OBAMA AND THE “NEW” NULLIFYING POLITICS.

America has moved into a “new” political era. Gone is the give and take of political compromise and in is the policy of confrontation. There are two principle factors that contribute to this. Firstly, the Republican Party is in total disarray, (Blogs: The Republican Party is Dead and GOP’s Civil War Sabotages Obama Talks), and secondly Obama has responded by keeping his Presidency in continual campaign mode as opposed to creating legislation.

HISTORY

Before continuing, Jay H. Ell needs to make it clear that the Democrats were not always on the side of the angels. As anyone will tell you Abe Lincoln, (Blog: Spielberg’s Lincoln), was a Republican and Lincoln’s problem was the Southern Democrats. The latter had been the major opposition to equality till relatively recently. The Republican Eisenhower had big problems with the Southern Democratic Dixiecrats with his Civil Rights Bill in the 1950’s. It was Eisenhower who took on the Democratic Arkansas Governor’s defiance of the desegregation of Little Rock’s Central High School. Lyndon Johnson also recognized that by introducing Kennedy’s civil rights agenda he would be sacrificing Democratic control of the South.

The irony of all of this is that the Southern Republicans rather than continue with the Civil Rights agenda, which had inadvertently put them into power; in order to keep winning elections took on the Southern Democratic agenda of discrimination. The Democrats, to their credit, got with the program and became the guardians of equality.

So in the 70’s there was a role reversal in the South. The Republicans took on the winning formula of denying rights and advancement of African Americans. They could win with the South as Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes showed.

NEW REALITY

The demographics of the country have changed. Not only is the African American vote going exclusively to the Democrats, (Eisenhower got 40% of them), the numbers registered to vote have increased dramatically. Also the Latinos are veering more and more to the Democrats. In addition the Republican agenda has resulted in them loosing more and more of the women, gay and youth vote. As Bill O’Reilly of Fox said this, "used to be a white man’s country”.

NULLIFICATION

The response of the new Tea Party Republican Party has been to go into denial and move even more to the right. Their approach is to get the minority to triumph. They will obliterate the views of the majority one way or another. This is the policy of nullification that was the tactic of the Confederate States. The States nullify Federal law. This is being done now in the field of the social agenda such as abortion and medical care by refusing to effect Obamacare.  They also decrease the Welfare agenda, spend less on education and on Women’s Health. They have their own gun laws and immigration policies. However the most significant move by the Tea Party dominated GOP has been to limit the vote of the minorities by decreasing opportunities to vote, making registration and voting more and more and onerous. In addition in the States that they control the Districts have been delimitated to ensure safe Republican seats.

Nullification takes place on a Federal level as well. It is the stated policy of the leader of the Republic controlled House of Representatives that their objective is to reverse legislation not to create it. Hence they have passed less than 20 laws in this Congressional Term and have attempted to reverse Obamacare 40 times. In the Senate where the Republications are in the minority they have filibustered 420 times, breaking all records in this field of endeavor.

FISCAL EFFECTS OF NULLIFICATION

The effect of this behavior has been to limit the impact of Obama’s agenda. Also it has had a profound fiscal impact. With several budgets not seeing the light of day several government programs from parks, museums, welfare programs such as food stamps, unemployment benefits, meals at schools, federal watch dog programs, such as the environmental agency and on and on, have all been cut.

If this group had its way they would be no taxation at all. (Presumably their salaries would come from pay offs and bribes!) No taxation of the rich has become their holy grail. The philosophical argument being trickle down economics will create growth. This theory has no basis in fact. Eisenhower stimulated the economy by building infrastructure, creating jobs and increasing the top income tax bracket to 90%. Obama is crying for money to build the infrastructure, create jobs and increase the tax on those earning over $250,000 to 38%. How one can argue that trickle down economics works when the multiple between what a CEO earns versus an average worker is at a historic high of 230? The accepted multiple in the past was 20 times.

POLITICAL EFFECTS OF NULLIFICATION

The new GOP then cutely maintains that Obama is doing nothing about the economy when they are blocking every attempt he is making. Politically they see this playing out as Obama being blamed for doing nothing about the economy and hoping the electorate will forget they wouldn’t let him do anything.

To the poor, who now maintain that the system is rigged against them and that they cannot advance beyond an age old minimum wage, the policy is to belittle them and shame them linking poverty to inertia and laziness. They are Romney’s 47% relying on Government handouts with no ambition. To those who claim that they cannot come out on 2 fulltime jobs on minimum wage the Fox commentators literally laugh at them. Minimum wages are entry wages. You are not supposed to feel comfortable. Move on. It is your fault if you are stuck there.

So the GOP is tied into this narrative. They are even set to close the government for the first time since 1996 when Gingrich by this action hastened his own demise and made Cinton look even more Presidential. Good luck to the Chris Christies of the party who are trying to fight it.

The new GOP are just hoping that this will all come together and that the disappointingly slow economic recovery will be blamed on Obama and whoever they elect to run will just run on that you have never had it so bad.

THE COUNTER STRATEGY AND THE FUTURE

Obama’s counter to all of this is to go onto the campaign trail and sell his agenda. His job, fiscal, economic, health, immigration and social policies all receive the full treatment.  Although he has been at this for 10 years he has not lost his zest for doing what he does best. Also the hordes and the throngs who pitch up to hear him have not lost their exuberance at hearing his rhetoric. He belabors the fact that the Republicans won’t cooperate. He announces compromises that are the Republican knee jerkly reject. Meantime electioneering continues with his powerful grass roots organization in an attempt to hang onto the Senate and win the House of Representatives in the 2014 midterm elections If he doesn’t win the 2014 congressional elections he will just carry on as before.

HILLARY AND THE LEGACY

Obama has enough sense of history to know that his and Hillary’s agenda is exactly the same and to look at a sixteen year transition period rather than an eight year span. Short of another Obama, Hillary is a certainty to win in 2016. In the interim the Republican Party will tear itself to pieces in another bruising Primary. There is Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Mark Rubrio, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Jed Bush, Peter King and TBA all ready to run. While they chew each other up and use up tons and tons of money in the process, Hillary will be collecting more and more money and be looking more and more Presidential. Although she hasn’t announced there are already millions in a Political Action Committee supporting her that have employed key Obama strategists to mastermind her campaign. There is an unprecedented groundswell of so many constituencies ready to back her. The women of all parties are screaming for the first woman President. And there is Bill a living American icon. Obama has gone out of his way to all but endorse her appearing with her on Sixty Minutes singing her praises to the skies. The 2016 Presidential election is looking more like a coronation than a contest.

