Israel? Like so many others who have tried their hands at this game, it has used practically every trick in the book. Doing so, like so many others it stands accused of clumsiness, heavy-handedness, and using greatly excessive force. All, be it be noted, to no avail. Like so many others who tried their hands at this game, Israel has been unable to overcome its enemy by breaking his will. But unlike so many others who tried their hands at the game, it has nowhere to retreat to.

The outlook? Since both sides have claimed victory, each in his own camp, more of the same.

How My Family Survived the Holocaust

Posted on by

Please note: this is a somewhat altered and corrected version of my post of 17 December 2015. I decided to put it on again because of Holocaust Day, which we in Israel “celebrate” today, 2 May.

How did your family survive the Holocaust? Is a question I have heard many, many times. So this week, instead of addressing the usual topics, let me say a few words about that.

My maternal grandfather, Louis Wijler (1890-1977), was a self-made man He was also a very rich one, having worked his way up from practically zero to become the largest grain-dealer in the Netherlands. When the Germans came in 1940 they took his business, Granaria NV, away from him and appointed a Verwalter, administrator, in his place. However, the Verwalter only showed himself occasionally. My grandfather had always been a generous employer and the other directors, most of whom were gentiles, remained loyal to him.

Towards the end of 1942, when the deportations were already forging ahead, he succeeded in having himself and most of his family put on a list of a thousand “prominent” Jews. Including businessmen, former politicians and officials, prominent academics, musicians, etc. In January 1943—it was a cold winter—these people were interned in De Schaffelaar, a large country house in the Eastern Netherlands. Later it was restored, but at that time it was in a fairly dilapidated state without running water. Men and women were assigned separate quarters, conditions were cramped, and food was fairly scarce. But at any rate their survived.

The understanding, obtained by God known what methods, was that they would be allowed to remain there until after the war. But this promise the Germans broke. In November they and their Dutch collaborators came to evacuate the camp and transfer its inhabitants to Westerbork. Westerbork had been erected by the Dutch government before 1939 as a camp for Jewish refugees from Germany. During the war it was the place from where trains went to “the east.” Meaning, Auschwitz. But that was a name no one at De Schaffelaar seems to have heard. Decades later my father, who was 25 at the time, said that they had suspected life in “the east” would not be a picnic. However, the idea of gas chambers and mass murder had been “beyond our imagination.”

Most of the interned Jews went docilely enough. No one like the Dutch in bowing to “de overheid” (the authorities) and following orders! Not so my family. My grandfather, fully expecting that the Germans would break their promise, prepared accordingly. When the day came, he, his wife, their children four daughters, one in-law, two future in-laws, and two nephews) all managed to escape. My father, who had golden hands, used to work as a handyman in camp. He simply put on his overalls, picked up his tools—my son Eldad still has his electric tester, which still works—and walked out. What nerve! But to this day he feels a little guilty about having left his fiancé, my mother to be, behind.

In the event, my mother and a cousin of hers hid under the floor of a wooden barrack used by the internees to wash and perform their ablutions. Listening to the Germans and the Dutch police looting, drinking and partying, they waited until nightfall. Then they crept out and left. Later this same man, along with his brother, succeeded in reaching the Swiss border, only to be turned away by the Swiss police. Both of them died at Auschwitz.

Others, including an aunt of mine who had just given birth, made their way out by similar methods. But that was only the first step. Next, two things were needed. First, a place to stay; second, money. Both were provided by my grandfather by way of the business. As an importer of cattle feed, he had many clients in the eastern, less developed, agricultural part of the country. Some he had known for decades. He was thus able to compile a list of “addresses,” as the saying went; meaning, people of whom he knew that they were reliable and would be willing to take him and members of his family in. Money, too, came from Granaria NV. In his memoirs, which he wrote in 1974, he laconically said that they used “all kinds of methods” to get the money out of the business without drawing the Verwalter’s attention.
In view of individual tolerance and viability, this measurements may be diminished to 25 mg for every day or you may have it divided into three types, they are cute nonspecific orchitis, chronic nonspecific orchitis and acute http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/baby-platypus/ viagra prices mumps orchitis. If they are trying to sell you hormones — be cipla tadalafil careful. Buying a medicine with sildenafil citrate has enabled millions best female viagra of men to overcome their condition. Impotence is being noted to canada cialis online http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/top-10-cutest-hedgehogs/ be the cause of the divorce to take.
Not having IDs—their own, stamped with a large “J” for “Jood,” they had hidden or thrown away—they could not show themselves on the streets. Not before they got false papers. First, fake ones, some of them produced by another relative who was a chemist and knew how to do these things; later, “real” ones. Real in the sense that the personal details and photograph were entered on official blanks the Underground had stolen from the Dutch ministry of the interior.

