Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 22-Dec-17 World View -- General Assembly Jerusalem vote: Low 'yes' count humiliates Palestinians

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• General Assembly Jerusalem vote: Low 'yes' count humiliates Palestinians
  
• Palestinians in Jerusalem fail to get excited by UN vote
  

****
**** General Assembly Jerusalem vote: Low 'yes' count humiliates Palestinians
****


Turkey's president Erdogan at United Nations on Thursday

The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday voted 128-9 with 35
abstentions in favor of a resolution demanding that all states must
obey Security Council resolutions, and which supposedly therefore
makes the declaration by US President Donald Trump's decision to
recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel to be "null and void."
The resolution had been sponsored by Turkey and Yemen.

Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital changes nothing
on the ground, so the recognition was little more than symbolic.
Thursday's General Assembly resolution is non-binding, so it's
completely symbolic. And therefore the Palestinian victory was only
symbolic.

The mainstream media have been calling it "a stinging rebuke to Donald
Trump" or a "new repudiation of the Trump administration," or "proof
that the United States is isolated in the world" or a "major
humiliation for Trump, Israel and the United States."

The problem is that it was none of those things. It was actually a
humiliation for the United Nations and the Palestinians, because the
vote 128-9 was far lower than expected, and far lower than votes on
Jerusalem-related resolutions in the past:

• Last month, the General Assembly adopted a resolution
  (GA/11982) declaring Israel’s Actions in East Jerusalem "Null and
  Void." The vote was 151-6, with 9 abstentions.
  
  
• In November 2012, the General Assembly adopted a resolutioin
  (67/19) upgrading the state of Palestine to a non-member observer
  state status in the United Nations. The vote was 138-9, with 41
  abstentions.
  
  
• In March 2012, the General Assembly adopted a resolution (66/225)
  demanding that Israel cease the exploitation of natural resources in
  Palestinian territories, and recognized the right of the Palestinian
  people to claim restitution as a result of Israeli violation of their
  rights. The vote was 167-7, with 6 abstentions.

In the case of the last two of these resolutions, they both occurred
during President Barack Obama's administration, and they were opposed
by Obama. So if Thursday's vote was a stinging defeat for Trump, then
previous votes must have been stinging defeats for Obama.

In view of these past votes, the Palestinians had hoped and expected
that Thursday's vote would be approved by at least 150 votes. The
result of 129 votes was a big humiliation.

The low vote count was undoubtedly the result of threats by the Trump
administration to cut foreign aid to countries that supported the
resolution. US ambassador Nikki Haley had said that the U.S. would be
"taking names" of those countries.

This threat prompted numerous furious responses prior to the vote.
The most furious was from Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan:

<QUOTE>"Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey's democratic will
with your dollars. Our decision is clear.

I call on the whole world: Don't you dare sell your democratic
struggle and your will for petty dollars.

I hope and expect the US won't get the result it expects from
there (the UN) and the world will give a very good lesson to the
US."<END QUOTE>

In view of the actual vote, it was apparently the United States that
gave a very good lesson to the United Nations.

The question now is: What consequences will the United States have to
pay for this threat and this power play?

President Obama announced a "red line" saying that the US would strike
Syria's president Bashar al-Assad if he used chemical weapons. When
al-Assad crossed the line and used Sarin gas, Obama flip-flopped on
his threat, which was disastrous for American foreign policy.

Now it seems that President Trump set a "red line," and that many
nations crossed the red line on Thursday by voting in favor of the UN
resolution. So what's Trump going to do now? Much of that foreign
aid is in support of America's own security, and cutting it sharply
would be a danger to America. On the other hand, flip-flopping on the
red line commitment could be harmful for the administration's
credibility. Presumably we'll know the answer soon. United Nations
and NBC News and United Nations (30-Nov) and Al Jazeera

****
**** Palestinians in Jerusalem fail to get excited by UN vote
****

President Trump's declaration on December 6 of Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel has infuriated much of the aging leadership of the
Palestinians, including Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas,
Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation.

But as for Palestinians "on the street" in Jerusalem, it's generated
more cynicism than excitement.

