Syria, finally

It seems that the good guys have finally decided to act against Syria despite protests from the likes of Russia. As I argued earlier, non-action in the face of the likes of Bashar Assad would only make it easier for dictators to crush internal revolts in the future. The chemical attack on a residential neighborhood near Damascus was a direct result of earlier do-nothing behavior. The regime had already tried out chemical weapons several months ago on a smaller scale (and fired SCUD missiles into residential areas) just to see what the West would do. The West did nothing but slightly increased its rhetoric, so the regime decided to move it up a notch. (This should also remind us of the importance of American hegemony: without it Assad would have gone completely cavemen on his own people a long time ago with Russia nodding in approval.) The regime's timing could not have been more arrogant and bold: the attacks were carried out while UN inspectors were not many miles away. To anyone living in the West Assad's behavior may seem irrational, considering the international environment and Obama's threats about crossing the "red line", but it's a fact that Middle Eastern dictators have had problems in the past understanding the civil, diplomatic threats that Western leaders issue. Even Saddam Hussein believed, to the very last second, both in 1991 and 2003, that the United States would not invade.

For the West, there should be no turning back now. If the regime is left unpunished, Assad will become even more ruthless. The reverberations of Western inaction would be felt elsewhere too: America's enemies are surely paying attention. Obama may be extremely reluctant to act but even he should understand that it never had to come to this: had he been more decisive before, all this could have been avoided. But Obama, with his doctrine of realpolitik, was caught completely off guard by the Arab revolts that beautifully demonstrated the power of ideas, ideas that Obama's predecessor believed were not as alien to the ordinary Arab as was commonly and fashionably thought. America can now demonstrate that it stands behind those ideas by putting its money where its mouth is instead of being obsessed with maintaining the status quo, i.e., the one where ruthless dictators are kept in power for the sake of stability, breeding resentment toward America among the common folks.

To be sure, there are no easy solutions to the situation in Syria or the Greater Middle East in general. Arming moderate forces (probably easier said than done) within the opposition should alleviate the problem America faces with respect to Islamic rebels. Keeping boots off the ground seems like a no-brainer. As in Libya, air strikes and cruise missiles may be an effective and cheap solution (it should be noted that the West may wish for a regime change but doesn't seem eager to set that as an objective), contributing virtually nothing to America's long-term budget problems (which result from entitlement spending) while providing the kind of assets against the regime the rebels never could have dreamed of. In the long run, it can only be hoped that the ongoing revolutions mark the beginning of the end of autocracy in the Middle East, just as the 1848 revolutions did in Europe.

Misrepresenting Israel's stance on negotiations

YLE, our beloved state-controlled broadcasting company, is once again misleading the public about Israel. According to them, it's only now that Israel has agreed (article in Finnish) to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. And how have they done that? By agreeing to release a bunch of dangerous Palestinian prisoners. The Palestinian negotiators had set the release of these prisoners as a precondition - among several other preconditions such as freezing settlement constructions - for peace negotiations. Of course, Israel has been ready and willing to negotiate without preconditions for several years now. Remember the 2009 10-month settlement freeze (which did not apply to East Jerusalem, a plot of land Israel is never going to surrender)? The Palestinians stalled for months, entering the negotiations only when the freeze was about to expire, and then immediately demanded that the freeze be extended. So, if anything the Palestinians have refused to negotiate unless their conditions are met, as if they were in any position to present such demands. And, in any case, meeting any of these conditions would probably only bolster them to demand more.

Israeli offensive: long overdue

Throughout the year, Palestinians have been firing hundreds of rockets into Israel. October and November were particularly active in terms of rockets fired. In response to this escalation, on November 14 the Israelis beautifully assassinated Ahmed al-Jabari, the 2nd in command of the Hamas military wing. He had played a major role in turning Gaza into a full-blown terrorist entity and helped bring about Israel's destructive Operation Summer Rains offensive by kidnapping Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier, in 2006. You don't negotiate with terrorists like him; you kill them. Even before this assassination the Palestinians had fired about 200 rockets into Israel in the course of just a few days: on November 11 over a hundred rockets were fired into Israel. If anything, Israel's recent offensive has been long overdue as Hamas has been well able to build up its army and smuggle weapons into Gaza despite Israel's blockade. Over a thousand rockets were fired into Israel last week, an indication that Hamas has been gaining strength. Even more, a rocket recently landed near Jerusalem, indicating an improvement in rocket technology. Considering this, ending the Gaza blockade would be disastrous as it'd only embolden Hamas and other terrorist groups.

In some circles there's this popular theory that Israel doesn't even want to seek peace with Palestine, that they want Gaza to remain in a permanent state of misery while building new settlements in the West Bank, eventually leading to its annexation. Of course, it was only seven years ago that Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling its settlements there, forcibly removing hundreds of Jewish settlers. This remarkably generous act was interpreted by Hamas as a sign of weakness as they proceeded to take over the entire Gaza Strip and continued their war on the Jewish state. (Similarly, Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon didn't make Hezbollah any less popular.) Imagine if the withdrawal had worked as intended: Israel would, in all likelihood, be much more anxious to pursue a peaceful solution to the West Bank problem, having some hope that the resulting Palestinian state would not turn into just another hostile neighbor à la Iran, Southern Lebanon, Syria or Gaza. Moreover, Israel's security concerns have only multiplied in the wake of the Arab Spring that may have, in fact, emboldened Hamas to act, hoping the new government in Egypt might come to their aid. This new aspect only makes Israel's ongoing offensive even more important as they need to show Hamas that they have nothing to gain, in terms of their goal of destroying the Jewish state, from the Arab Spring.

