► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Daniel Greenfield’

Bill de Blasio and the Jews of New York City

by Mojambo ( 72 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Communism, Crime, Hipsters, History, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Progressives at October 4th, 2013 - 7:00 am

It is ironic that the fellow who plays upon the class warfare rhetoric of “Two New York’s” lives in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Brooklyn (Park Slope) which is populated with hipsters and yuppies who came to New York City only because Rudolph Giuliani and Nanny Bloomberg made it a safe place to be. I do recall John Edwards playing the “Two America’s” card too but that did not work out for the pretty boy ambulance chaser did it?

by Daniel Greenfield

The Democratic nominee for Mayor of New York City, the city with the largest Jewish population in the country, was a strong supporter of a Marxist regime that ethnically cleansed its Jewish population, conducting a reign of terror that included informants, arrests, expulsion and attacks on a synagogue. And he did this not before the truth about Nicaragua was known, but long after it was known.

Bill de Blasio won 38% of the Jewish vote in the New York City Democratic Primary. Despite the liberal reputation of Jewish voters in the Big Apple, these numbers were roughly even with those of other religions and demographics.

The latest Marist poll, which shows de Blasio with a 43% lead, also shows the Jewish vote leaning toward him by only 55%. Republican challenger Joe Lhota scores 36% of the Jewish vote—his best numbers among any group except White Catholics (41%) and Conservatives (39%).

De Blasio’s weak polling may reflect the growing numbers of the New York City’s Orthodox Jews who tend toward a natural conservatism, but it may also reflect wariness toward any candidate, who  favors undermining the police and dispensing with the city’s needed fiscal reforms.

Bill de Blasio began his career in New York City politics with David Dinkins, whose administration’s policies were responsible for the city’s first pogrom against the Jewish community of Crown Heights. In the subsequent election, Giuliani won 68% of the Jewish vote while Dinkins took home 32%. In the next election, the very Jewish and very liberal Ruth Messinger had to make do with 27% to Giuliani’s 72%.

With Giuliani actively campaigning for Joe Lhota, one of his former deputy mayors and a man with a striking resemblance to his bulldog personality, while Dinkins associate Bill de Blasio holds down the Democratic ticket campaigning on weaker law enforcement and more social welfare, the election looks like a rerun of the 1993 grudge match between Dinkins and Giuliani.

For now Bill de Blasio is pulling in more of the Jewish vote than his old boss did, but that may change once Jewish voters realize what he really stands for.

[………..]

Bill de Blasio is probably the most radical left-wing Democratic nominee for the office in the history of the city. In a system where Democratic candidates usually keep a wary eye on the working class, he is a typical leftist Park Slope yuppie with an activist past that he parlayed into a profitable class warfare present living in an area where home prices run into the millions.

Not long before Bill de Blasio joined Team Dinkins, he was a member of Team Sandinista. The Sandinistas, or FSLN, a radical Marxist terrorist organization, took over the country and drove out most of Nicaragua’s Jewish community. By the time they were done, the ADL blasted Nicaragua as “a country without Jews, but not without anti-Semitism.”

This was the revolution that de Blasio supported while volunteering at the Nicaragua Solidarity Network of Greater New York.  […….]

The New York Times describes Bill de Blasio as one of the first eager subscribers to Barricada, the Sandinista paper. This was the Barricada that denounced the “traditional ‘Jew-style’” of the United States Congress for not immediately providing the money to finance an election in Nicaragua.

[………] That energy included throwing firebombs at a synagogue during Shabbat services while shouting “Death to the Jews”, “Jewish Pigs” and “What Hitler started we will finish.”

Bill de Blasio worked as a political organizer for a left-wing group raising money to aid a regime that had deprived the Jews of their property, their homes and even their house of worship. The president of the synagogue that the Sandinistas had attacked was forced to sweep the streets, a scene reminiscent of Nazi behavior in occupied Europe, before being forced to leave the country with the clothes on his back.