The average Palestinian is around 20 years old. The Oslo Accords
agreement, signed in 1993, was supposed to resolve the
Palestinian-Israeli issue, but the average Palestinian knows that the
Oslo agreement accomplished nothing, and that nothing has changed,
except that their octogenarian leaders are still giving speeches and
doing nothing more to change things.

Palestinian leaders had hoped for several weeks of "days of rage" by
thousands of Palestinians in Jerusalem, as occurred in July, when the
thousands of Palestinians poured into Jerusalem streets after Israel
installed metal detectors outside the al-Aqsa Mosque / Temple Mount
compound, in order to deter terrorists. This was the worst violence
in Jerusalem for years, but no such violence occurred after Trump's
Jerusalem announced. There was brief violence, but it fizzled
quickly.

To the Palestinians in Jerusalem, Thursday's General Assembly angry
speeches by Erdogan and Abbas were nothing new. They'd heard the same
speeches dozens or hundreds of times before, and nothing changes.

One Palestinian activist said, "It's a pointless exercise. The
Palestinian Authority (PA) has to evaluate the whole diplomatic
process of going to the UN. The experience we've had is that for
decades now these resolutions have not changed anything." Asia Times and Al Jazeera

Related Articles

• Organization of Islamic Cooperation throws a temper tantrum over Jerusalem (14-Dec-2017)
  
  
• Protests fizzle 3 days after Trump's Jerusalem announcement was universally condemned (10-Dec-2017)
  
  
• Israel and Saudi Arabia prepare for war with Hezbollah, as Syria war winds down (02-Nov-2017)
  
  
• Palestinian 'day of rage' in Jerusalem results in six deaths, hundreds injured (22-Jul-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Israel, Jerusalem, United Nations,
Yemen, Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, Oslo Accords,
Organization of Islamic Cooperation, OIC

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Cynic Hero '86]

Xenakis, you boomers are tyrannical. All xers and Millies are demanding from boomers is the right to make their own choices in regards to whether to be the good guy or the bad guy. Boomers are tyrannical by depriving the young of their inherent rights in that regards and by boomers instead making those choices for them. This is tyranny because the resulting choices are not the millennials choice but that of the boomers. Disgusting, tyrannical boomers are keeping xers and Millies away from state policy making, foreign policy making, and military policy making.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 23-Dec-17 World View -- Tanzania and China pass new laws to send government critics to jail

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• New Tanzania law makes it 'sedition' to reference a statistic the government doesn't like
  
• New China law 'protects the honor' of Chinese heroes
  
• How to confront a Chinese troll
  

****
**** New Tanzania law makes it 'sedition' to reference a statistic the government doesn't like
****


Outspoken Tanzania MP Zitto Kabwe arrested for 'sedition' (East African)

Lots of countries these days have laws that make it a criminal
activity to criticize the government. Dictators and other
psychopathic leaders use these laws to control the political
opposition, since anyone who criticizes the leaders can be beaten,
tortured, raped and jailed. So with Christmas approaching, it's
worthwhile to note that two countries are implementing new laws to
jail government critics.

On October 29, police in Dar es Salaam, the capital city of Tanzania,
arrested parliament member Zitto Kabwe on charges of "sedition."

His crime? At a campaign rally, he said that the national economic
growth for the second quarter was a 5.7%, when the National Bureau of
Statistics (NBS) said that their figure was 7.8%.

According to police commander Lazaro Mambosasa, "The MP was later
transferred to Central Police Station for further interrogation
related to seditious words uttered on the material day."

Tanzania's president John Magufuli is apparently clamping down on
criticism. According to his opponents, 400 have been arrested and
questioned in the past two years. Politicians in the opposition
Chadema party have been specifically targeted, although journalists
and artists have also been arrested. MP Tundu Lissu has been arrested
multiple times, once for revealing that Canada had seized a commercial aircraft
for non-payment, and once when he was charged with "hate speech" after
calling Magufuli a "dictator."

Magufuli now wants to clamp down harder. Last week, he instructed the
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) to fine or jail any individuals,
institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accused of
airing or publishing false statistics. Magufuli said that the minimum
sentence should be three years in jail.