Meanwhile Hamas continues to act like the barbarians they are. They've been doctoring images and putting civilians in the line of fire for the purpose of selling their cause to the world, and dragging mutilated bodies of "spies" on the streets of Gaza. These "people" are in charge of running the Gaza Strip, a position they seized Nazi-style by first winning some elections, then doing away with their rivals and subjecting the entire Strip to serve their cause. While it's regrettable that civilians are dying due to Israeli airstrikes, in no way should Israel be held responsible, not so long as it's the Gazans who elected Hamas to lead them and shoot rockets at Israel. And if the Palestinians do not in fact endorse Hamas' provocations but are at the same time unable to do anything about it, that leaves only Israel to take matters into their own hands.

Syria - what's taking so long?

The neocons are pushing for a regime change in Syria:

For the people and the fighters of Idleb, the fight goes on. They know that once Assad is finished with Homs and Hama, and once he thinks he can get away with it, he will turn his attention back to the north. Then it will be their turn, and the dictator will exact a bloody and terrible revenge for their effrontery.

What could prevent this is an effective coalition to counter the anti-Western one (Iran, Hezbollah, Russia) that currently underwrites the dictator. This Western coalition can only happen outside the auspices of the U.N., where Russia and China have already vetoed Security Council resolutions demanding Assad step down. (The Weekly Standard)

That was at the end of February. Now it's too late for the rebels in Idlib. Bolstered by Western inactivity, Assad resorted to tactics such as shellings residential neighborhoods.

The neocons, after years of ridicule, are still confident about their ideas, and why not? What has been happening in the Greater Middle East lately is more or less exactly what the neocons said would happen. Removing a constant, Saddam Hussein, from the Middle East helped alter what many considered a fixed status quo of autocratic regimes.

The intervention in Libya was a tremendous success. The cost of the operation has been estimated at about 3-4 billion dollars with the US being responsible for about a third of that amount. There were no casualties. In short, that's a lot of bang for the buck. In comparison, the United States spends nearly one trillion (a thousand billions) dollars on Medicare & Medicaid annually.

If Asssad is allowed to survive, the Western world has effectively helped set an example that whenever there's a internal revolt, you should resort to brutal measures to suppress the revolt. Any "peaceful solution" that preserves Assad as the head of Syria, as supported by second-rate countries such as Russia and the always-irrelevant UN, would be a travesty, an idealist piece of paper that only serves to bolster Assad's grip on Syria. The West needs to do more than just freeze credit cards.

Challenging family traditions

Kudos to this Australian kid:

A COURT has placed a 16-year-old girl on the airport watch list to prevent an arranged marriage taking place in Lebanon.

The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for an order to restrain her parents from taking her out of Australia to marry a man she had met only once.

The girl, given the pseudonym Ms Madley by the court, approached the Legal Aid Commission after her parents organised the wedding despite her telling them that she did not want to go to Lebanon and did not want to marry the man.

Mr Harman praised the girl's ''act of great bravery'' in using the legal system to challenge her parents' authority.

Ms Madley was fearful of her mother's reaction to her application, he said, and he ordered her mother and father not to assault, harass, threaten or intimidate her, or question her about the proceedings.

''Her actions in approaching the Legal Aid Commission, let alone this court, might be perceived as disrespectful of her parents and disobedient of their will,'' he said.

Although legally a minor, the girl had displayed maturity not only by taking action to protect herself from an arranged marriage, but deciding to challenge part of the Lebanese Islamic culture which she was brought up in. (Sydney Morning Herald)

In another article from the same newspaper someone says that arranged marriages are not necessarily a bad thing:

    Lyn Fletcher, from Relationships Australia, said there was a big difference between arranged marriages and those which are forced.

    "Some people are happy with an arranged marriage, because that's how they've been brought up they don't have any expectations of falling in love or romantic attachment," she said.

This doesn't really cast arranged marriages in any kind of a positive light. So arranged marriages are not that bad because women in some cultures have learned to live with them, i.e., have learned not to question the system? They've merely accepted their fate of having to live in a suffocating environment for the sake of the (extended) family, not because they want it.

It's precisely for this reason that it's good that this Australian case has gained some publicity, making it to the news even here in Finland. No doubt the city where I live is filled with dozens of immigrant women who think they have no choice but to submit to the authority of their families. These people should be made aware of the fact that there's a life beyond the role your family had decided for you the moment you were born.

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." -Howard Roark, The Fountainhead

Palestinian land grab

Mahmoud Abbas & co. are trying to stage a land grab of Israeli lands via the United Nations. Of course, the statehood bid won't go anywhere but that's not the point. To the Palestinians this is just another media stunt. The Palestinians want to make themselves seem desperate so that the world's useful idiots would sympathize with them despite the fact that the Palestinians have not only refused to negotiate with Israel as of late but have also launched several terrorist attacks in the past few months; they're defiant if anything, not desperate. At the same time Iran is building nuclear weapons and Turkey is in the process of cutting its ties with Israel in a shameful demonstration of Turkey's unfitness to ever join the civilized world. And people still expect Israel to make concessions. Israel's comprehensive 2000 peace proposal got rejected and was followed by terrorism. Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza was followed by terrorism. Lately Israel has been dismantling checkpoints in an effort to bolster the West Bank's economy, freezing new buildings in the settlements and reaching out to the Palestinians. In return the Palestinians haven given Israel nothing but rockets. If the Palestinians want a home maybe they should kindly ask Israel to kick them back to Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

Strip clubs, pornography and feminists

The United States is an easy target when it comes to narrow-minded attitudes toward sexuality. Here's Texas, the heart of the Bible Belt:

In 2007, state legislators passed the Sexually Oriented Business Fee Act, which imposed the fee ["pole tax"] on nearly 200 establishments that feature live nude performances and allow the consumption of alcohol. The $5-per-customer entrance fee, which is imposed on the business and not the patron, is intended to raise money for sexual assault prevention programs and health insurance coverage for low-income people. (NYTimes)

This a form of collective punishment, which is kinda perverse in a country that values individual responsibility. The tax assumes that everyone attending strip clubs is responsible for the actions of a few rapists. 