So if it takes 16 years to initiate distributive justice in the USA and stop this culture of greed so be it. Scalia and Kennedy cannot live forever and the Supreme Court will take on an entirely different complexion.

In the meantime, notwithstanding all the new GOP electoral shanagans and the fact the electoral map favors the Republicans in 2014, the Democrats could control both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This will not knock nullification out just yet so only a limited amount could be achieved. Also John McCain is resuming his old maverick role and is openly attacking this Republican behavior. (He has obviously not running again). So who knows there maybe real Government after 2014?

The Republicans cannot survive on nullification. They cannot control the USA with a minority of voters. This demographic situation can only worsen and in 2016 this will be shown in stark terms. Out of the ashes hopefully a coherent policy will emerge. Then this new political reality will go back to the old and instead of gross malfunction we will have just have the ordinary old dysfunction in politics.

SEX AND POLITICS – WHY WEINER LOSES AND SPITZER WINS.

SEX AND POLITICS – WHY WEINER LOSES AND SPITZER WINS.

There has been an unprecedented outcry against Anthony Weiner’s Democratic candidature as Mayor of New York. What is so unusual about this ballyhoo is that it has been lead by Democrats who were also in the forefront of forcing Weiner’s resignation from Congress. Also the media, including the influential New York Times, have made unprecedented demands for his withdrawal from the mayoral race. Weiner’s standings have dropped dramatically in the polls and the question is why. As bizarre as Weiner’s behavior is, it pales in comparison with other politicians’ sexual indiscretions in the past, all of whom received a pass.

In contrast to Weiner former New York Governor and Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, who is also returning from sexual disgrace is being allowed to proceed in his bid for Comptroller of New York finances, almost unhindered by the Democratic Establishment and the media.

Weiner’s potential slide into political oblivion goes against all the conventional political wisdom and precedent. (And, for the moment Jay H. Ell will not belabor the precedent). In the past politicians’ sexual foibles has either been ignored or after pleading mea culpa, with or without a respectable lapse of time, all is forgiven. The concept that everyone lies about sex is accepted and that sexual lies, even under oath, are different from other lies. The conventional wisdom states further that regardless of the sturm and drang the misadventures have stirred up, the electorate eventually ignores the lapses and separates the politicians’ persona from their effectiveness as legislators. Political pundits, psychologists and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all have all offered explanations as to why this occurs. None of them however can explain why the electorate is buying into Weiner’s failure at redemption.

THE “SINS” OF WEINER AND SPITZER.

For those few on the planet that are unaware of Weiner’s sins, he texted or sexted to use the modern parlance explicit sexual messages, sometimes with photographs of his crotch and even his genitals, (that are ostensibly very impressive). He never touched anybody. Everyone involved was involved consensually although some are disillusioned with him now. In the grand scheme of things all relatively harmless, although gross behavior by any standards. He also continued this behavior after resigning from Congress.

Elliot Spitzer by contrast cavorted and paid prostitutes for sex, an illegal act. What made his behavior particularly obnoxious is that he held himself out as the arbiter of public morality and one of his targets was the trade of prostitution in the State of New York. This at the same time that he was using the prostitutes’ services.

BOTH WEINER AND SPITZER HAVE FOLLOWED THE  “CONVENTIONAL WISDOM” SCRIPT.

Both of them have made repeated statements admitting wrong and apologizing– a supposed requisite for redemption. Both of them have had support from their wives also a supposed prerequisite for savior. Weiner did not only have his spouse standing by her man but she held a press conference. Both of them have waited a respectable length of time before venturing into the public arena. And generally they have followed the redemption script in all areas.

THE SCRIPT IS A MYTH.

* Stand by your man.

The “standing by your man” as a prerequisite for salvation is a myth. - Take two recent examples, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Stanford both had public wars with their wives. The latter the former Republican Governor from South Carolina, a centerpiece of the evangelical bible belt, committed heinous offences as compared to both Weiner and Spitzer. On Government time he was incommunicado, ostensibly on the Appalachian trails. Instead he was AWOL in Argentine continuing a longstanding affair with his Argentinean mistress. His wife divorced him and even threatened to run against him. Stanford was handily elected as a Republican congressional representative for South Carolina.

* Lend dignity to the office

Another implicit tenet of the script is that the “offender” must still lend dignity to the office. The New York Times, in an editorial, maintained that Weiner could not carry on the tradition of New York’s last two distinguished mayors Rudi Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg who graced their residence Gracie Mansion. As Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out Rudy Giuliani was forced out of Gracie Mansion as a result of his flagrant public flaunting of an affair with his mistress. - His own wife not accompanying to mayoral functions. He moved into an apartment that he shared with two gays creating even more of a raucous. The influential New York Times, as did the media in general, ignored all of Giuliani’s transgressions at the time and until now. Why?

* Don’t do it again.

Yet another unwritten part of the holy grail of redemption is that once you confess to your “sins”, you implicitly vow to never commit them again. Weiner broke this convention by sexting at least three of his admirers with his “goods” after his “mea culpa”. Now this cannon is broken again and again.

The most celebrated example of the nullification of this edict is Bill Clinton. Bill is now the most popular politician in the USA. Not only is he associated with economic growth in his Presidency but with his Foundation has become an international icon. Bill’s

Foundation is accredited with George W. Bush, Bono and Mandela with getting to the bottom of treating Aids internationally. However, his record with sexual indiscretions is the longest. He was incontrovertibly involved in a 12-year affair with Jennifer Flowers and was caught up in a tawdry sexual harassment case with Paula Jones as well as a credible accusation of rape. None of these he publicly acknowledged or apologized for. The only time he apologized about anything, after a celebrated public denial, was his relationship with Monica Lewinski. This after his DNA was found on her dress. Yet not only at the time of all of this and to this day he is numero uno in American politics. He is acknowledged as ensuring Obama’s re-election and he is a very powerful bow in Hilary’s 2016 election bid.

* Likeability.

Both Spitzer and Weiner are not particularly “liked”. They are both arrogant in their own unique ways. Stanford too comes out as a narcissistic individual. So there is no doubt that likeability is an important variable, particularly in a one on one race, but it is far from definitive in an electoral situation.