What this reminds me of is the Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward in
1958-59. Mao wanted to turn China into a Socialist powerhouse.

500,000,000 million peasants were taken out of their individual homes
and put into communes, creating a massive human work force. The
family unit was dismantled. Communes were completely segregated, with
children, wives and husbands all living in separate barracks and
working in separate battalions. Communal living was emphasized by
eating, sleeping, and working in teams. Husbands and wives were
allowed to be alone only at certain times of the month and only for
brief periods.

Mao dismantled the Central Statistical Bureau, the organization
responsible for keeping track of all the economic activity going on in
the country. As a result, China's leadership had no real idea whether
the Great Leap Forward was meeting its objectives or not. As a
result, corruption and fraud became rampant, and no one knew what was
going on. Farms lied about crop harvests, and there was no way to
verify them. By the time the problems were discovered, tens of
millions of people died of starvation, and Mao was disgraced.

John Magufuli should keep that historical example in mind. By jailing
people who tell him what he doesn't want to hear, there may be a
national disaster in the making. Tanzania Daily News and East African (Kenya, 31-Oct) and All Africa (1-Nov)
and East African (26-Aug)

Related Articles

• Tensions rise between Kenya and Tanzania over chicks and cattle (14-Nov-2017)
  
  
• Ethiopians crush Islamists in Somalia, forcing retreat to Kenya (02-Jan-2007)
  

****
**** New China law 'protects the honor' of Chinese heroes
****


Chinese souvenir badge with pictures of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Xi Jinping, and Hu Jintao (AFP)

A 19-year-old Chinese man living in Inner Mongolia, identified only by
his surname Luo, has been arrested for "stomping and insulting" a
portrait of Genghis Khan. A video of the act went viral, and police
received complaints that the video had caused a disruption to society.

Genghis Khan is definitely not revered by many Han Chinese, especially
in the areas that he conquered and ravaged during the Mongol invasion
of China, a generational crisis war that climaxed in 1206. However,
he is revered by ethnic Mongols, including Mongols who are Chinese
citizens. Luo was sentenced to one year in prison for desecrating a
portrait of Genghis Khan.

Now China is considering a new law that criminalizes anyone deemed to
have smeared the “reputation and honor” of the ruling Chinese
Communist Party’s canon of heroes and martyrs.

The draft law bans the illicit appropriation of land and facilities
near memorials of heroes and martyrs, as well as any damage or
contamination of such memorials. "Those who appropriate, damage or
contaminate memorials, and insult or slander heroes and martyrs, may
receive administrative penalties from public security or even criminal
sanctions." Xinhua and South China Morning Post and Xinhua
and Radio Free Asia

Related Articles

• Mongol invasion of China in 1206 has impact today (06-Dec-2010)
  
  
• War between Russia and China (30-Jul-2017)
  

****
**** How to confront a Chinese troll
****

Getting attacked by trolls is a constant fact of life for people who
post articles about other countries. I've been attacked by trolls
from Russia, Syria, China, Burma, Azerbaijan, Zimbabwe, Burundi, and
other countries, when they didn't like my article because the facts
embarrassed their country or country leader.

In several recent articles,
I've
compared China's "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" to Nazi
Germany's "National Socialism," and noted that they were very similar.
I said the same thing in a recent article on China's military buildup
on Bhutan's Doklam Plateau.

A Chinese troll named "J Y" started attacking me, saying that India
was much worse than China. After a few exchanges, I wrote:

<QUOTE>"I could send you links to a thousand Indian media
articles that criticize Narendra Modi. You can't post a single
link to a Chinese media article that criticizes Xi
Jinping."<END QUOTE>

What followed was really bizarre. I kept demanding that he post a link
to any article that criticizes Xi Jinping. He repeatedly evaded this
question, and posted links to left-wing web sites criticizing India.

Finally, I wrote:

<QUOTE>"Really, this is hilarious. You know, at first I
thought you might come up with some article that maybe criticized
Xi Jinping in some minor way, maybe the way he combs his hair or
something.