Moreover, open attitudes toward adult entertainment have actually been found to reduce violence against women. So, if the aim is to reduce the incidence of rape, Texan lawmakers should consider subsidizing strip clubs rather than taxing them.

But at least it's still legal in Texas to take your clothes off for money. In the so-called progressive Nordic countries women's rights and liberties are being curbed by feminists (a female supremacist movement that opposes individual liberties and equal rights) to a much, much greater degree than some conservatives in the United States ever could. Here's Julie Bindel, a feminist author, writing about banning strip clubs and pornography in Iceland:

Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down.

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons.

So, feminists are united with religious extremists in their contempt of women's right to make decisions about their own lives. Only their reasons differ.

Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold."

This is just idiotic. How is selling "yourself" at a strip club any different from selling "yourself" at an office? Nearly every profession is a mixture of inherent talent and obtained skill and those are the things you're selling. The labor market consists of people selling themselves. So, the problem is not that these people are selling themselves as "products"; the problem is that feminists don't happen to like this particular product even though it's none of their business. Feminists, like religious extremists, have a vision of what a proper woman is like (even their rhetoric is similar: "It is not acceptable that women..."). Any deviations from this standard are to be looked down upon. Feminists perceive women not as adult individuals capable of using their own discretion but as child-like members of a collective who are to do what the collective tells them to do.

Supporters of the bill say that some of the clubs are a front for prostitution – and that many of the women work there because of drug abuse and poverty rather than free choice. I have visited a strip club in Reykjavik and observed the women. None of them looked happy in their work.

What an idiot. If "not looking happy" or "working just to make ends meet" is a qualification for banning an occupation, I guess all of us are to be unemployed in the not-so-distant future. Simple-minded authoritarians like Bindel are not really helping the situation by not showing much of any respect for these women. If feminists and cultural conservatives actually respected women working in the adult industry (and taught their children to respect them as well), these women might have a better time at work and life in general. I'd guess that a big reason why some women in the adult industry don't feel appreciated is precisely because narrow-minded people like Bindel don't appreciate them as adults capable of making their own decisions. Instead, they're trying to force-feed the "you're a victim" mantra. This could also explain why drug abusers and poor people are overrepresented in the adult industry; only they've really got nothing to lose. Mainstreamization of pornography would attract more "mainstream" people. In fact, it's not surprising anymore to find that an adult entertainer holds an academic degree. Of course, feminists probably consider well-educated women who choose to work in the adult industry as traitors.

Let's end this post on a positive note:

Let’s look at attitudes towards women – studies of men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men that didn’t see those movies, and studies by other investigators, female as well as male, essentially found similarly that there was no detectable relationship of the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes. No researcher or critic has found the opposite, that exposure to pornography – by any definition – has had a cause and effect relationship towards ill feelings or actions against women. No correlation has even been found between exposure to porn and calloused attitudes toward women.

Rauhankyyhkyt

Joku "laitonta miehitystä" vastustava aktivisti haluaa töhriä julkisia paikkoja Palestiina-myönteisillä piirustuksilla:

Tampereen keskustaan suunnitellun rauhankyyhkyjä esittävän katumaalauksen kieltäminen on herättänyt keskustelua. Taiteilija Juho Viitala olisi teoksellaan halunnut kiinnittää huomiota Israelin Palestiinan-politiikkaan. Koska maalaus on poliittisesti kantaaottava, maalauksen kieltoa on pidetty jopa sananvapautta rajoittavana. 

- Yritin siinä viestittää, että laiton miehitys, joka palestiinalaisalueilla on jatkunut loputtomiin Israelin toimesta, niin se ei varmastikaan ole kovin hyvä asia Suomen ulkopoliittisen linjan kanssa olla ristiriidassa niin vakavasti, puolustusministeriön materiaalihankinnat ja vastakauppasopimukset.  (YLE)

Onpa idioottimaista kuvitella, että tällä olisi jotain tekemistä sananvapauden kanssa. Kyseessä on (oletettavasti) verovaroin ylläpidetty julkinen tila. Suuri(n) osa veronmaksajista ei varmasti hyväksyisi heidän kustantamansa kävelyalueen tuhrimista poliittisilla kannanotoilla.

Jos Viitalalla pitäisi olla oikeus esittää poliittisia kannanottoja tällä tavalla, niin kai hänen mielestään olisi täysin hyväksyttävää, että joku Israelia kannattava taho kävisi poliittisena mielenilmaisuna suttaamassa ko. katumaalauksen, kyseinen tila kun kuuluu tietenkin yhtä paljon Israelia kannattaville kuin Israelia vastustavillekin.