* Recent History

It is fair to say that for almost the last century Presidents have been involved in sexually questionably activity. Eisenhower had a “relationship” with his British female chauffeur. A Movie was made about it, in the 50’s, that all that put them in bed. Kennedy’s sexual exploits were legion. Reagan had a sordid divorce. Johnson was known as a gross “grabber”. Daddy Bush’s alleged affairs have been included in more than one book. Clinton has already been discussed. So why is poor old Anthony Weiner with his childish sexting such an inexcusable pariah?

WHY?

The reason for this supposed anomaly is a lot simpler than the media would believe. If they would reflect on the above the public appear to be taking less and notice of them and their “exposures” and inconsistent interpretations of the facts. The New York Times hypocrisy in ignoring Clinton’s, Spitzer’s and Giuliani’s foibles, for example and maintaining a holier than thou attitude to Weiner’s childish behavior is not lost on the electorate.

The reason the public are abandoning Weiner is not because of his transgressions, per se. It is rather on the cardinal criteria they use to judge public officers. This relates to their effectivity as legislators rather than their private behavior. Clinton, in common with the aforementioned Presidents, Spitzer and Stanford delivered to their constituents.

What has Weiner done? He has been involved in New York politics either on the City Council or a Representative of Congress since 1991. In that time he has been a forceful articulate supporter of many causes. His liberal position should make him an ideal candidate for New York City’s highest office. However at the end of day, after over 20 years he has not made his mark as a leader of any significance. He has shown promise from the word go but has provided no evidence that he has a plan for New York further than his populist rhetoric.

Thus he has very little to differentiate his limited public record from his reckless private persona. The electorate recognizes this. As the record shows the media created script does not persuade them to vote for or a reject a candidate. After all good legislators help their communities! Why should they punish themselves and their society because of some- ones personal misbehavior? This is consistent with their belief that where you are an effective public servant your private life is your own business. Weiner in spite of his name recognition was not an effective public servant. The only resume he has to show is his articulateness, arrogance and his erratic private behavior.

The New York Times in their unprecedented intervention in a situation of this nature would have done well to point this out rather than to say he has not the dignity to grace Gracie Manor. It is not lost that they have said nothing about Spitzer’s run that is backed by highly effective terms of service to the State of New York.

UPSHOT

So the central concept remains intact. If the politician is an effective legislator his private life is irrelevant. - This, notwithstanding the press hysteria that might accompany sexual indiscretions of the candidate. If the candidate has no record to speak of then his or her behavior may well have an impact. This concept appears to hold true even in the most conservative of constituencies, where ostensibly these social issues are paramount. However, all the other conventional wisdoms such as, apologize repeatedly and “stand by your man” do not hold scrutiny. They may help but are hardly the Holy Grail.

So if Anthony Weiner could have had some major legislative achievements behind him or some leadership positions to talk about the electorate would be taking him seriously as they seem to be comfortable in separating a politician’s private and public persona. Maybe if he could come out with some comprehensive plan to “save” New York the electorate might perk up its ears but until that happens the only thing that stands out about him is his disgusting behavior.

TRAYVON - ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW

The Trayvon Martin trial where a 17-year-old African American male, who was doing some shopping during the half time of a televised NBA basketball game, was killed by a Hispanic neighborhood watchdog, George Zimmerman, has riveted the nation for the past three weeks.  It was the racial make up of the dramatis personae involved and the circumstances of the murder itself that created this intense fascination and intrigue. The whole issue of racial profiling and gun control was again front and center in the public arena. (Blog: Trayvon Martin and the America Justice System).

George Zimmerman was ultimately found not guilty of all charges.

THE FACTS

The following facts are incontrovertible:

• George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
• George Zimmerman had seen someone walking in this gated area that was wearing a hoodie whom he believed was “suspicious”.
•  Zimmerman relayed his suspicions to the Police Dispatcher who told him not to approach this ‘suspicious’ individual.
• Zimmerman ignored this advice and followed the hooded “suspect” in his car.
• Zimmerman has made it clear at one stage or another that he had already concluded that the hooded individual was a criminal element. He making statements such as “these fucking punks” always get away.
• Zimmerman did get out of the car and an altercation ensued that resulted in the death of Travyon Martin
• The prosecution maintained the act was criminal and the defendant maintains it was self – defense.

INITIALLY NO CHARGES WERE LAID

The reason that there was even a trial at all was because of the outrage that this set of circumstances provoked. The police accepted Zimmerman’s account of the events and that he acted in self-defense. No charges were laid. All hell broke loose as a campaign was waged at the injustice of what was argued as the racial profiling and murdering of an innocent black teenager. Even the President weighed in empathizing with Trayvon”s family. A television blitz lead by the Reverend Alan Sharpton ensued. Also mass meetings were held. Sides were taken and Fox predictably showed Zimmerman in a favorable light. However the protest bohaai was too loud to ignore and the Florida Governor stepped in and appointed a special prosecutor. Charges of Second Degree Murder were laid.

The Public, in general, believed that the issue of whether a black teenager, who was going out shopping in a respectable neighborhood, who was not acting in a criminal manner and minding his own business could end up shot dead by a neighborhood watchdog who had been told by a police dispatcher to leave him alone, needed legal recourse

Justice needed to be done.

(Any non -American they would also want to know how on earth could such an undisciplined individual be in possession of a concealed weapon. However, in the context of American gun laws and Florida’s “stand your ground defense” law all this not even a legal issue).

THE TRIAL.

The trial was a dramatic affair portrayed on several news channels, minute by minute, with comment from endless legal analysts and experts in one area or another. The clashes between opposing counsel and defending counsel and the judge made stark theater and pushed the ratings up further.

Zimmerman wisely chose not to give evidence so it is fair to say that no-one will ever really no what happened once he elected to get out of the car. Both sides passionately tried to smear the character of their opponents and both sides defended their own persona.  Zimmerman had given an explanation to the police that had been videotaped where the prosecution maintained that he lied again and again.  It is fair to say that neither side could conclusively argue their version of the actual fight and the circumstances that lead to Zimmerman shooting an unarmed teenager. Trayvon was dead and Zimmerman had argued to the police and through his counsel that he had been attacked and feared for his life so he shot him.

The Judge gave endless rulings but two were to prove crucial in Jay H Ell’s opinion. These rulings affected the arguments or the theories of the defense and the prosecution. The ruling favoring he defense was that race was not to be an issue in this trial. This judicial edict would be to Zimmerman’s immediate and long-term benefit. The prosecution gained enormously by the fact that they could add manslaughter, as an alternative charge should the jury not believe that they had proved second-degree murder.

LEGAL POSITION.