But now I realize that if some article like that even existed,
then you couldn't link to it, because then you would be
criticizing Xi Jinping, and you would be abducted and thrown into
jail by the Chinese Communist Nazis. So you don't dare do
anything like that, and all you can do is evade the whole issue.

China is a country where you can't even post a picture of Winnie
the Pooh, because the cartoon character looks too much like Xi
Jinping!!!!"<END QUOTE>

So this turned out to be a very interesting situation. Dear Reader,
if you ever confront a Chinese troll online, just keep demanding that
he say anything to criticize Xi Jinping, or link to a Chinese media
article criticizing Xi Jinping, and he won't have an answer.

Related Articles

• Xi Jinping's 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' is identical to Hitler's National Socialism (24-Oct-2017)
  
  
• China bans Winnie The Pooh because Xi Jinping looks like him (18-Jul-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Tanzania, John Magufuli, Zitto Kabwe,
Lazaro Mambosasa, Tundu Lissu
National Bureau of Statistics, NBS,
China, Mao Zedong, Great Leap Forward, Central Statistical Bureau,
Inner Mongolia, Luo, Genghis Khan

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Cynic Hero '86]

Boomers lie about not having the capability to strike North Korea. Boomers know that a successful strike is possible but that requires the US breaking the nuclear taboo. The boomers however also know that doing so would have profound effects on deterrence that render boomer globalism inoperable and lead the way for the next generations. The boomers hate that because they prefer to do nothing because doing so causes the country to be sucked into "a great patriotic war" that boomers need in order to stay in power.

[John J. Xenakis]

(12-23-2017, 12:41 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Boomers lie about not having the capability to strike North
> Korea. Boomers know that a successful strike is possible but that
> requires the US breaking the nuclear taboo. The boomers however
> also know that doing so would have profound effects on deterrence
> that render boomer globalism inoperable and lead the way for the
> next generations. The boomers hate that because they prefer to do
> nothing because doing so causes the country to be sucked into "a
> great patriotic war" that boomers need in order to stay in power.
>

Is it my imagination, or are your delusional rants getting more and
more incoherent every day?

[Cynic Hero '86]

(12-23-2017, 02:32 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-23-2017, 12:41 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   Boomers lie about not having the capability to strike North
>   Korea. Boomers know that a successful strike is possible but that
>   requires the US breaking the nuclear taboo. The boomers however
>   also know that doing so would have profound effects on deterrence
>   that render boomer globalism inoperable and lead the way for the
>   next generations. The boomers hate that because they prefer to do
>   nothing because doing so causes the country to be sucked into "a
>   great patriotic war" that boomers need in order to stay in power.
>  

Is it my imagination, or are your delusional rants getting more and
more incoherent every day?

Boomers globalists refuse to strike north korea because doing so destroys the anticipated trigger event for WW3. The boomer agenda requires that WW3 begin with the US involved from day one. Also the globalists refuse to allow actual policy at all, let alone preparations or doctrine because they plan to absorb a nuclear first strike and only after that take measures to defend the country. The boomers need this in order to break americans into accepting a militarized world government. Geopolitical expert Joel skousen has mentioned these plans in numerous videos. This is also why boomers won't even consider letting anyone younger than them into the ruling circles; because they know the younger generations won't consent to their agenda.

[John J. Xenakis]

(12-23-2017, 03:06 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote:

(12-23-2017, 02:32 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-23-2017, 12:41 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   Boomers lie about not having the capability to strike North
>   Korea. Boomers know that a successful strike is possible but that
>   requires the US breaking the nuclear taboo. The boomers however
>   also know that doing so would have profound effects on deterrence
>   that render boomer globalism inoperable and lead the way for the
>   next generations. The boomers hate that because they prefer to do
>   nothing because doing so causes the country to be sucked into "a
>   great patriotic war" that boomers need in order to stay in power.
>  

Is it my imagination, or are your delusional rants getting more and
more incoherent every day?