Tragedy in Norway and the assault on individual liberties

Since Anders Behring Breivik used to play Modern Warfare 2 with the intended purpose of learning military tactics, why don't we ban the game? This is pretty much the line of reasoning dozens of politicians have utilized in the wake of recent school shootings in various countries. This is the line of reasoning Finnish politicians and wannabe politicans are now utilizing to further their political agendas in the wake of the mass murder in Norway. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Erkki Tuomioja, wants to put restrictions on online "hate speech", specifying hate speech as speech that encourages people to do what Breivik did. (I haven't seen such hate speech myself, kinda like I have never seen child pornography on the internet even though some politicians make it sound as if you can't get far without running into such pornography.) More specifically, he wants to restrict the use of aliases which champions of free speech have historically used in order to avoid persecution. Dissidents in China, the Middle East and so on rely on anonymity. He also wants to restrict gun ownership rights, saying that "no one needs" guns with magazine capacity at or above 30, as if it were up to him to decide what people need.

It's a disgrace that the actions of a single madman are used as a pretext to curb individual liberties, liberties that belong to everyone, liberties that the vast majority of us use in a responsible way. This is why there aren't many lessons to be learned from the massacre. Anti-immigration "racists" are no more responsible for what Breivik did than Modern Warfare 2 is. A quick look at Breivik's political positions reveals that the guy is a mess if anything, combining Christianity, liberalism (he cites classical liberals such as F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and even Ayn Rand who was a staunch atheist), conservatism, anti-Marxism, Islamophobia, nationalism etc. in his writings. None of these in particular makes him mad. Breivik was mad in believing that his actions would spark a European civil war that'd end by the year 2083. If anything, this resembles Charles Manson's reasoning (Manson believed that the murders he orchestrated would ignite a race war that'd inevitably be won by blacks) and Masonic conspiracy theories (Breivik was a Freemason). Moreover, Breivik's writing is incredibly child-like and idiotic, as revealed by the fact that he actually proposes using Modern Warfare 2 as a military simulator and World of Warcraft as a means to hide your real activities.

So, look no further than the fact that Anders Behring Breivik was both a lunatic and an idiot. You're not helping anything by attributing Breivik's behavior to video games and broken marriages like this Swedish terrorism expert does, citing video games and his parents' broken marriage as causes of his "personality disorder". Should we draw the conclusion that you belong to some kind of a risk group if 1) your parents are divorced and 2) you play Modern Warfare 2? How many millions does that make? I'm sure many of you can name a few who meet the requirements. But how many people you know who could actually start shooting kids? Our "anti-immigration" politician Timo Soini said it best: "We're talking about a single fanatic, a psychopath and the murders he committed."

We should not start restricting our liberties simply because some lunatics abuse theirs. For lunatics, any excuse will do. We just have to live with it (and punish these individuals when they do act); that's the price of liberty. Otherwise, if we do start restricting our liberties, there's nothing left to live for. This is why I'm more worried about what our politicians will do now than I'm worried about the next attack. Restricting the use of online aliases would alone be a greater tragedy than the massacre in Norway.

----

There's a very serious lesson to be drawn from all this and that is that the Norwegian state failed in what is the most fundamental responsibility of the state; protecting individuals from criminals. While the massacre was ongoing the local police did nothing but wait for a SWAT unit that then ran into some difficulties before finally making it to the island. It's also telling that Breivik didn't shoot himself once he was done. When news of the incident started to emerge I immediately assumed the killer had committed suicide. Then I remembered that Norway is like Finland: murderers can expect lenient sentences and prison conditions are actually quite comfortable.

As expected

Online message boards of major Finnish news organizations got quickly filled with typically anti-American reactions to the news of Osama bin Laden's death. There are dozens of threads that deal with the issue, each one spanning many pages. Below is a sample of these reactions, taken from just one page of two threads at YLE & HS websites. I didn't even bother to go through more pages but the threads are a treasure trove of human stupidity. I won't provide translations but subjects range from conspiracy theories (e.g., bin Laden was killed years ago and kept in a freezer somewhere until Obama decided to boost his approval ratings) to snobby pseudo-intellectual "won't change a thing" type of comments with the typical "America behaved recklessly" comment thrown in every now and then:  

On tiedossa, että bin Laden ei ollut mukana syyskuun 11. 2001 tapahtumassa ja bin Laden on ollut kuolleena jo vuosia ja CIA käytti joulupukkiaan aina kun USA'n politiikka sitä tarvitsi ja nyt ovat Barak Obaman vaalit kynnyksellä, joten CIA lahjoitti vainajan Obamalle vaalityöhön saavutuksena ja CIA'n pomo sai puolustusministerin paikan Obaman hallituksessa. -Santa Laden



Osamaa on pidetty WTC iskun päätekijänä mutta todisteita ei ole tuotu esiin.
Terrori-isku oli järkyttävä mutta homma haiskahtaa, koska Obama on itse ollut koulutuksessa USA:ssa ja hyvissä väleissä G.W. Bush Junioriin.