In order to find Zimmerman guilty the jury would have to have believed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted criminally either by a criminally negligent action or murder.

Murder in the second degree involves a depraved mind in addition to the killing of the victim neither by accident or self defense. In other words although the murder wasn't planned there was malice or prejudice for example in the defendant's mind. Manslaughter is a criminally negligent action that the defendant should have known that his illegal act could have killed the victim. The difference really boils down to whether an individual, for example can be proved to be a rascist and then illegally kills a victim or whether he or she perpetrated an act, negligently, without having any agenda.

ARGUMENTS OR THEORIES OF THE TWO SIDES.

The prosecution wanted the jury to look at the whole scenario from the moment Zimmerman espies Trayvon and calls the dispatcher. How he defies the dispatcher matters and his statements speak to his state of mind - how “these fucking people always get away”. He then follows Trayvon, gets out of the car, gun and all, has a fight and then shoots him. Taking this whole scenario into account there was a strong argument that for at least manslaughter even though it is a bit thin for secondary murder.

The defense would have liked this all to begin at the time of the fight. Remember they argued that it was not illegal to follow some one in a car. They argue that Travyon was on top of Zimmerman and the latter feared for his life and shot him. That was Zimmerman’s untested story and Travyon was dead so he had none to offer.

If the jury as they obviously did, believed that legally this episode started at the fight and that they could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense they had to find him not guilty.

LEGAL BUT NOT JUST

So Zimmerman, as some of the legal analysts believed he would be, was found not guilty. His behavior although erratic, provocative and irresponsible, and even though those behaviors ultimately lead to the death of Trayvon, was found not to be criminal. The issues of race and guns that this case brought forth are left hanging and the impact on society is still to be seen. To a large extent society is responsible in allowing an obviously undisciplined individual to be armed and provoke a situation that resulted in the death of a law-abiding teenager, who till confronted, was minding his own business.

This death is on the conscience of society and could happen again and again unless the circumstances that surrounded it are rectified. The behavior of Zimmerman at the very least should be legislated as criminal harassment  - following and confronting someone, gun at the ready, who was obviously not engaged in criminal activity.

As for guns Jay H Ell has blogged from the word go that the situation is untenable, (Blog: Guns: Obama, The NRA, GOP = Stalemate), but if the massacre of kindergarten children could not get Congress legislating on this issue, nothing will. Even worse is the “stand your ground” legislation that allows all these gun toting cowboys to shoot anyone as long as they can reasonably claim that their frame of mind feared for their lives and it is then up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

Sadly in spite of Zimmerman’s acquittal the overwhelming perception is that was the laws and superb lawering that saved him and not justice. The acquittal itself is not a slap in the face of the American people as Reverend Sharpton maintained but rather a reflection of the laws. Dare Jay H Ell say that it is the perception that it is the white man’s laws that led to Zimmerman’s release.

RESPONSE

President Obama has called for calm, reinforcing the plea of Trayvon’s family. He believed that it was time to once again to reevaluate the gun laws of the country. Elliot Spitzer former Attorney General and Governor of New York maintained that the justice system had failed. Four hundred thousand people had, within twenty-four hours of the verdict, signed a petition for the Federal Attorney General to lay a charge of violation of Trayvon’s civil rights by Zimmerman. Protest meetings have been arranged throughout the country.

Thus far everyone is hoping that we will not get a repeat of the Rodney King riots of 1994. One has to realize that regardless of the outcome of the trial itself it revealed the defects in the justice system and the need to once again look at gun laws and the “stand your ground” legislation.  Every parent has to fear that this could happen to a child of his or hers. White children wear hoodies too you know.

One can just pray that another victim of gun violence will have not been martyred in vain. Jay H. Ell believes, however, that the Trayvon Martin death is at least the beginning of a watershed event in American history. It is up there with the murder of Medver Evers, the Rosa Parks bus incident and the like. There are just too many forces up in arms and it coincides with the reform of the guns laws movement. Also there is the chance that Attorney General Eric Holder might just take a chance and prosecute Zimmerman on civil right charges that go to the core of what appeared to be his profiling of a young teenage African American, who was minding his own business and ended up dead as a result of Zimmerman’s stereotyping and prejudices.

MIDDLE EAST - EGYPT AND THE USA

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse in the Middle East, (Blog: Syria, Russia and Iran – Second Cold War In The Making), a coup broke out in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood had been slowly lining up with the forces of darkness. The West with Israel seemed to be on the loosing side in what was gearing up to be a new world order and then suddenly the Brotherhood were no more. The Brotherhood’s victory in the first Egyptian Democratic elections had been ascribed to the fact that they were the only organized political party participating. It was generally thought that they only had about 25% support of the Egyptians yet they won even though they were not representative of the forces that had precipitated Mubarak’s fall.

MORSY NOT DELIVERING

The first elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy seemed to be steering a more moderate path in Islamist terms but was slowly but surely moving towards a theocracy. He was also reportedly leaning towards Iran. This was not what all those millions that had protested in Tahir Square wanted. Both a dictatorship and a theocracy are autocracies and why replace one totalitarian regime with another? Morsy also was getting nowhere fast in democratizing Egypt and the people were getting restless. The economy was not improving. But what were their options? They had asked for democratic elections and got them. They just did not like the results. How many times does that happen in Western Democracies and one is saddled with the “bums” till the next election.

DEMOCRACY EGYPTIAN STYLE

What happened next was inconceivable in the history of politics, thirty million Egyptians took to the streets and protested against the Morsy regime. This was not what they had risked their lives over to get rid of Mubarak. Thirty million people are one helluva lot of people. The Egyptian population is said to be 84 million so that 30 million must represent, about as close to as makes no difference to the number that voted in the election. Thus you had a mass meeting of the populace that was bigger and more representative than those of the City State democracies such as Athens. This outpouring of sentiment allowed the military to step in and say this was not a coup but rather a response to the will of the people.

How on earth did 30 million people all of a sudden take to the streets? If a few hundred thousand people throng the mall in Washington it is considered a seminal event. The organization that is needed to have affected this has to have been humungous. It is obvious that the social media played a big role. Also there has to be a tremendous anger and frustration amongst the populace to once again rise up, in even greater numbers than before, to challenge the status quo.