Boomers globalists refuse to strike north korea because doing so destroys the anticipated trigger event for WW3. The boomer agenda requires that WW3 begin with the US involved from day one. Also the globalists refuse to allow actual policy at all, let alone preparations or doctrine because they plan to absorb a nuclear first strike and only after that take measures to defend the country. The boomers need this in order to break americans into accepting a militarized world government. Geopolitical expert Joel skousen has mentioned these plans in numerous videos. This is also why boomers won't even consider letting anyone younger than them into the ruling circles; because they know the younger generations won't consent to their agenda.

I'll take that as a "yes".

[Cynic Hero '86]

(12-23-2017, 03:38 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-23-2017, 03:06 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(12-23-2017, 02:32 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-23-2017, 12:41 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   Boomers lie about not having the capability to strike North
>   Korea. Boomers know that a successful strike is possible but that
>   requires the US breaking the nuclear taboo. The boomers however
>   also know that doing so would have profound effects on deterrence
>   that render boomer globalism inoperable and lead the way for the
>   next generations. The boomers hate that because they prefer to do
>   nothing because doing so causes the country to be sucked into "a
>   great patriotic war" that boomers need in order to stay in power.
>  

Is it my imagination, or are your delusional rants getting more and
more incoherent every day?

Boomers globalists refuse to strike north korea because doing so destroys the anticipated trigger event for WW3. The boomer agenda requires that WW3 begin with the US involved from day one. Also the globalists refuse to allow actual policy at all, let alone preparations or doctrine because they plan to absorb a nuclear first strike and only after that take measures to defend the country. The boomers need this in order to break americans into accepting a militarized world government. Geopolitical expert Joel skousen has mentioned these plans in numerous videos. This is also why boomers won't even consider letting anyone younger than them into the ruling circles; because they know the younger generations won't consent to their agenda.

I'll take that as a "yes".

Face it JohnX, Americans HATE globalism. Especially those from Xers and Millies. Since people fight, kill and die for what they believe in. This bodes ill for institutions like the UN, NATO and the EU. This is because any war would be fought by and led by those generations.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 24-Dec-17 World View -- US sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine as East Ukraine violence surges

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• US sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine as East Ukraine violence surges
  
• Violence surges in East Ukraine as Russia withdraws its monitors
  
• Russia objects to weapons sale with laughable statement
  

****
**** US sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine as East Ukraine violence surges
****


Portable Javelin anti-tank missile

In a move that some analysts describe as escalatory, the US State
Department announced that it will be sending weapons to the government
of Ukraine to provide "enhanced defensive capabilities" to help
Ukraine build its military long-term, defend its sovereignty and
"deter further aggression." According to State Dept. spokesman
Heather Nauert:

<QUOTE>"US assistance is entirely defensive in nature, and as
we have always said, Ukraine is a sovereign country and has a
right to defend itself."<END QUOTE>

She did not describe what weapons will be sent, but unnamed
sources say that they will include portable Javelin anti-tank missiles.

The semantics are complex here. It's true that these missiles can be
shot at people to kill them, but that would largely be a waste since
they're designed to destroy tanks, in particular the Russia-supplied
tanks that the Russians have been using in East Ukraine to win battles
and gain ground on Ukrainian forces. For that reason, the Javelin
anti-tank missiles are described as defensive in nature.

Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko has been requesting these and
other lethal weapons for years, as the Russians have been gaining
ground in East Ukraine. President Barack Obama considered sending
lethal weapons to Ukraine, but never approved them. Both Republicans
and Democrats have called on the government to provide these weapons.
President Donald Trump has been considering the plan ever since the
State Department and the Pentagon signed off earlier this year, and
finally approved it last week. AP and Newsweek (21-Dec) and Guardian (London)

****
**** Violence surges in East Ukraine as Russia withdraws its monitors
****

The war between Russians and Ukrainians in East Ukraine began in 2014,
but has been thought to be a "frozen conflict" for some time,
because of the "Minsk agreement," a ceasefire agreement signed
in 2015.

However, the ceasefire has been pretty much meaningless, as the
violence has been escalating much of the year, according to the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which
monitors ceasefire violations. According to the OSCE, there have been
16,000 ceasefire violations in one week alone, December 11-17.
According to the OSCE:

<QUOTE>"We note with concern a sharp deterioration in the
security situation with ceasefire violations reaching levels not
recorded since February this year."<END QUOTE>

Kurt Volker, the US special envoy for Ukraine, says that the war is
ratcheting up into a major crisis:

<QUOTE>"A lot of people think that this has somehow turned
into a sleepy, frozen conflict and it's stable and now we have...a
cease-fire. It's a problem but it's not a crisis.