En juhli kenenkään ihmisen kuolemaa.
Sairasta on tämä USA:n ulkopolitiikka, kun tehdään väkisellä terroristi yhdestä vastarintaa tekevästä lähi-idän partasissistä ja saadaan aina jostain tekosyy sotia. -Osama partamies


Jaha. Obaman suosio on romahtanut niin alas että on ollut aika ottaa ruumis pakkasesta ja julistaa piru tapetuksi. Liittynee samaan imagokampanjaan kuin viime viikkoinen Obaman syntymätodistuksen julkistus.Puolitoista vuotta vaaleihin. Eikös tämä tullut vähän liian aikaisin? Vai onko lähemmäksi vaaleja suunnitteilla jokin "estetty" terrori-isku Detroitin kenkäpommittajan tyylii. -Julmuri

--


Vai voitti oikeus! Ja kattia kanssa, En puolustele Al-Qaidaa, mutta ei tuo amerikkalaisten touhukaan ole kansainvälisen oikeuden mukaista. miksi eivät ottaneet Bin-Ladenia kiinni ja tuoneet kansainvälisen tuomioistuimeen tuomittavaksi? Samanlaisia terroristeja kaikki, mutta valitettavasti amerikkalaisia vain ei saada syytteeseen. -Huonoa oikeutta



Kenenkäs kanssa Bushit nyt kaveeraa, kun binLaden kupsahti? -Tänään ystävä, huomenna vihollinen

Supervallan presidentti antaa luvan tappaa. Yleensä tällaisesta rangaistaa, mutta nyt hän pääsee kuin koira veräjästä ja kansa juhilii. Osama on toki rikollinen, mutta se ei mitenkään voi poistaa toisen rikosta. Ja Suomihan pitää suhteita valtioon, jonka ulkopolitiikka perustuu vastustajien tuhoamiseen. Tällainen toiminta johtaa aina uuteen kapinaan ja kierre on ikuinen. -Välkivallaton



Obamahan ei tosiaan niitä sotakäskyjä antanut vaan Bush (joka muuten valittiin ei yhdesti, mutta kahdesti presidentiksi). Aloituskäskyn jälkeen jenkit ovat tuhonneet ehkä pikemmin 60,000 henkeä ja pari Reuterssin kuvaajaa. Sitten on tietysti nuo pari aikaisempaa sotaa ja atomipommia. -Hessu

----

Sources:

YLE

Helsingin Sanomat

The New Anti-Semitic Alliance

Benjamin Netanyahu:

“There is a new boiling anti-semitism of radical Islam that sweeps Europe as a whole, and there’s a strange fusion – it’s the only word I can use to describe it — a fusion with the anti-semitism of the radical far far left,”

“This is the strangest union you could possibly contemplate,”... “because radical Muslims: they stone women, they execute gays, they are against any human rights, against feminism, against whathaveyou. And the far left is supposed to be for these things.” (Washington Times)

I wonder when the left wakes up to this reality.

Israel Remains Vigilant

Another reminder of why Gaza is under blockade and why Israel has no choice but to intercept ships heading for the region:

The Israeli navy has intercepted an Egypt-bound ship carrying a large delivery of weapons off Israel's Mediterranean coast. It said the arms had been sent by Syria to Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

The Victoria is German-owned, operated by a French shipping company and had been sailing under a Liberian flag, the military said. German, French and Liberian authorities have been notified of the seizure. (Guardian)

Here's what they found.

Despite this, Europeans are becoming increasingly delusional about Israel:

Asked to respond to the statement that “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians,” 47.7 percent of the study’s participants in Germany expressed agreement – the highest number in Western Europe....

The statement “Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews” met with 35.6% affirmation in Germany, while 35.9% of British respondents were in agreement. In the Netherlands, 41.1% favored the assertion, as did 55.2% in Poland, 45.6% in Hungary and 48.8% in Portugal. France declined to participate.

Whatever happens, Palestinian terrorists can always rely on their European allies.

The Power of Ideas and the Middle East

I recently finished reading Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, a controversial book according to which the liberal democratic system would ultimately prevail over alternatives. The book, based on an article in the National Interest, was written at a time when the Soviet system was collapsing. To put it simply, Fukuyama's thesis relies on two arguments:

1) Scientific knowledge, which Fukuyama associates with modern capitalism, accumulates in the sense that it's not possible to reverse the course of scientific advancement and as such it's not really possible to reverse the course of human history (for extended periods, that is).

2) People everywhere possess what Fukuyama calls thymos (from Ancient Greek), the desire for recognition, which goes unfulfilled in non-democratic systems because dictatorships don't recognize individuals as sovereign, as adults capable of independent thought and action. Thymos is just one part of the soul, however, as the soul also has desiring and reasoning parts.

If prosperity brought on by the free-market economy can fulfill the desiring and reasoning parts of the "soul", the thymotic part of the soul can only be fulfilled by granting the individual some inalienable rights, including the right to participate in the political process. Democracy can also effectively restrain individuals with megalothymia, the desire to be recognized as superior to others, while still allowing these individuals to excel in ways that don't interfere with the rights of others. And once this liberal democratic system has been imposed, it's unlikely to collapse. We may have thousands of unsatisfied people at any given time but they have no credible alternatives to liberal democracy. (The downside, according to Fukuyama, is that a world where people no longer have to struggle for recognition is a world without great human achivements; a world that is, simply put, boring.)

Fukuyama's book was written at a time when Easter Europe was going through a series of revolutions, the Autumn of Nations, which resulted in what had been considered unthinkable up until then; total disintegration of the Soviet Union with no shots fired (technically that's not true but you get the point). Now there's a chance of something similar happening in the Middle East, at least with respect to "struggle for recognition".

Of course the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Jordan are not the first phases of a liberal revolution but they do address something that Arab dictators have long tried to ignore; the need of the average Arab citizen to be recognized as a citizen, not a subject. But the definition of a citizen varies as there are more competing societal models in the Middle East than there were in Europe in 1989. Communism had promised material abundance which never materialized. The free market system, on the other hand, had been tried and proven by then, so there was no question as to what should replace communism. Traditional authoritarianism in the Middle East might as well be replaced with an Islamic alternative. Islam is hostile to both free markets and democracy and Islamic movements in countries such as Egypt are anxious to consolidate power after having settled for a minor role for decades.