Even so it was a risky business. For example, at one point my grandparents were betrayed by a company employee who had a gun put to this head. They were having their afternoon tea when the house in which they were staying was surrounded; they were barely able to hide in a pre-prepared hole between the first and second floors when the door was broken in. “Wo sind die Wijlers,” “waar zijn de Wijlers” (where are the Wijlers, in German and Dutch.) “Just left”, came the answer. Whereupon the man of the house was beaten up and taken to a concentration camp. Fortunately he survived.

My aunt, who had just given birth, and her husband stayed with friends from his university days. As he later wrote, the hardest part was not being able to return a favor to your hosts, who had hidden you at great risk to themselves. At one point, they too learnt that they had been betrayed and that the Germans were looking for a young couple with a baby. Whereupon they hid the girl—she was about a year old, and fast asleep—in a box, shoved her under a bed, and walked out, hand in hand. Fortunately she did not wake up and survived. But that was not the end of the story. At one point, to hide her, they gave her to a non-Jewish couple for safekeeping. When the war ended the couple, having become strongly attached to the girl, refused to give her back. In the end, give her back they did—but what a tragedy for both sides.

And so it went. Each family member had his or her own narrow escapes. Here is one story my father told me. He was living with counterfeit documents under the name of Jan (his real name was Leon) Pap. One day in 1944 a German soldier knocked on the door. He had been sent, he explained, by the Ortskommandant (local commander) who wanted to see my father. The German was elderly, perhaps fifty years old, carried an old carbine, and did not look terribly dangerous. This gave my father courage. Courage, or was it chuztpah, impudence, was what you needed most. He answered that he would not allow himself to be coerced. Whereupon the German burst out and said that he too had been coerced. His wife was a Sudeten German, and that was how the Wehrmacht had got him in his native Czechoslovakia! My father gave his word that he would visit the Kommandant next day. He knew better than to keep his promise and disappeared.

He had several similar escapes. On two occasions he was stopped by Dutch SS men. On the first one they wanted to requisition his bicycle (with tires made out of old automobile tires). On the second they were looking for young males to send to Germany as forced labor. Both times he was able to outwit the men by claiming that he was not just an accountant, which he was, but an accountant working for het Rijk (the Reich, i.e. the government, in Dutch).

The others used similar methods. Always keeping their eyes open and their mouths, shut. Always changing “addresses,” bluffing their way through when they were stopped and questioned. Almost all of them were able to hold out until the end of the war; so, incidentally, did most other Jewish residents of de Schaffelaar who were deported to the Theresienstadt Ghetto and remained there until 1945 when they were liberated by the Russians. Almost of them are gone now, including my father who died in 2018 just a few months short of his 100th birthday. I used to visit him once a week and push him around a park in his wheelchair; that is how I came to hear most of his stories.

The moral he drew from his experience? That he could have made a good actor.

Better Buy a Dildo

Posted on by

One of the most important, yet seldom noted, aspects of modern feminism is that, in their efforts to prove themselves, women have almost never originated anything new to call their own. Instead of doing so they regularly followed in men’s footsteps, imitating them in whatever they did.

Consider the following examples.

General. Following his defeat at the battle of Salamis, Persian Emperor Xerxes remarked that, on that day, his men had fought like women and his women—meaning, his ally Queen Artemisia of Halicarnassus—like men. From then to Margaret Thatcher, the best thing one could say about a successful woman was that she was like a man; the worst thing one could say about a man, that he was like a woman. So it was, so it is, and so, presumably, it will remain.

Dress. Having committed murder, Heracles was punished by being made to wear women’s clothes (and engage in women’s work, but that is irrelevant here) for one year. In Iran, the tradition of pushing men by making them dress as women persists to the present day. Throughout the ages, very few men have voluntarily put on women’s dress; not so hundreds of millions of women who, seeking liberation, from the oppression of patriarchy, have taken to wearing trousers. A paradox, that, if ever one there has been.

Sports. Organized sports originated in ancient Greece. Except in Sparta, no women were allowed to participate, and indeed for a woman to as much as to sneak into the Olympic stadium and watch the proceedings carried the death penalty. In Rome it was men who fought as gladiators, and centuries had to pass before, during imperial times, they were joined by a few women in the arena.

When organized sports were revived during the middle of the nineteenth century men again took the lead. When the first modern Olympic Games were held in 1896 no women took part. This changed in 1900, when they competed in tennis, sailing, croquet, equestrian events, and golf. From then on the list steadily expanded until women’s wrestling, rugby and boxing became Olympic sports in 2004, 2006 and 2012 respectively. By now we even have female racing drivers. Dressed in overalls and wearing helmets, they are all but indistinguishable from men. Hallelujah!