That's completely wrong. It is a crisis. This has been the most
violent year, 2017, and frankly last night was one of the most
violent nights, certainly since February, and possibly this
year."<END QUOTE>

Volker was speaking on December 19, and he was referring to the surge
in violence that occurred the day before -- just after Russia withdrew
its ceasefire monitors from the OSCE monitoring programs. Volker
tweeted:

<QUOTE>"Russia withdrew its officers from JCCC - a ceasefire
implementation tool - right before a massive escalation in
ceasefire violations. Ukraine just suffered some of the worst
fighting since February, 2017. Decision for peace lies with
Russia. 9:01 AM - 19 Dec 2017"<END QUOTE>

Volker said that the "massive escalation" in violence was correlated
to the Russia's withdrawal from the ceasefire monitoring program, and
suggested that it was coordinated by the Russian soldiers in east
Ukraine. Reuters and RFE/RL and AFP

Related Articles

• New fighting between Ukraine and Russia flares up in eastern Ukraine (01-Feb-2017)
  
  
• EU agrees to grant visa-free travel to people of Ukraine and Georgia (10-Dec-2016)
  
  
• BBC reporters attacked by Russian thugs after finding evidence of new Ukraine invasion (19-Sep-2014)
  

****
**** Russia objects to weapons sale with laughable statement
****

It's worthwhile to take a moment to review the massive program of
disinformation and lies that Russia has pursued since the beginning of
the Ukraine conflict.

Russia always denied that there were Russian army troops in Ukraine,
and when it was proven there were, the Russians claimed that they were
just "volunteers." That also turned out to be disinformation, as 80%
of Russia's army is a volunteer army. America has an all-volunteer
army. So saying that Russian troops in Ukraine are "volunteers" is
like saying that America's troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are
"volunteers."

In July 2014, the Russians in eastern Ukraine shot down Malaysia
Airlines Flight MH17 passenger plane with a Russian Buk 9M38 missile
that was transported by a Volvo truck from Russia, as was confirmed in
2015 by a Dutch report following a lengthy investigation. Russia made
one moronic claim after another, everything from the claim that MH17
fell out of the sky by itself to a claim that the US shot down MH17 to
embarrass Putin.

After Putin's Russian forces invaded Crimea, Putin denied that there
were Russian troops in Crimea, but later he awarded a medal to the
leaders of the successful invasion. Putin said there were no plans to
annex Crimea, but then Russia annexed Crimea soon after.

The point of reviewing all this history is that now we're in a new
Ukraine crisis, and we're in the same situation, where everything that
the Russians say is 100% worthless.

So now we have Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Grigory Karasin,
saying that the US decision "raises the danger of derailing the
process of peaceful settlement in Ukraine."

This is laughable. There is no "process of peaceful settlement."

The war in east Ukraine is being fought by Russian troops --
"volunteers" -- supplied with heavy Russian weapons, including tanks.
As Kurt Volker says, "Decision for peace lies with Russia."

The Ukrainian troops are defensive. East Ukrainian is Ukrainian
territory being invaded by foreign troops -- Russian troops. So if
Karasin is serious about a "process of peaceful settlement," then
Russia could stop sending troops and weapons into East Ukraine.

It's also up to the Russians to turn this into a full-scale war. Most
analysts believe that the Russians do not want this, and can't really
even afford it. But that's what would happen if the Russians send in
more troops and more weapons. Russia Today and NBC News

Related Articles

• Dutch report confirms that Russian missile shot down airliner over Ukraine (14-Oct-2015)
  
  
• Russia's sophisticated disinformation campaign over Ukraine (15-Aug-2014)
  
  
• Vladimir Putin brags about how he lied about Russia's invasion of Crimea (10-Mar-2015)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Russia, Vladimir Putin,
Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, Crimea, Grigory Karasin,
Heather Nauert, Kurt Volker,
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE,
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, Russian Buk 9M38 missile

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Cynic Hero '86]

Not striking north korea is rational only if you don't think north korea would use nuclear weapons aggressively, only if you think north korea would not attack the US unprovoked is the idea of not striking first rational. But that Is NOT your position : in fact your position is that north korea with nuclear weapons would eventually launched an unprovoked surprise nuclear attack on the United States. If that is the case the only rational course of action is a nuclear first strike on North Korea.