Islam remains a threat to the Middle East because there's no tradition of secularism in the Muslim world. Europe had Reformation, and the wars it brought, but many Muslims still dream of going back to the old days, days when the Muslim world was united under one caliphate bent on expansion. Fukuyama argues that Christianity contributed to democracy in spreading the idea that all people are equal in the eyes of God. The problem was that this would matter in afterlife only. God had to be taken off the equation - Christianity had to be secularized (at first via Reformation, then via the Enlightenment) before the idea of equality could be applied to our existence on this rock. Except for countries like Turkey which went through a process of quick and forced secularization, the Muslim world has yet to witness a similar process.

But while the current situation is not a liberal revolution and while it carries great risks, it's not the starting point for the establishment of a new caliphate either. Yesterday (on Fox News) Glenn Beck was going on about how the situation in the Middle East could lead to the establishment of a new caliphate, stretching all the way from Pakistan to the UK. This is of course a completely ludicrous idea. While there's no tradition of secularism in the Muslim world, the average Egyptian is not exactly a puritan Muslim either and as such is not too keen to hand power to extremists. The very fact that the extremist Muslim Brotherhood has tried to appear as a moderate force throughout the crisis pretty much proves this. Egypt is not the Iran of 1979 in the sense that there isn't a similar backlash against modernization (Westernization) in Egypt. Another obstacle to a caliphate is nationalism, which played a prominent role in the struggle against European colonial powers. While the Muslim identity surpasses the national identity, this does not automatically mend fences between dozens of Muslim groups. The United Arab Republic lasted for only three years even at a time when Egypt and Syria shared a common enemy. With different factions killing - or waiting for the opportunity to kill - each other, how can anyone expect these people to form a caliphate when they are nowhere near getting their own houses in order? The fact that Beck wears glasses these days doesn't make him any smarter. 

At the moment the situation in the Middle East seems chaotic and the outcome unpredictable but the prospect of a change in a system that is hostile to all three parts of Fukuyama's "soul" sounds better than mere stability. The status quo, which the Western world has helped maintain, has been feeding resentment in the Middle East for decades now with hardly any proof that it's been worth it.

"Cairo today is all of Egypt," he said. "I want my son to have a better life and not suffer as much as I did ... I want to feel like I chose my president."

Thou Shalt Not Burn the Qu'ran

A recent stunt by Finnish freethinkers involved exchanging bibles (and other religious nonsense) for porn magazines. This aroused some controversy but, as far as I can remember, there were no calls to have the freethinkers arrested for inciting religious hatred. But in Britain, and quite probably soon in Finland too, you can get arrested for burning the Qur'an. Of course, British freethinkers would not even be able to pull off a stunt like the one described in the opening sentence because local Muslims would immediately resort to violence, if necessary, to prevent their worthless book from being traded for porn. And local authorities, instead of guaranteeing the freethinkers' right to exchange goods for goods (and voice their opinion in doing so), would side with the Muslims to preserve whatever peace and order (our consensus) Europeans happen to value over liberty.

Chief executive officer of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Catherine Heseltine, slammed the burning of the Koran - one of the most offensive acts to Muslims she could imagine.

Why have extremists been interviewed for the news article? This woman is obviously only concerned with the fact that someone dared to burn their holy book rather than with the fact that authorities arrested a 15-year-old girl for it. Some local dhimmi politician interviewed for the article also failed to see this in terms of freedom of speech and religious liberty, instead bringing up how damage control is being done to appease Muslims. Once again, it's the feelings of the local Muslim community that matter the most, not liberty.

'You can see that in the way Muslims treat the Koran - washing before touching it and in many Muslim homes you will find it on the top shelf above all other books.

Is this supposed to make one respect Muslims' beliefs? I for one consider it merely hilarious and pathetic that some people feel the need to clean themselves before touching junk.

I also wouldn't mind seeing some British Muslims arrested the next time they incite ethnic hatred by burning the Union Jack, for example. Of course, both Muslims and non-Muslims should have the right to express their opinion but for as long as these double standards exist, Muslims won't give a damn about freedom of speech.

Suomen ja Israelin asekaupat

Vasemmistolaiset idealistit (Tuomioja, Hautala, Hassi, Kaurismäki jne.) ovat allekirjoittaneet vetoomuksen, jossa "Suomea vaaditan lopettamaan asekaupat Israelin kanssa". Tällainen sinisilmäinen "vaikuttaminen" perustunee oletukseen, että Lähi-idän ongelmat loppuvat, kunhan Israel laskee aseensa, aivan kuin Lähi-idän konfliktin historia olisi täynnä instansseja, joissa Israelin rauhaneleet oltaisiin palkittu jollakin muulla kuin Israelin siviileihin kohdistuvalla väkivallalla.

Erkki Tuomioja sanoo allekirjoittaneensa asekauppaa vastustavan vetoomuksen siksi, ettei Israelia enää voi eikä pidä kohdella asekaupoissa normaalina kumppanina.

"Ei niin kauan kuin se jatkaa siirtokuntien laajentamista ja laitonta miehitystään palestiinalaisalueilla eikä osoita uskottavia merkkejä aidosta pyrkimyksestä kestävään rauhansopimukseen."

Onpa yksipuolista. Viittaukset palestiinalaisalueiden miehityksen laillisuuteen ovat typeriä, YK:n päätökset kun ovat perinteisesti sotineet Israelin valideja turvallisuusintressejä vastaan. Jos Tuomioja haluaisi edistää miehityksen lakkauttamista, hänen tulisi vedota palestiinalaisiin, Israel kun miehittää palestiinalaisalueita vain siksi, että sen on pakko.