The synagogue was seized and transformed into a Sandinista youth center decorated with Anti-Zionist posters. The Jewish community of Nicaragua fled to Miami and Costa Rica.

A few years after Bill de Blasio had moved on from Nicaraguan politics to New York politics, his new boss watched as mobs tore through a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn only a few miles away from where he now lives while shouting, “Death to the Jews.”

[……..]

Bill de Blasio has blasted NYPD surveillance of mosques sayings that “all surveillance efforts, and anything that is not based on specific leads should not continue.” Such a policy would prevent the NYPD from engaging in any meaningful information gathering until it was too late.

And this time it isn’t the synagogues of Nicaragua that are on the line. It’s the synagogues of New York.

In 2009, four Muslim men were arrested by the FBI and charged with, among other things, plotting to blow up synagogues in the Bronx. Their targets included the Riverdale Jewish Center and the Riverdale Temple. One of the Muslims boasted, “With no hes­i­ta­tion, I will kill 10 Yahudis.”

In 2011, two Muslim men were arrested by the NYPD and charged with a plot to blow up Manhattan synagogues.  [………]

What both cases had in common was that they relied on informants drawing out potential terrorists, instead of waiting blindly for them to strike. If Bill de Blasio has his way, that will no longer be something that the NYPD will be able to do. And like the worshipers of Nicaragua’s Congregación Israelita, the first that the Jews at Shabbat services will know of the plot will be when they smell the smoke and hear the cry, “Death to the Jews.”

But while Bill de Blasio may have his scruples about spying on mosques, his Sandinista friends had recruited informants to gather information about the Jews of Nicaragua to begin a campaign of intimidation that led to the attack on a synagogue, to arrests, threats and ultimately the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of Nicaragua. If Bill de Blasio ever criticized his beloved Sandinistas for these crimes, it isn’t in the record.

At one of Bill de Blasio’s final meetings with the NSN, he spoke of a need to “build alliances with Islam.” That red-green alliance has since pervaded Latin America. In 2012, Nicaraguan Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega hosted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, praised Saddam Hussein and denounced the US “occupation” of Afghanistan.

[…….]

This was the glorious revolution that Bill de Blasio never gave up on.  “People who had shallow party sympathies with the F.S.L.N. pretty much dropped everything when they lost,” one of his old NSN friends said. “Bill wasn’t like that.”

“They gave a new definition to democracy,” Bill de Blasio told the New York Times. And now he risks giving a new definition to democracy in New York City.

Cities and countries are precarious places. That is something that Jews have found out in countless places from Nicaragua to Iran. The Jews of Brooklyn discovered in 1991 how precarious a place New York City could be. The decades of peace since then only became possible because Bill de Blasio’s old boss was forced out of office.

If Bill de Blasio moves from Park Slope to Gracie Mansion, his old dreams for Nicaragua could become his new dreams for New York.

Read the rest –  Bill de Blasio and the Jews of New York

The moron’s foreign policy

by Mojambo ( 86 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Egypt, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Syria at July 25th, 2013 - 11:00 am

Well with folks such as Kerry, Hagel, Clapper, Rice,  Brennan and let’s not expect the Messiah at 1600 Pennsylvania  Avenue in addition to John McCain and Miss Lindsey Graham giving Obama coverage  – what could go wrong with arming the Muslim Brotherhood rebels in Syria?

by Daniel Greenfield

Rarely has there been a policy as universally supported in Washington and as universally rejected by Americans of all ages, races, genders, incomes and religions as the proposal to send weapons to the Syrian terrorists.

The average American who has never heard of the Al-Nusra Front, is utterly in the dark about the differences between the various brigades of the Free Syrian Army and hasn’t the faintest idea that the entire thing has been a Muslim Brotherhood operation of varying degrees of subtlety from Day 1, still thinks that sending weapons to them is a terrible idea.

Even a public that is weary of war and not at all enthusiastic about jumping into another one would rather invade Syria than arm the Syrian rebels.