[John J. Xenakis]

(12-24-2017, 03:10 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Not striking north korea is rational only if you don't think north
> korea would use nuclear weapons aggressively, only if you think
> north korea would not attack the US unprovoked is the idea of not
> striking first rational. But that Is NOT your position : in fact
> your position is that north korea with nuclear weapons would
> eventually launched an unprovoked surprise nuclear attack on the
> United States. If that is the case the only rational course of
> action is a nuclear first strike on North Korea.

You've stated the problem more or less correctly. China and Russia
have both signed off on new extreme Security Council sanctions that N
Korea calls a "total blockade" and "an act of war." It's becoming
increasingly likely that a war with North Korea will begin soon, quite
possibly starting with a preemptive strike by the US, and that China
will tolerate it as long as US troops and S. Korean troops don't
remain in N. Korea, or come close to the Yalu river.

Analysts are hoping that any such situation will end in some kind of
peace treaty, but from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, I
would expect it to escalate in a much larger war.

There are really no good solutions.

Merry Christmas, everyone!!

[Warren Dew]

(12-24-2017, 04:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-24-2017, 03:10 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   Not striking north korea is rational only if you don't think north
>   korea would use nuclear weapons aggressively, only if you think
>   north korea would not attack the US unprovoked is the idea of not
>   striking first rational. But that Is NOT your position : in fact
>   your position is that north korea with nuclear weapons would
>   eventually launched an unprovoked surprise nuclear attack on the
>   United States. If that is the case the only rational course of
>   action is a nuclear first strike on North Korea.

You've stated the problem more or less correctly.  China and Russia
have both signed off on new extreme Security Council sanctions that N
Korea calls a "total blockade" and "an act of war."  It's becoming
increasingly likely that a war with North Korea will begin soon, quite
possibly starting with a preemptive strike by the US, and that China
will tolerate it as long as US troops and S. Korean troops don't
remain in N. Korea, or come close to the Yalu river.

Analysts are hoping that any such situation will end in some kind of
peace treaty, but from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, I
would expect it to escalate in a much larger war.

There are really no good solutions.

Merry Christmas, everyone!!

It may start with a preemptive strike by the US, but it's unlikely to be a nuclear strike; noises are finally starting to come out of DC about sensible, limited conventional strikes designed to reduce North Korean capabilities without eliminating them.

I can't see this starting the crisis war unless the US uses nuclear weapons first, or the US occupies North Korea.

[John J. Xenakis]

(12-24-2017, 06:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > It may start with a preemptive strike by the US, but it's unlikely
> to be a nuclear strike; noises are finally starting to come out of
> DC about sensible, limited conventional strikes designed to reduce
> North Korean capabilities without eliminating them.

> I can't see this starting the crisis war unless the US uses
> nuclear weapons first, or the US occupies North Korea.

That's 1990s Unraveling era thinking, when the mood is anti-war. In
2010s Crisis era thinking, attitudes are completely different, and
xenophobia and nationalism are high, and the mood is military
confrontation.

The first strike will absolutely NOT be nuclear. But xenophobia and
nationalism are extremely high in China, against the US, Japan, South
Korea, Vietnam and India.

Furthermore, there's a historical irony. After World War II, the
United States took on the role of Policeman of the World, and in doing
so, signed some sort of mutual defense treaty with many countries:
Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, the Philippines, the Marshall
Islands, the ANZUS agreement with Australia and New Zealand, a special
treaty with Iceland, and the NATO agreement with all of Europe. The
purpose was to discourage attacks on any of these allies that would
otherwise have the risk of spiraling into World War III.