Now in the final analysis it does not matter what the majority think if they have no guns to back them. Look what happened in Iran after Ahmadinejad was elected in the last but one Iranian Presidential election. By Ahmadinejad’s own subsequent admission he did not receive the majority of votes and there were prolonged, street protests. The latter were all brutally beaten and gunned down. So the broad will of the people does not count for much unless it is backed up with guns. In Egypt the military are independent and powerful. They stepped in when it was obvious that Mubarak no longer had the populace’s support and they have stepped in now that Morsy has even less.

So the variable here is the military. It is very difficult to challenge their logic as they axed Mubarak, who was one of them, ostensibly on the basis of mass public opinion. It does however add a new dimension to the definition of democratic politics. In the process a secular ElBaradei has replaced a theocratic Morsy.

MESSY OUTCOME

So at the end of the day where does this leave us?

Forceful changes of a regime never seem to improve the situation. Morsy’s supporters have predictably not accepted that the military action was taken in good faith. They did after all win the election. There have been clashes and over 50 of the Brotherhood are dead. Both sides are blaming one another. How this will all be resolved is still up in the air.

Basically, the problem initially arose way back when the Egyptian electorate was ill prepared with very little organization to channel their political views into coherent political parties. The nearly 80% of the electorate were not able to put up a united front against the organized Muslim Brotherhood.  All this was a recipe for the subsequent disaster.

One can only hope that this does not degenerate into Syrian type situation with several factions fighting and the situation being exploited by Jihadis. A worse case scenario would be that there is ongoing civil war in Egypt with the Jihadis becoming prominent and influential and spearheading the Muslim Brotherhood cause.

THE USA

Egypt is undoubtedly the most important Arab country in the region. How this situation is going to be brokered is totally up in the air. The Obama administration having cautioned against military intervention, in the first place, now have not called the intervention a coup. Obviously, if all goes well they will support the outcome but if the cookie crumbles the wrong way they will condemn the action. Congress, generally, seems loathe stopping Egyptian aid so the consensus appears to be that this was not such a bad thing after all.

Whatever way it goes the USA will not be involved on the ground. It is obvious that the USA is removing themselves from the world trouble spots in haste. They have even told the Afghanis that they are considering leaving no troops or advisors in Afghanistan after 2014. Obama has taken a decision to call it quits in these no – win situations. 

The Egyptian situation in addition to the Syrian travesty will be resolved, for practical purposes in those countries. America have gone into an isolationist mode or as they would put it - a non-interventionist position. The USA after all their posturing have not done too much after Assad crossed the line in the sand with chemical weapons and no one seems to care.

As is customary with the present day media they only cover one issue at a time so that Syria is off the radar. If Assad wants to use chemical weapons this is the time. The media are not interested. In fact they are also not much interested in Egypt. The issue du jour is the Zimmerman murder trial of Travyon Martin. (Blog; Travyon Martin and the American Judicial Process). So in the same vein the Egyptian military could put the torch to the Brotherhood and it would barely make the news.

The only certainty is that the Middle East will force its way back onto center stage regardless of whether the media focuses attention on it. How all the pieces of the puzzle will resolve and how Iran’s grab for Muslim and major power status will end is still all up in the air.

SYRIA, RUSSIA AND IRAN - SECOND COLD WAR IN THE MAKING?

The Syrian crisis has escalated beyond anyone’s imagination. Most of the Arab Spring was limited to local politics. Up till now the populist rebels, who ever they were, have won and the Government in power was ousted. While the eventual outcome of these internal struggles will have an impact on the Middle East and the World political scene, for the moment these countries are still in the process of sorting out their new orders. The Syrian situation has broken the mold. The rebels, again whoever they are, are loosing the battle.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

Now the rebels are loosing the battle not because of Assad’s ascendancy but rather from the aid he has received from Russia, Iran and the Iranian surrogate Hezbollah. Russia has become a very active material supporter of the Assad regime. Even if one is charitable and puts this down to their long history of trade and personal relations with the Assads the implications are far reaching. Russia is aligning itself with the Iranian terrorist axis at a time when Iran is making a sustained play to become a Middle East and a world power.

Russia is shunning any meaningful attempt to settle the Syrian civil war in the teeth of the atrocities committed by Assad. The latter include conclusive proof that the Assad regime is using chemical weapons.

While the world community are coming round to the creation of a no fly zone to control Assad’s aggression, Russia are not only adamantly opposed but are supporting Assad with arms and even, it is rumored, trained personnel. Putin has defiantly stated that the rebels are cannibals and has warned the West not to arm the rebels. 

AMERICA’S POSITION

Obama’s America has tried to stay out of it all. (Blog: Decision Points: Bush, Obama and Syria). However, Obama’s chemical weapons, line in the sand, has been bridged and with pressure from the hawks, like McCain and Lindsay in addition to advice from Bill Clinton, he has to get involved. America’s chief Western allies have been pressurizing Obama for some time to climb in boots and all so they will be delighted to have him aboard. As Jay H Ell writes he is having de ja vu all over again. Putin is risking a second cold war situation by his determined backing of Assad. More significantly he is aligning himself on one side of the great Muslim dispute. The Iranian Shiite side to be more specific. And if it needs reiterating Iran are determined to be a world power with nuclear arms to back them up.

IRAN’S BID FOR ASCENDENCY IN MUSLIM WORLD

Iran is more than mindful that before it can take over the world it has to be the legitimate Muslim super power representative. Put another way before taking on the world it has to win the regional championship to be a contender. Iran is at a distinct disadvantage in the Muslim world. Firstly, it is not an Arab country and secondly it is Shiite and not Sunni. The real true blue Muslims are Sunni.

In order to overcome these disadvantages Iran has taken the lead in attacking the State of Israel. This it has done in terms of rhetoric, unashamedly calling for the annihilation of Israel. It has carried on the Goebel’s principle, if you tell a lie often enough it gains credibility, by denying even that the holocaust ever occurred. It has been more than rhetoric that the Iranians have offered. They fund and train two terrorist organizations that have highly efficient militia – Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah have currently been commandeered to fight for Assad and won back a key hold rebel town that has turned the war around. The Iranians have a natural affinity to the Iraqis in that the latter are predominantly Shiite.

So you are looking at an Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese, (Hezbollah) and Palestinian, (Hamas), axis. In addition the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are leaning toward Iran. This makes the minority government of Jordan even more vulnerable. If this scenario materializes then Iran controls the whole Middle East surrounding Israel. Israel will be an easy target if this occurs. Regardless of the rest of the Muslim Arab Sunni World’s antipathy to Iran they are not going to support Israel over the liberation of Palestine by Iran and it’s surrogates. (Even “liberal” Dubai, whose economy depends on tourism, will not let you visit if you have an Israeli entry stamp in your passport).