At least those are the results of a recent Quinnipiac poll which found that sizable majorities of Republicans, Democrats, men, women, Whites, Blacks and Hispanics (and possibly even the mysteriously reclusive White Hispanics) all opposed the proposal to send arms to the rebels; even without being told that rebel is a polite term for Islamic Jihadist and Islamic Jihadist is a polite term for the guy wearing explosive underwear next to them on their vacation flight.

[…….]

They came to this novel conclusion without a thorough grounding in foreign policy, without having ever read one of those massive tomes that outgoing secretaries of state throw together to explain their failures, and without even being told anything true and meaningful about the Free Syrian Army. The only analytical tool at their disposal was their common sense.

In a time when the country is sharply divided along class, race, gender and hoodie, this was a refreshing show of unity. The United States of America, in town and city, mariachi band, hip hop concert and hoedown, came together to oppose giving weapons to terrorists.

And no one in Washington D.C. paid attention. Why should they? They already have it all figured out.

The intelligence committees in the Senate and House of Representatives, which had briefly kicked up a fuss over Obama’s plan to send guns to terrorists, withdrew their objections after being promised regular updates. If those updates are nearly as interesting as the ones for Fast and Furious, a program which merely put lighter weapons into the hands of Mexican drug lords, they should make for some entertaining reading.

[……..]

Where will the weapons dispensed like candy to the Syrian rebels end up? The real question is where won’t they end up. The Middle East is a giant arms market and the United States is abandoning the policy of plausible deniability that existed during the Libyan War to directly run guns to terrorists.

Considering the havoc that a mere 2,000 Fast and Furious guns caused in Mexico, what exactly will come of shipping anti-tank weapons to the same sort of Islamist militias who launched a full blown assault on the American mission in Benghazi?

In the great polling game of Ask the Audience played on the set of Who Wants to be President, the answer from the gallery has come in loud and clear. But no one on the stage seems to actually care. And it is that lack of concern that is more interesting than the exercise of common sense by the collective polled mind of America.

It is widely accepted wisdom in Washington D.C. that we have to send weapons to the Syrian rebels. How did a notion that is rejected out of hand by the man on the street for reasons of common sense become accepted in Washington D.C. also for reasons of common sense?  [……..]

During the heyday of the Arab Spring when we were all supposed to be impressed by posed photographs of protesters gesticulating against a fiery background in Tahrir Square, it was hard to find anyone with policy influence or experience who would agree that we should just stay out of it. Mubarak staying on was equally a non-starter. They all knew that Mubarak had to go. They all knew that democracy in Egypt was inevitable. And they all knew that it would somehow work out because freedom is stronger than tyranny and talking points are stronger than common sense.

The consensus on Syrian smacks of that same empty conviction that something must be done, that the golden avatar of progress must be served and that we are on the cusp of historic change. “Inaction is not an option,” say the advocates of every stupid policy from amnesty for illegal aliens to guns for terrorists.

But considering the outcomes of their proposed policies, inaction doesn’t seem so bad.

The net foreign policy outcome of all our interventions in Egypt to make the Egyptians love us is an Egypt that now hates us more than ever. Hating us is the one thing that Egyptians from all walks of life can agree on. It’s their national equivalent of shipping guns to Syrian terrorists.

[……..]

The Libyan intervention, begun to protect the Islamist militias of Benghazi, ended with a burning diplomatic compound in Benghazi and Islamist militias gunning down two Navy SEALS while dragging the body of an American ambassador through the streets in between snapping shots of his corpse with their smartphones. […….]

So what’s the worst that could happen in Syria?

The most destructive influence on domestic and foreign policy is that sense of inevitability. “Something must be done,” are the four words that have undone the reason of even credible conservative politicians. The next six words, “It will happen even without us” are nearly as toxic. These are the words that have convinced countless politicians to sell out on domestic policy in exchange for having some control over the final outcome.