Suomi tietenkin myös hyötyy Israelin kanssa käytävistä asekaupoista, kuten nimimerkki "Moskovan arkistonhoitaja" Helsingin Sanomien uutisartikkelin kommenttiosiossa kertoo:

Suomi on samantyyppisessä asetelmassa kun Israel. Pieni demokraattinen valtio selkä merta vasten totalitaristisen ja äärimmäisen väkivaltaisen historian omaavassa väestöllisesti monikymmenkertaisessa ja maantieteellisesti sitäkin suuremmassa ja historiassa hyvin epävakaaksi osoittautuneessa ympäristössä.
Suomessa on Israelista paitsi sotilaallisesti myös teknis-taloudellisesti opittavaa, onhan Israel korkean teknologian johtavia maita kun siellä on yhdistynyt miljoonan orjuudesta exodukseen paenneen entisen neuvostoinsinöörin osaaminen amerikkalaisen kapitalismin maaperään tuottaen erinomaisia tiedon ja taidon jaffahedelmiä.

Why there's a blockade

BBC:

Militants in Gaza have vowed to step up attacks against Israel, following the first direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders since 2008.

"We declare that the actions of resistance have gone into a new and advanced stage of co-operation in the field at the highest levels in preparations for more effective attacks against the enemy (Israel)," the [Hamas] spokesman was quoted as saying by Reuters.

This is the backdrop against which the Gaza blockade should be viewed. The ruling entity of Gaza is waging an open war against Israel. Meanwhile in Europe, useful idiots are setting up demonstrations against Israel, calling for an end to the blockade, an end that'd only make it much easier for Hamas to obtain weapons and continue its xenocidal war against Israel. And as these acts of terror are attributed to Islamist extremists such as Hamas, "mainstream" Palestinian politicians display their moderatism by attending the funeral of a mass-murdering extremist. The Palestinian "culture of death" is on display in the streets of Gaza as well, with Gazans celebrating the deaths of four Israeli civilians three days ago.

And some people want to make it easier for these people to obtain weapons...

Maahanmuutolla "pelottelu"

Porissa järjestetyn SuomiAreena-keskustelutilaisuuden aikana uutisissa joku ihmetteli, miten suhteettomasti maahanmuuttokysymykset olivat keskusteluissa esillä. Haastateltu mies viittasi Suomen suhteellisesti alhaiseen maahanmuuttajamäärään verrattuna muuhun Länsi-Eurooppaan ja esitti, että tällaisessa tilanteessa on "epärehellistä pelotella maahanmuutolla".

On totta, että Suomessa on vähän (islamilaisia) maahanmuuttajia verrattuna esimerkiksi Ruotsiin, mutta nimenomaan tästä syystä maahanmuuttokysymykseen tulee puuttua nyt eikä vasta sitten, kun meillä on jokaviikkoisia mellakoita ja koulunpolttajaisia ranskalaisten lähiöiden tai Malmön tyyliin. Maahanmuuttajien määrän kasvaessa heidän poliittinen valtansa myös kasvaa, mikä vaikeuttaa maahanmuuttokysymysten ratkaisua. Koska moni maahanmuuttaja on riippuvainen valtion tuista, hyvinvointipalveluita ajava vasemmisto vahvistuu. Näin syntyy antisemitistinen allianssi. Samaan aikaan lisääntyvät ongelmat vahvistavat (ääri)oikeistoa. Äärimmilleen vedetty polarisaatio voidaan välttää, jos maahanmuuttokysymykset nostetaan esille heti.

Islamilaisen maahanmuuton järkevyyttä on siis syytäkin miettiä nyt, kun muiden eurooppalaisten valtioiden idealistisen maahanmuuttopolitiikan vaikutukset ovat kaikkien nähtävillä. Suomi on tämän takia hyvässä asemassa, kun taas esimerkiksi Malmössä on jo liian myöhäistä miettiä, kannattaako niitä rajoja pitää auki. Siellä mietitään pikemminkin, että voisivatko muslimit hoitaa asiansa sharia-tuomioistuimissa ja että voidaanko kouluissa opettaa evoluutioteoriaa muslimilapsille. Jos suomalaiset haluavat joutua pohtimaan samanlaisia asioita, niin pidetään suut kiinni maahanmuuttokysymyksistä ja rajat auki. Perussuomalaiset eivät ole nousseet siksi, että suomalaiset olisivat yhtäkkiä alkaneet pitämään ahdasmielisestä populismista, vaan siksi, että suomalaisten mielestä maahanmuuttokysymyksistä tulee käydä korkean profiilin keskustelua.

The legality of Israel's actions

Michael Halila is trying to make a case (here and here) against Israel by making it seem that the illegality of the flotilla interception is clear. Of course, I'm no legal expert, so I don't know whether the interception was illegal or not but, contrary to the tone in Halila's post, the issue seems far from clear.

Moreover, the issue of legality is not important - at all. If international law prevents Israel from defending the lives of her citizens, she should have every right to violate such a law. Similarly, if any law prevents an individual from acting in self-defense, the law should rightfully be ignored. The issue that does matter is that the flotillas - sponsored by the IHH, a radical islamic organization with ties to terrorist groups - were headed toward Gaza which Israel had placed under an embargo due to valid security concerns. Israel is at war with Hamas - a terrorist group whose aim is the destruction of the Jewish state - and Hamas is in control of Gaza. Legal technicalities are just that - legal technicalities. Israel was right to act.