On top of this all Iran persists in its nuclear ambitions and Russia, like it or not, is allied to them.

ARAB WORLD.

Although the Arab countries, predominantly the Sunni, have not engaged directly in the fight, they have roundly condemned Assad. In a way it is ironic however that the responsibility to take up arms is still left to the Western allies. No offers of a Saudi Arabia militia on the table, for example. What is pouring in, according to the Washington Times, are large sums of money from wealthy Arab individuals and “charities” to specific rebel groups. These tend to be mainly the Jihad groups of rebels.

There has to be deep ambivalence in the Muslim world toward the Assad situation. Either an old guard is still in power with the potential of an Arab Spring in the background or a new lot are in that cannot feel secure.  All of them are autocratic in one way or another so there has to be some identification with Assad’s plight. Also none of them want to be on the wrong side of the Israeli – Palestinian divide. This dilemma is not unlike that of the Muslims, in general, not coalescing to give a unified unqualified condemnation of Jihad terrorism. (Blog: Jihad – Who Is To Blame?)

All this adds up to the Arab world condemning Assad but doing naught to stop his slaughter or to influence the Russians to back off from arming Assad.

WHERE ALL THIS MAY GO

This scenario puts the Russians in the Iranian camp. If Jay H. Ell knows that so do the Russians. The Iranians have unabashedly taken on the Western and Sunni Arab world. China is not terribly much interested so they are out of the picture. The Russians are showing no signs of letting up so there is a make or break situation in the international power game revolving around Syria.

The West cannot afford to let Assad win. The West for practical purposes means America. How far will America go to stop this from happening? There is too much at stake to let Assad win. Israel, its biggest ally in the region becomes totally vulnerable to an Iranian attack, possibly even nuclear. The picture becomes even darker when a full-blown support of the Rebels, whoever they may be, means being on the opposite side of Russia in a war. This is not just philosophically on opposite sides but both Russia and America materially backing opposite sides with arms and G-D forbid boots on the ground – ala Vietnam or Korea.

As the situation stands there is no way out of this mess. Putin has, for whatever reason, sought to take America on in this arena. What he hopes to gain is difficult to understand. Is he really interested in making Iran a world nuclear power? This cannot be about loyalty to an old friend. Nothing in Putin’s resume points to loyalty being a driving factor in his decision making process.  Putin by going against the majority of Western and Arab opinion is staking a claim that Russia is once again a player in the world scene. If he persists in this stance we are looking at the second cold war in the making. Even more than that America will be dragged into a prolonged Middle East Battle that it hoped it would resolve by diplomacy.

Israel, understandably, are not going to let this strengthening of Iran carry on too long and may well take the situation into their own hands and that will add to the complexity of resolving this explosive situation.

OBAMA AND PUTIN– CRUNCH TIME

Also down the tubes goes Obama’s resolve not to involve America in any more wars. Unhappily this has now become America’s war. This also speeds up decision making on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Obama does not need an antagonistic Russia allied to a nuclear-armed Iran that, if Assad wins out, will become the major player in the Muslim world. He cannot sell out on Israel. Unless Russia is grandstanding before meeting Obama at the Group of eight meeting and at the end of the day will back a compromise in Syria and give Assad a dacha on the Caspian Sea, the situation is going to turn ugly pretty fast. Jay H Ell has to believe that Putin has grandiose ideas about putting Russia back as a major power house on the world scene. The only hope has to be to convince this former head of the KGB that he becomes more significant if he is seen to be resolving the Syrian crisis rather than creating it.

On thing is for sure the future aint what it used to be.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DEAD

Two clearly different approaches have emerged in response to the current parlous state of the Republican Party. The one approach, executed by the Party Establishment was to conduct an introspective assessment of what has gone wrong with the party and the other approach, emanating from the Tea Party was to continue a full time non -stop smearing of the Obama Administration.   The rationale for the latter approach is that attacking Obama and his Administration is the only issue that the two wings of the party agree on.

• • 
    
    
    
    APPROACH 1: THE ESTABLISHMENT - IT’S MY PARTY AND I WILL CRY IF I WANT TO.
    
    
    • Jed Bush, who has to be the Republican establishment’s choice as the next Presidential nomination, has been very vocal on how the Republican Party is currently perceived by the electorate, (Blog: What Barbara’s “Enough Bushes” Means). The former Republican Governor maintained that the GOP is perceived as the party that is against everything – women, immigration, social security and on and on. He pleaded for a more positive agenda to be articulated that would be more congruent with where the electorate is at.
    • Bob Dole, who has go be the doyen of the Republican party - Gerald Ford’s running mate in the 70’s, the Republican leader of the Senate forever and the Republican Presidential nominee against Clinton, has said Nixon and Reagan could not be in this party. He suggested that the Republican National Committee put a notice on its door, “Closed for Repairs”.
    • The Republican Youth Committee has just sponsored a costly study with focus groups and interviews to ascertain why the youth voted in droves for Obama. Paraphrasing the results, the conclusion was that the Republican Party was way out of tune with their needs and values. This study came to the same conclusions as the National Republican Committee’s in depth review. Predictably, but inexplicably, both the Youth Group and the Senior Group interpreted the results, as meaning that there was nothing wrong with the Republican Party’s policies it was just the way they branded them!
    • And on and on……..
    
    
    APPROACH  2: THE TEA PARTY - IT’S MY PARTY AND I WILL ONLY CRY IF I WANT TO.
    
    
    *With all that advice and all those studies one would think that there would be a bold massive rush to articulate, in pamphlets, speeches and the like, clearly what the Republican Party was. The best platform for that is Congress as it is covered by literally hundreds of media people of all sorts. You introduce or argue against legislature clearly outlining a consistent alternative to Obama’s agenda.
    
    
    *But this is not what the Republican Party Caucus has chosen. Where they, as the majority, in the House of Representatives are in a position to introduce legislation there has been less than ever.  In the Senate where the Democrats are in the majority, there the Republicans filibuster legislation not allowing it to come to a vote.  Instead the oxygen in the Congress is taken up by hearings and investigations that degenerate into smear after smear and attempt to create scandal.
    