If the entire population of the United States Senate went up to the roof of the Russell Building and jumped off, it would happen because more and more aides would talk up their senators and urge them to go up because if they all jump together, then the dissenting senators will have some control over the process.

[……]

Officially we are supporting the Syrian rebels because we support democracy, even though the vast majority of the rebels are Islamists and the only democracy they want will disenfranchise Christians, Shiites, women and anyone else left standing after the black flags sweep into Damascus. Morsi also deserves our support because he was democratically elected, even though during his time in office, he tried to amass total power and tortured and beat up his political opponents.

What democracy really means is that Washington D.C. has decided that the Muslim Brotherhood is inevitable and so we might as well get on their good side by helping them take over a few countries, before it’s too late. Never mind that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t have a good side. Peel back the layers of front organizations and you find yourself looking into the hooded eyes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi who enjoys suicide bombings and long walks on the beach.  [……..]

Bobby Knight once said, “If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.” That advice seems to be defining our foreign policy in Egypt (where rape is an instrument of domestic policy). The inevitability of the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since they’re bound to win down the road, we should help them win now. And if they start losing, then we have to ship weapons to their militias and maybe declare a No Fly Zone, because while their victory is inevitable, its inevitability must be assured with American weapons against the will of the American people.

Washington D.C. is full of Ivy League grads that have spent a lifetime reading about the Middle East, but lack the most basic sort of common sense. It’s not that they can’t comprehend the risks, it’s that they have been taught to think that either they jump off the Morsi building and land in a Syrian rebel camp or the whole thing will happen without them and they will be left out of the loop.

And what could be worse than that?

Read the rest – The idiot’s foreign policy

Farewell Detroit

by Mojambo ( 194 Comments › )
Filed under Bailouts, Economy, unemployment, Unions at July 24th, 2013 - 2:30 pm

The Knish turns his keen  analytical eye towards Detroit and comes to the conclusion that what is good for Detroit is destruction for America.

Detroit

by Daniel Greenfield

A century ago it was the lure of work that drew people from rural areas and far away countries to American cities. The big cities had jobs. Unlike rural areas, they had such high concentrations of them that if you moved there, then you might be able move from job to job without having to turn hobo and travel to find work. The big city offered workers to employers and employment to workers.

That arrangement worked when cities were places where things were made. A century ago the New York City waterfront was crowded with ships bringing in cargoes. During WW2, it was filled with entire fleets that were being constructed there. Today the river traffic consists of tour boats or pleasure craft, supplemented by the occasional EPA ship hunting for pollution in the river.The waterfront was a hangout for the homeless, the modern hobo who doesn’t look for work, in the 80s. It’s being transformed into bike lanes and garden spot cafes now. That is the city in miniature. Either it’s decrepit or ornamental. It just isn’t utilitarian. It’s not really good for anything practical anymore. Even assuming that we were going to build some fleets, we wouldn’t do it in New York.So the question isn’t why did Detroit go bankrupt. The real question is why wouldn’t it. Detroit was once known for making things. Now its most famous remaining industry puts together car parts and while it’s more than a lot of cities have, it’s not nearly enough to subsidize a large population that doesn’t work or pay taxes. A population of hobos who never need to look for work.

The only real things keeping American cities from going bankrupt are inertia and some fancy cultural footwork.

The city has three types of people. Those who work. Those who work for the government. Those who don’t work. Those who don’t work and those who work for the government are a net loss. [……..]

Some of those who do work are still a net loss, because they use more services than they pay for, others pay more in taxes than they get or cost, but considering the level of expenses required to maintain a city and the small amounts that trickle back to cities from up the government river, it becomes harder and harder for even the middle class to pay its way.

To deal with this dilemma, cities did what so many brands did, they began upselling their lifestyle to attract a younger and wealthier elite that could inject enough money into the system to subsidize all the public housing, public schools and public everything. Some cities succeeded at it, but all they really did was prolong the inevitable. Others failed miserably.