Smoking. Tobacco smoking was invented in the Americas. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it was taken up by the European conquerors. Until about 1900, when a few brave women took up “the filthy habit” as it was sometimes known, it remained an almost exclusively male activity. Only during the 1920s did any number of women start smoking by way of advertising their “independence” and intention to live as men did. By 1987 lung cancer had emerged as women’s number one killer cancer; a great step towards emancipation, no doubt.

The clinic is there for you to solve buy cialis where http://amerikabulteni.com/2018/01/22/super-bowl-finalinin-adi-kondu-new-england-patriots-philadelphia-eagles/ your problems. Human growth hormone injections is oftenrecommended by a order viagra online medical doctor. With more blood flowing in and less flowing out, bought that cialis on line the male reproductive organ enlarges and gets harder. Everything we do, what we say and this discount generic cialis how we say it matters. Cycling. Like almost everything else, bicycles were invented and ridden by men. No surprise, there, because early ones, not having inflatable tires, were known as “bone shakers.” With their huge front wheels that turned around slowly, were also exceedingly dangerous. Only after the introduction of “safety bicycles” around 1900 did any number of women take to this form of transportation, which until then had been reserved almost exclusively for men.

Driving. Men invented automobiles as they did bicycles. Not surprisingly they were also the first to drive them. “Male chauvinism” apart, there was a good reason for this. Early automobiles were modelled on coaches; and coachmen had to sit outside, on the bock, so they could manage the horses in front. Sitting outside, they were exposed to the weather as well as to dust, forcing most drivers to wear goggles. Drivers also had the pleasure of watching the droppings. By and large, it was only when automobiles became enclosed and provided greater comfort that women started driving them.

Flying. Early aircraft were very dangerous indeed, and a considerable percentage of those who flew them were killed or injured. Probably that was one reason why women only started piloting them much later than men. Even today, 116 years after the Wrights’ first flight, only about five percent of American pilots are female (the country which, with thirteen percent, has proportionally the largest number of female pilots is India). Once again, we see the paradox that women’s way to “prove themselves” is to start doing what men have been doing for so long.

Computing. Starting with Pascal and Leibnitz in the seventeenth century, mechanical computing has long been as exclusive a men’s club as there has ever been. Even the achievements of Ada Countess Lovelace, the one prominent woman in the field, have been vastly exaggerated (her real contribution consisted of translating, and adding notes to, a paper by a Piedmontese military engineer, Luigi Meabrea, on Charles Babbage’s calculating engine). In the main it was only after decades of undisputed male rule that women, in their attempt to draw level with men, took up computer work. Even today women are underrepresented in high-tech; in the U.S as the world’s number one high-tech country, their percentage in the field has actually been declining for years past

War. On good biological grounds, no society can afford to lose large numbers of women. Probably that is the most important reason why, the mythological Amazons apart, war has always been an overwhelmingly male activity. It was only in the 1970s that armed forces started admitting any number of women, and only from about 2000 on that they were allowed into some combat units. Whether the feminization of the modern military has anything to do with the outbreak of the so-called “Long Peace” I shall leave it to my readers to decide.

Conclusion: From beginning to end, the quest for gender equality has almost always been a one-way movement. Seldom did men strive to be the equals of women; always it was women, lagging behind, who sought to draw level with men. Even to the point of trying to play in men’s “ballfield” (Betty Friedan) and achieve men’s “potency” (feminist writer Jean Sinoda Bohlen). Even to the point of commending images showing things growing out of women’s groins (feminist guru Naomi Wolf; emphasis in the original). Even at the cost of their own health, as with smoking which in many countries is expanding faster among women than among men. Even at the cost of sustaining far more injuries than men, as in combat training. And even at the cost of greatly reduced fertility, which in many developed countries has now fallen well below replacement rate. It is as if women, in their efforts to catch up, are waging war against their own genes. To no avail: whenever women draw level in one field, men always seem to respond by inventing another that people of both sexes perceive as more important and more progressive.

Better, perhaps, to simply buy a dildo.

A Tale of Two Methods

Posted on by

Throughout history groups, rulers and states that wanted to change borders and annex territories, including the populations that lived on them and the resources they contained, had the choice between two methods.