    
    *The key spokesmen for the Republican Party now are Rand Paul, Mark Rubio and Ted Cruz and to a lesser extent defeated Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan.  All have Tea Party support and are in the Tea Party caucus. Where there are alternatives to Democratic Policy they are enunciated mainly by these four. These are articulated as populist slogans. Cruz says there should be no IRS. In public they do not talk too much about cutting off disaster relief and privatizing social security and turning Medicare into a voucher program. Paul grandstanded and filibustered about killing American terrorists with drones ignoring the fact that the last thing in earth is that the Tea Party would want to be labeled is being soft on terrorism. (Blog: Obama Killing Americans – Moans on Drones). Mark Rubio is only emphasizing his desire for immigration reform, as he is Latino. So the leaders are either being populist or practical.
    
    
    It seems quite clear now that the Tea Party controlled Republican legislators have decided to follow the advice of their unelected institutions rather than from their establishment figures and smear the Administration. (Blog: Obamagate – Boomerang?)
    
    
    TEA PARTY TACTICS AND AGENDA
    
    
    Jay H. Ell has blogged extensively about the emergence of the Tea Party. In January 2011 he blogged, “The Tea Party, The New Congress and Palin – All You Ever Needed to Know”, celebrating the coming out party of the Tea Party. In that blog he outlined the ideological divisions within the Republican Party. In two years the Tea Party takeover was complete. (Blog GOP Civil War Sabotages Obama Talks, March 2013).
    
    
    There is now a total disconnect between the Party Establishment and Moderate Republicans on the one hand and the elected Republican Party Representatives as to what the Republican Party stands for and what its priorities should be, on the other. The Heritage Foundation, with former Senator Joe De Mint, the Tea Party Godfather, as its CEO, is calling the shots - there is to be no debate about policy now, just smear smear, smear. (Blog: Obamagate – Boomerang?)
    
    
    This way the Tea Party can complete their hijacking of the Republican Party. The Tea Party policies are not being debated now so the moderate Republicans will not run away. Ostensibly they and the Establishment are all in it together exposing and smearing the administration. The Tea Party is using the Establishment to keep the Republican Party a viable entity the same way the Establishment used them. The Establishment got right wing support, before it gelled into the Tea Party. The Establishment did this by focusing on the right wing social agenda thereby bringing the right wing out to the polls. They then never put the social agenda into legislative effect, as they knew it wouldn’t fly. The Tea Party’s policy is a right wing social agenda, a right wing fiscal policy and smaller government – code for getting rid of every social program.
    
    
    Over the last few years the Tea Party have concentrated on Primary races, poring a disproportionate amount of money into these so that their candidates become the Republican Party candidates.  This has been the modus operandi in State as well as national elections. So where the Republicans dominate the State, Tea Party legislation is being introduced.  On a national level it is self evident  - this blog is all about their take over of the Republican Party Caucus.
    
    
    ESTABLISHMENT RESPONSE
    
    
    Ostensibly the Establishment of the Republican Party is in control. They control the Republican National Committee and the major money connections. Failure to act and follow through decisively on Approach one, above, shows that they are in denial. Karl Rove, the Establishment’s unelected megalomaniac in chief, has decided to throw his PAC money into Republican Primaries but as it is too late it has to be too little.
    
    
    The Establishment ostensibly still has the Leadership in Congress. The leader of the Republican controlled House of Representatives is John Boehner. However, he is the nominal leader. He does not control his caucus. He is there by the grace of the Tea Party. It suits the latter to have him there to give the Establishment deniers false reassurance that they are still in control. Boehner does not introduce any contentious legislation as his caucus is split. He waits for the lead from the Senate, to quote him, - “For the Senate to get of its arse”.
    
    
    Boehner and Mc Connell the Republican Minority leader of the Senate are the choirmasters of the hate Obama campaign. Boehner believes it is a waste of time to talk to the President and McConnell sole stated objective for four years, in “doing the people’s business”, was to deny Obama a second term. His objective for the second term is less complicated it is just deny Obama, period. There is a second objective to the leadership mantra now - stop Hillary 2016. (Blogs: Stopping Clinton 2016 Starts at Benghazi and Carry on Benghazi: Stop Hillary 2016, Part 2).
    
    
    This is not the agenda of the two Republican indepth post election analyses. Also it isn’t the advice of Jed Bush or Bob Dole. This is the agenda of the Joe De Mint, the Tea Party Godfather’s Heritage Foundation. Here the policy is to stay off policy and smear, smear smear.
    
    
    SMEAR, SMEAR, SMEAR AND SMEAR AGAIN
    
    
    So Congress is not dominated by legislation debate but rather by attempting to create scandal either in the debating chamber or by endless Congressional hearings. Perhaps the most disgraceful episode was the character assassination of Obama’s original nominee for Secretary of State, Susan Rice. This lead into the Benghazi fishing expedition that lead nowhere.
    
    
    However the main action is in the endless Republican Congressional Hearings that sap all the media attention. Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is the fearless inquisitor. Failure does not daunt him. His earlier attempts at investigations have all fizzled out. Eric Holder the Attorney General was and is the main target. He insulted him, belittled him and without precedent held him in Contempt of his Committee. All to no avail.
    
    
    Issa obeying the Heritage Party line is carrying on the one investigation that he hopes will hit pay dirt – the IRS scandal. As Jay H. Ell predicted, (Blog, Obamagate - Boomerang?), more malfiscience is emerging. But how does Issa pin it on Obama who has already condemned the behavior thus far uncovered and ordered a judicial investigation? Darrell, bless him, has subpoenaed another nineteen IRS workers to sap up the Republican oxygen in his ongoing circus.
    
    
    Issa is lashing out at all and sundry including calling the President’s Press Secretary a paid liar and with his newfound fame his own murky past is coming to the fore. He has work cut out getting anyone to take him seriously.
    
    
    OUTCOME:
    
    
    How all of this is going to elect a “Republican” President is unclear. If any of the aforementioned Tea Party favorites get the “Republican” Presidential nomination how are they going to persuade the independents, youth, African Americans, Latinos and women to vote for them? It is almost as if we are witnessing lemmings going to their suicide.
    
    
    As for Obama he rather likes what the Republicans are doing as evidenced by the choice of his Chief Security Advisor – the selfsame Susan Rice whom the Republicans believed was unfit to be Secretary of State. In her appointed position the Secretary of State reports to her. Obama seems only too happy to watch the Republicans go ballistic rather than offer a credible alternative policy. He has enough sense of history to realize that to complete his legacy he needs another 8 years of Democratic Presidency. He also realizes to get elected you have to do more than attack your opponent you have to offer an alternative policy. This is not happening.
    
    

The Republican Party, that we all knew, is dead. 

JIHAD - WHO IS TO BLAME?