Detroit’s reconstruction plan hinges on somehow attracting a chunk of that crowd. It’s just not going to happen. Its bankruptcy and proposed reemergence is a corporate strategy. Shake loose some of the pension weight and figure out a way to rebrand Detroit as a place for social media companies to set up shop. And then solicit more investment to really turn things around.

[………]

Cities once had functional reasons for existing and those functional reasons convinced people to live there. Today they exist because people live there. It’s backward and it fails to account for what will happen when the people decide to leave.

The people left Detroit. Not all of them, but much of the productive population packed up and hit the road leaving behind a city of illiterates and the public employees designated to care for them. There were too many public employees, not enough people and very few taxpayers.

Detroit did what most cities do. It did what the country does, it tried to make ends meet by borrowing money even though it had no prospects for paying the money back. And when that failed, it went to bankruptcy court to try and reinvent Detroit as a brand new city that gullible investors will want to lend money to. [……….]

The purpose of a city has become to take care of the people who live there. Living in a city offers the appeal of a larger social safety net. The population that needs the safety net the most also pays the least into it, making the proposition a bad deal.

The social safety net is really there to manage the problems caused by a dysfunctional population. These problems run the gamut from riots to teenage pregnancy and they all cost money. Managing them supposedly costs less money than letting them roar on.  [………]

We have gone from the city as a model of industrial production to the city as a model of industrial social welfare. [……..] Urban social welfare began with attempts at remedying the plight of the workers. But there are fewer and fewer workers.

Detroit couldn’t get its streetlights working, but had a large body of social welfare administrating the entire mess. Any reconstruction plan will run up against the same limits. Detroit will still be the city it was, because it is a territory that has lost its purpose. Its only reasons for being are inertia and guilt.

Twinkies could be turned around by dumping unions and launching a new ad campaign, but cities don’t work that way Even reinvented, Detroit will still be what it was.

Detroit hasn’t been a manufacturing city in a while. It’s a welfare city. It’s there to provide social services to its wards. […….]Its only degree of difference lies in the proportions of its productive and non-productive populations.

Detroit has too much welfare and not enough work. But since that is its purpose and the purpose of every American city now, there’s nothing to complain about. The reformers who rebuilt the city as a utopian space of public housing and public services to elevate the slum dwellers won. And places like Detroit are their victory. They fought the slum and the slum won. The slum became the city.

Any city can become Detroit. All it takes is losing that percent of the population that pays in more than it takes out. Or overspending beyond their ability to cover the losses.

Detroit is the urban endgame. Its Motown cultural capital wasn’t enough to keep it going the way that the cultural capital of New York’s literary industries or Los Angeles’ moviemaking industries have been. But those too will run out. The publishing world is collapsing and the movie industry is becoming a multinational monstrosity.  […….]

There was a time when GM had 700,000 employees. Facebook has 3,000 employees. Google has 40,000. The 1 percenter twenty-somethings opening campuses with catered Thai food and coolers full of energy drinks are a nice employment appetizer for a city, but with few exceptions, not an industry.

The crisis of the city is that it has become a welfare state, not just in fact, but in orientation. The city exists to take care of people who won’t take care of themselves. That makes it something between a homeless shelter and a state institution. And to rephrase Groucho Marx, the city may be a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?  [……]

The city’s troubles are America’s troubles. A thriving economy can support a welfare state, but a welfare state cannot be an economy.  […….]

Detroit exists to provide welfare for much of its population and to provide government jobs for the people taking care of them. And like those populations where generations collect welfare checks, shop with food stamps and aspire to no future other than the perpetuation of this way of life, the city that they live in has no future.

What was good for GM may or may not have been good for America, but what’s good for Detroit is the destruction of America.