And while Michael calls the defenders of Israel "useful idiots", he better remember that his reaction to the incident is exactly what the "activists" set out to bring about.

And now that another ship, MV Rachel Corrie, is headed for Israel, the "humanitarians" on board better take note that their aid wouldn't reach Gaza anyway:

Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

Taas viedään Israelia

Israelin vihollisilla on helppoa: huolimatta siitä, mitä he tekevät, maailman mielipide on aina heidän puolellaan.

“If the ships reach Gaza, it’s a victory for Gaza,” Haniyeh [Hamasin poliitikko] told some 400 supporters on Saturday, after touring Gaza City’s small fishing harbor where several smaller vessels breaking the blockade have docked in the past. “If they are intercepted and terrorized by the Zionists, it will be a victory for Gaza, too, and they will move again in new ships to break the siege of Gaza.” -Jerusalem Post

Israel julisti Gazan saartoon kaistaleen luisuttua Hamasin, juutalaisvastaisen terroristiryhmittymän, hallintaan. Saarron tavoitteena on eristää Hamas ja estää aseiden päätyminen sen käsiin. Saarto mahdollistaa turvatarkastukset, joilla nämä aseet pidetään juutalaisvaltion vihollisten ulottumattomissa.

"Ihmisoikeusaktivistien" pyrkimyksillä ajaa saarron läpi "avustusaluksilla" ei ole tietenkään mitään tekemistä humanitäärisen avustuksen kanssa. Kyseessä on alusta pitäen ollut tarkoitushakuinen pr-temppu, jolla taas saataisiin maailman mielipide mahdollisimman juutalaisvastaiseksi. Tempauksen järjestäjät tiesivät tasan tarkalleen, miten Israel reagoisi ja miten "kansainvälinen yhteisö" vuorostaan reagoisi. Tällä yleisöllä Israel ei yksinkertaisesti voi voittaa. Israelin YK-lähettiläs:

Although the flotilla was portrayed in the media as a humanitarian mission, it was anything but. If that were truly the case, the organizers of the mission would have accepted weeks ago Israel’s offer to transfer the aid brought on the flotilla through the Israeli port of Ashdod and through the established Israeli procedures. Much material and merchandise was entering Gaza daily through those mechanisms.

Israelin kommandot suorittivat iskun sen jälkeen, kun "avustusalus" oli jatkuvasti jättänyt huomioimatta Israelin laivaston kehotukset saattaa tarvikkeet perille turvallisuustarkastusten kautta. Kommandojen laskeutuessa heidän kimppuunsa hyökättiin puukoin ja metalliputkin. Alla olevasta videosta näkyy, miten rauhanomaiset aktivistit vastaanottavat kommandot: juutalaisiin käydään kiinni kuin sika limppuun.

Näin kävi, koska Israel ei ollut valmistautunut voimankäyttöön mutta heidän vihollisensa olivat. Alukselle laskeutuessaan kommandoilla oli käytössään värikuula-aseet (selvästi nähtävissä IDF:n kuvaamilla videoilla), joita heidän tulisi käyttää, jos dialogi ei tehoaisi. Mitään dialogia ei tietenkään ehditty käymään verenhimoisten antisemitistien raakamaisesti ja tarpeettomasti hyökätessä kommandojen kimppuun. Kun värikuulapanokset eivät purreet, kommandot tekivät sen, mitä ketä tahansa vastaavaan tilanteeseen joutunut olisi tehnyt ja avasivat tulen. Mitä muuta he olisivat voineet tehdä?

Kunniaväkivallasta tuontihyödyke

Kaleva-lehdessä uskalletaan puhua asiaa:

Se että niin sanottu kunniaväkivalta on yleistymässä Suomessa, ei ole yllättävää. Ilmiön vahvistumista on voinut odottaa sitä mukaa kuin tietyistä kulttuuritaustoista Suomeen saapuneiden ihmisten määrä on kasvanut. Huono kehitys on kuitenkin ollut nopeaa ja siksi hyvin huolestuttavaa. Muutama päivä sitten Yleisradion uutisissa asiaa kommentoinut maahanmuuttajanaisten tukihenkilö kertoi ilmiön lisääntyneen "valtavasti".
...
Kunniaväkivallan avulla pyritään turvaamaan suvun tai perheen arvovalta. Sen säilyttämiseksi käytettävä väkivalta kohdistuu useimmiten naisiin, joiden parisuhteiden katsotaan uhkaavan yhteisön kunniaa.

Länsimaista kulttuuria on kritisoitu siitä, että se hajottaa perinteisen perhemallin. Tämä on nimenomaan hyvä asia, sillä kyse on yksilön vapautumisesta ahdasmielisestä, kollektivistisesta traditiosta, jossa yksilön asema on pitää turpansa kiinni oli tilanne miten epämiellyttävä tahansa. Suvaitsevaisto tietenkin pitää tällaista primitiivistä kollektivismia hienona asiana, jota meidän hengellisesti köyhien ja materialististen suomalaistenkin tulisi tavoitella.

Pääkirjoituksessa tosin vähätellään islamin roolia kunniaväkivallassa. Islamin naiskäsitys antaa kuitenkin vapaat kädet miehille, jotka katsovat kunniansa tulleen loukatuksi ja päinvastoin kuin traditio, joka ei välttämättä sisällä minkäänlaista eksplisiittistä doktriinia, islam oikeuttaa kunniamurhat.