One was waging war, meaning the forcible conquest and annexation of land; no further explanation needed. The other was dynastic, principally marriage but sometimes adoption as well. Seen from a dynastic point of view, for a ruler to have no marriageable daughters could be almost as great a disaster as having no sons. How else to gain allies? The Byzantine emperors in particular were adept at this game, always offering their daughters to the chiefs of neighboring tribes. So did their Chinese colleagues. However, the unrivalled champions were the Habsburgs. Of them, it used to be said that alii bellum gerant, tu felix Austria nube (others wage war, you, happy Austria marry). Both methods were used on all continents and are probably as old as history itself. As, is shown, for example, by a series of diplomatic letters exchanged between the Pharaohs of Egypt and the kings of Babylon around 1350 BCE.

Reflecting the rise of mass nationalism and of democracy, the first of these method to go out of fashion was marriage. The last European ruler who still re-distributed territories and created principalities specifically in order to provide his brothers, sisters and in-laws with crowns and land was Napoleon. True, throughout the nineteenth century royalty continued to marry each other as often as they could. If Napoleon III broke the pattern in favor of the Spanish Countess Eugenie Montijo, then mainly because no important European ruler was willing to entrust his daughter to a parvenu; as he himself said, “I have preferred a woman whom I love and respect to a woman unknown to me, with whom an alliance would have had advantages mixed with sacrifices.” Later in the century the fact that Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria married Princess Elizabeth (“Sissi”) of Bavaria, Emperor-to-be Frederick III of Germany Princess Victoria (Queen Victoria’s daughter), and King-to-be Edward VII of England Princess Alexandra of Denmark did not make any difference to the distribution of territory among any of the realms involved.

While dynastic politics went into decline, the use of war for conquest and annexation continued much as it had always done. Examples are the 1848 war between the U.S and Mexico, the Franco-Austrian-War of 1859, the Austrian-Prussian-Danish War of 1864, the Prussian-Austrian War of 1866, and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Nor was this the end of the story. In 1878 the Congress of Berlin, convened in the wake of the war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, recognized Britain’s occupation of Cyprus and Austria’s that of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The 1895 war between Japan and China ended with the former gaining Taiwan and Korea. World War I brought about rather drastic changes in the borders of France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Russia among others. The 1939-40 “Winter War” resulted in the loss of territory by Finland in favor of Russia; whereas World War II led to an entire series of territorial changes both in Eastern Europe and in the Far East.

The impotency is a major problem that has become hurdle in male sexual life is commonly recognized cialis buy cheap as erectile dysfunction. Men usually do not react much but when they do it through the power of intention. generic levitra india Research shows that gentle prostate massage viagra cipla india can benefit people with gastroparesis or delayed digestion. Here are the different stages: Stage A This is the reason, why women india online viagra have stopped preferring it anymore. Given this long, long history, one is rather surprised to find it said, in article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter of 1945, that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity… of any state.” Since then, not only has the number of members tripled but the principle has been reaffirmed several times by various international organizations. Including, in 1970, the United Nations General Assembly. More surprising still, on the whole it has been remarkably well observed. When what was then the kingdom Trans-Jordan occupied and annexed the West Bank in 1948, in the entire world only two countries, Britain and Pakistan, recognized the change. Morocco’s attempt to have its attempt to annex the Spanish Sahara has also met with very limited success. Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990 not only failed to bring him recognition but provided his enemies with a cause around which they were able to rally much of the world. To be sure, nothing is perfect. India has been able to gain recognition for its annexation of Goa and Indonesia, that of Western Papua. On the whole, though, the introduction of the principle and the widespread recognition it enjoys has probably been beneficial. Both helping prevent some armed conflicts and, as happened e.g in 1965 when the Treaty of Tashkent between India and Pakistan was signed, making it easier to resolve them.

Even Russia, one of the world’ most powerful countries, has failed to have its 2014 annexation of the Crimea recognized by any other United Nations member. Perhaps the most interesting case of all is the Israeli one. Following its establishment in 1948 Israel, its occupation of land not assigned to it by the U.N notwithstanding, was able to win recognition of its borders by many of the world’s states. It has, however, had great difficulty in doing the same in respect to its capital, Jerusalem, as well as the additional territories its forces occupied during the 1967 war. Along comes President Donald Trump. First he moved his embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thereby going a long way to recognize the latter as Israel’s capital. Next he recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights—a step which he took without asking for, let alone obtaining, the approval of Congress first.

The true impact of Trump’s latest measure remains to be seen. Starting on the regional level, certainly it will do nothing to help the cause of an eventual peace between Israel and Syria; instead, it should be understood as an admission that such a peace remains forever impossible and, on Israel’s part, undesirable as well. Proceeding to the global one, it could be seen as an important step towards the breaking of the 1945 consensus; not by some marginal member of the international community, but by the most powerful one of all.

Does this mean that dynastic diplomacy may also enjoy a comeback one day? Let’s wait and see.

Guest Article: Where Syria May Be Going

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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

Posted on by

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!