Read the rest – So long Detroit

After turning Lebanon into its puppet, the Syrian Shawarma Republic got the same treatment from Iran

by Mojambo ( 227 Comments › )
Filed under Dhimmitude, Egypt, History, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey at July 22nd, 2013 - 12:00 pm

A wonderful analysis by the Knish of the pathologies of the modern day Arab Republics aka the “Shawarma Republics” in the Middle East. The Knish points out that certain nations – Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon had magnificent histories long before the depraved butcher from the desert Mohammad burst onto the scene.

by Daniel Greenfield

Syria is burning, not because of the Arab Spring or Tyranny or Twitter, or any of the other popular explanations. The fire in Syria is the same firestorm burning in Iraq, in Turkey, in Lebanon and throughout much of the Muslim world. It has nothing to do with human rights or democracy. There is no revolution here. Only the eternal civil war.

Most people accept countries with ancient names like Egypt, Jordan and Syria as a given. If they think about it at all they assume that they were always around, or were restored after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. But actually the countries of the Middle East are mostly artificial creations borrowing a history that is not their own.

When Mohammed unleashed a fanatical round of conquests and crusades, he began by wrecking the cultures and religions of his native region. And his followers went on to do the same throughout the region and across the world.

Entire peoples lost their history, their past, their religion and their way of life. This cultural genocide was worst in Africa, Asia and parts of Europe. But the Middle Eastern peoples lost much of their heritage as well.

Muslim conquerors: Persecution and Extermination

The Muslim conquerors made a special point of persecuting and exterminating the native beliefs and indigenous inhabitants they dominated. Israeli Jews, Assyrian Christians and Persian Zoroastrians faced special persecution.

Conquered peoples were expected to become Muslims. Those who resisted were repressed as Dhimmis. But those who submitted and became Muslims suffered a much worse fate, losing major portions of their traditions and history. [………] Their pre-Islamic history faded into the mists of the ignorant past.

But Islam did not lead to a unified region, only to a prison of nations. The Caliphates, like the USSR, held sway over a divided empire through repression and force. Many of those peoples had lost a clear sense of themselves, but they still maintained differences that they expressed by modifying Islam to accommodate their existing beliefs and customs.

Islamic authorities viewed this as nothing short of heresy. It was against some such heresies that the Wahhabi movement was born. […….]

Islam came about to stamp out all differences, to reduce all men to one, to blend state and mosque into one monstrous law for all. And it did succeed to some extent. Many cultures and beliefs were driven nearly to extinction. Jews, Christians and others struggled to survive in the walls of a hostile civilization. But Islam could not remain united and the divisions resurfaced in other ways.

Muslim armies did succeed in conquering much of the world in a frenzy of plunder and death. But they quickly turned on each other. Rather than conquering the world, they went on to fight over the plunder and the power. Nothing has really changed since then.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire brought in the Europeans to reconstruct the Middle East. The modern states are the work of their hands. A clumsy mismatch of borders and warring peoples. The USSR came after with its own line of coups and Arab Socialist dictatorships. Now the third wave of Islamist tyrannies is on the march. But none of them can solve the basic problems of the region.

Syria is burning not because of human rights, but because it’s a collection of different peoples with different variants of Islam who don’t get along. A handful are descended from the original natives. The rest are foreign Arab invaders, some more recent than others. The story repeats itself across the region.  […….]

Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon are just some examples of countries permanently divided by such a mismatch of peoples. Agreements and elections come to nothing because no group believes that they will be treated as equals if they aren’t in power. And they’re right. Equality doesn’t just come from open elections, but from a cultural acceptance of differences. This simply does not exist in the Muslim world where gender differences mean you’re a force of corruption or a slave, ethnic differences mean you are the son of a dog, and religious differences mean you’re an enemy.

Had the forces of Islam not turned the Middle East upside down, the nation state might have evolved out of individual cultures, rather than as a strange hybrid of feudalism and Great Powers colonialism. For all their bluster and viciousness, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon are abandoned colonies. The Gulf states are even worse, backward clans of cutthroat merchants who are parasitically feeding off the West, even as they try to destroy it.