The stark horror of the public dismemberment of a young British soldier and the angry response by the English Defense League, towards the Muslim community, including the burning of a mosque, has reawakened the whole issue of who is to blame and what can be done about Jihadi terror.

This situation is not an uncommon scenario and follows on the recent Boston Marathon Bombing where there was the cold-blooded murder of three and the injuring of 264 persons. It preceded yet another murder of a French Soldier.

Jay H. Ell was immediately struck by the comment of an editor of a Muslim Newspaper, who stated that when he heard about the Boston bombing, he prayed to God that it wasn’t a Muslim who was the perpetrator. One does not need to belabor the number of incidents that have occurred since 9/11. Virtually all of these have been perpetrated in the name of Islam by Muslim Jihadis justifying the Muslim editor's fear. 

Governments recognize that they are dealing with an asymmetric situation where a few people can wreak havoc. There is the overriding fear of them obtaining nuclear weapons or employing biological warfare or taking over a State as they did for practical purposes in Afghanistan. Also there is Iran, who is sponsoring two terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, as a backdrop to all this Jihadi activity. The scenario is further complicated with the Middle East in turmoil where the question is whether the new governments will support the Jihadis or be against them?

WHO IS TO BLAME AND HOW TO RESPOND?

This all begs the question, who to blame and what should the societal response be?

* Prepare for a final war between all Islam and the West.

There are societal elements, like the English Defense League who see this as a war between the Muslims and the Western Judeo – Christians. They see Europe and the world being overtaken by Muslims who do not integrate into society but rather make demands that society adapts to them. The dire economic circumstances in Europe exacerbate the anger of these groups who perceive that they are taking their jobs as well. With each of these violent episodes they reiterate their doomsday predictions that the war is on. Other than rioting it is uncertain how they would deal with this situation. The ostracization and terrorizing of Muslims cannot stop the Jihadists. If anything they can create a fertile recruiting ground.

* Qualified justification for Jihadi behavior and a call to address the “real” Muslim concerns.

There are those who maintain that, while condemning the violence, that one must look at the root causes of this behavior. These groups include several liberal as well as Muslim groups. They argue to varying degrees that the West have scant disregard for the Muslims and the Islam religion. They point to the Iran and Afghanistan wars and the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians for example. However, with each act of violence these apologists have less and less credibility, as their position is hard to separate from that of the perpetrators. Like it or not they appear to be justifying the violence rather than outright condemnation of it. To a lesser or greater extent they are giving validity to the terrorists’ position. They need to condemn the violence with no ifs and buts.

This situation is the crux of the dilemma facing the Muslim world. While the Muslims generally feel strongly about some of these issues and the fact that they are being victimized and profiled as a result of the situation, their indecisiveness as a group to unconditionally condemn these acts of terror and the Jihadist entities perpetrating them does not help society isolate the broad mass of Muslims, who recoil like the Muslim editor and pray to God that it was not a Muslim who perpetrated the latest atrocity, from the Jihadi thugs.

* Work towards religious rapprochement.

Then there are those like Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs that form alliances with all religious groups and try to create a milieu that recognizes that differences between the monotheistic religions must be respected and work for peace and tolerance. Sachs gathered on Ground Zero with the leadership of the religions of the world and they all pledged peace and co- existence. As Sachs said that the media took no notice of this momentous occasion. Had the groups broken up in disarray it would have been headline news. Obviously, for the moment at least, these well- intentioned efforts have no impact on societal opinion whatsoever.

* Government response

Governments are really betwixt and between. They are anxious to protect minority rights. Consequently they are very guarded as to who is to blame. They are also as tough on vigilante groups who wish to take the law into their own hands and unfairly victimize the innocents. However, the selfsame governments create lists of suspects and areas of possible recruitment that contain mainly Muslims and Muslim organizations or Mosques. They are then attacked for profiling from the left or pandering to political correctness from the right. The administrations have to accept the fact that the majority on those lists maybe Muslim but the majority of Muslims, by far, do not support the radical Islamic Jihadists.

* Jihadists are not lone crazy nuts.

The crisp point is that these Jihadists cannot be created in a vacuum. They are not lone deranged lunatics. They cannot just suddenly emerge with these brutal ideologies. The temptation each and every time is to say that the perpetrator was some – one who was just radicalized on the Internet. That cannot happen. There has to be a sustained brainwashing process. There has to be several steps to making an American citizen board a plane and go to Somalia – a propaganda piece on the internet offering a more fulfilling life would not cut it? There have to be cells and propaganda that prey on potential recruits. No lone UK citizen dreams up this carnage in a vacuum as has been shown in the recent UK bombing.

UNPLEASANT REALITY

So the unpleasant reality has to be faced that out there in the Muslim Community are those that are radicalizing these people. The even more unpleasant reality is that they have to be infiltrated and information gained. Welfare organizations, religious groups, professional groups and other organizations sadly are the pool from where this radicalization takes place. Hopefully, the country has advanced from the outrageous response in the forties where all Japanese citizens are interned.

In order to do root out those radicalizing the youth, support and understanding is needed from the Muslim groups. The latter are not coordinated in their condemnation of these terrorists and the countries that support it. It has to be said the responsibility is on them to do all they can to make it clear that these thugs are threatening their liberty as much as anyone else’s. They really ought to form a group that speaks on behalf of all Muslims in a clear and unequivocal voice.

On a Governmental level those countries that abhor this violence need to unite and condemn the Jihadist activity and countries like Iran who support and foster it.

As a member of a minority group, Judaism, I can identify with my Muslim brethren the fear of being stigmatized by the behavior of others of my group. The Jews of the world were not in a dissimilar situation when the Irgun in Israel perpetrated terrorist activities on the British prior to the establishment of Israel They were condemned by the Jewish leaders in the Zionist movement including Chaim Weizmann, Ben Gurion leader of the Hagannah in Israel and the Palestinian Jewish Agency, who were the de facto Jewish Palestinian Government. In 1944 after the assassination of Lord Moyne, the British Secretary of State, the Jewish Agency assisted in naming names to the British. Teddy Kollek who was subsequently the Mayor of Jerusalem was an agent in this highly unpleasant operation that nearly created a civil war between the Ben Gurion and the Begin factions.

This notwithstanding the fact that there was plenty of root causes for the Irgun terrorist behavior including the fact that the British, contrary to the Balfour Declaration and even the 1939 British White Paper were not allowing the surviving victims of the holocaust entry into Israel.