The rulers invariably marry Western women or women with a large dose of Western blood. Sadat married the daughter of an English woman. Mubarak married the daughter of a Welsh woman. For all that the Hashemites tout their descent from Mohammed, Queen Noor is more Anglo-Saxon than Arab. And the current Jordanian King’s mother was originally known as Toni Gardner. Even when they do marry Arab women, they are usually Christian Arabs and British educated.

There’s something pathetic about the sight of the post-colonial Arab leadership trying to gain some psychological legitimacy by intermarrying with their former rulers. As if pumping enough English blood into the veins of their offspring will somehow make them as capable as the Empire that ruled them and then left to attend to its own affairs.

But not nearly as pathetic as half of them claiming descent from Mohammed. Both reveal the underlying historical instability of their rule. These aren’t nation states, they’re hopelessly dysfunctional geographical divisions bristling with Western weapons and money, with interpretations of the Koran and texts on Arab Socialism, where everyone is a philosopher and a scholar—but no government lasts longer than it takes to overthrow it.

Every colonel and general dreams of empire, and every cleric in his flea ridden robes theorizes on the Islamic state, but none of them can do anything but act out the same murderous dramas. [………]

[……….]

This isn’t 1848 as some have theorized. It’s 848, over and over again. Worse still, it’s 748.

When you don’t have a nation, but you do have an army, then what you have is not a state, but a Shawarma Republic. To keep the army from overthrowing the leader, he must find internal or external enemies. When a downturn occurs, and the mobs gather, either the army massacres the mob or overthrows the ruler. Or the rebels cut a deal with some internal elements and wipe out the loyalists.

[……….]

The modern Shawarma Republic has some royal or military ruler at the top who receives money from the West or from its enemies to hold up his end of the bargain. Which to him means stowing the money into foreign bank accounts, sending his trophy wife on shopping trips to Paris and striking a fine balancing between wiping out his enemies and buying them off.

Naturally he carries on the ritualistic chant of “Death to Israel”, and if Israel ever looks weak enough, or his new Chinese or Iranian allies kick in the money for a full fledged invasion, he may even take a whack at it. But mostly the chants of “Death to Israel” are a convenient way of executing his enemies for collaborating with Israel.

In Syria, Assad’s Shawarma Republic (officially the Syrian Arab Republic, formerly the United Arab Republic, after a bunch of coups and one kingdom, the privately owned fiefdom of the dumbest scion of the clan) is on fire. Because the enemies of the regime, and some of its former allies, got around to exploiting Bashar Assad’s weakness.

For now Assad’s armies backed by his Iranian allies are in control of the Shawarma Republic of Syria but that might change. Especially now that Turkey and much of the Arab world have stepped into the anti-Assad camp. And when the fireworks die down, and the corpses are cleaned up off the streets, there will be another Shawarma Republic.  [………]

The irony is that after turning Lebanon into its puppet, Syria got the same treatment from Iran. And if a revolt succeeds, then it might get the same treatment from Turkey. The big dog bites the little dog, and the bigger dog bites it.

The process can’t be stopped, because the Islamic conquests that wrecked the region, the Caliphates that tried to make it static, and the colonial mapmakers who turned it into a ridiculous puzzle of fake countries filled with people who hate each other—make it impossible.

There was a brief window after the war when the exit of empires and the presence of a large Western educated class seemed as if they might lead to working societies. Instead they led to the pathetic imitations of the worst of the West, dress up generals and scholars cranking out monographs explaining how everything could be made right with their theory. Now it’s leading back to Islamism and the bloody clashes in the desert that originated this permanent state of dysfunction.

The Islamic Caliphate as a panacea for the problems caused by Islamic caliphates is about as good an idea as pouring gasoline on a fire. Which is exactly what the Islamists financed by Gulf royals, who can’t help cutting throats even when it’s their own, are doing.

You can’t build a country out of armies and billions of dollars. The reason that Israel works and the Arab world doesn’t is very simple. The Jews retained their identity. The perpetrators and victims of Islam who surround them have no roots. Only the sword in their hand and the shifting sands under their feet.

Read the rest – The Shawarma Republics are burning