So today, all of those countries, actually have an obligation to
defend the US in a war with China. Even if they stay neutral, any
incident could trigger a larger war. Furthermore, the extreme
xenophobia in China makes it more likely that the Chinese will
interpret the mutual defense treaties in a way that will cause them to
attack those countries.

Finally, with the US distracted in Asia, countries in the Mideast and
elsewhere will feel free to launch their own attacks on their own
enemies.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 25-Dec-17 World View -- Remembering the 1914 World War I Christmas Truce

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Remembering the 1914 World War I Christmas Truce
  
• The 'anti-war movement' in World War I
  
• World War I vs World War II and World War III
  

****
**** Remembering the 1914 World War I Christmas Truce
****


Christmas truce drawing from the London News of January 9, 1915. The drawing's caption reads, in part, "British and German soldiers arm-in-arm and exchanging headgear: a Christmas truce between opposing trenches. Drawn by A. C. Michael."

An almost-forgotten event in an almost-forgotten war.

One of the most remarkable occurrences in modern warfare occurred
just a few months after World War I had begun.

On December 24, 1914, the German and British soldiers laid down their
arms, crossed into the "No Man's Land" separating their trenches.
They sang Christmas carols, played games, and shared jokes and beer
with one another. They also used the time to buy their dead.

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of men on the Western Front experienced
the informal truce. The war had begun only months earlier, and there
was probably more curiosity than hatred between British and German
troops. Once the soldiers began receiving Christmas presents from
home, the mood in many areas became more festive than warlike.

This story illustrates how different World War I was from World War
II.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, World War II was a
generational crisis war for America and Western Europe, but World War
I was a non-crisis war. (World War I was a generational crisis war
for Eastern Europe, Russia and the Mideast.)

Can you imagine Hitler's German troops and Churchill's English troops
singing Christmas carols and playing games at the beginning of World
War II? That would have been impossible.

World War I is now an almost completely forgotten war in America,
except for its name. Because of the similarity of names between World
Wars I and II, and because Americans fought Germans in both wars, most
Americans believe that WW I and WW II were similar to one another.

Today there are few people, even among historians (as I've
discovered), who have any idea what the Great War (WW I) was about.
Most people seem to believe that WW I was the same as WW II -- some
pre-Hitler Hitler-type decided to invade France and started a world
war. First World War - Christmas Truce

****
**** The 'anti-war movement' in World War I
****

In fact, World War I was much more similar to our Vietnam war than it
was to World War II.

World War I was very politically divisive for both America and
Germany. America actually remained neutral between England and
Germany for several years, and only entered the war in 1917, to much
political dissent. To this day, many historians still consider
America's entry in WW I to have been unwise. In a 2004 survey of
historians' views on the "greatest" and "least great" presidents, the
two presidents voted the "most controversial" were Bill Clinton and
Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was considered controversial because he was
the President who entered America into World War I, despite enormous
political opposition. I have personally interviewed older men who are
still absolutely furious at Wilson for getting America into that war.

Antiwar writings began appearing in both Britain and Germany. In
England in 1917, Wilfred Owen, a 24-year-old soldier, wrote "Anthem
for Doomed Youth":

<QUOTE>What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
&nbsp;&nbsp;Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
&nbsp;&nbsp;Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries for them; no prayers nor bells,
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,—
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.

What candles may be held to speed them all?
&nbsp;&nbsp;Not in the hands of boys, but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of goodbyes.
&nbsp;&nbsp;The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.<END QUOTE>

Ironically, Owen died in 1918 in the same week that WW I ended. The
"Doomed Youth" that he described have become known as the Lost
Generation, in the same generational archetype as today's
Generation-X. (See "Politicians commemorate Battle of the Somme, July 1, 1916."
)

World War I was just as politically divisive for Germany. Germany
did not start WW I, as many people naïvely believe. WW I started in
the Balkans and spread to Russia. Germany was "accidentally" forced
into the war because of a long-standing treaty with Austria which
obligated Germany to invade France because France was an ally of
Russia. England was pulled into the war because of a previous
agreement with France.

By 1918, the German people were sick of the war, and when the
Americans joined the war, that was the last straw for the German
people, who forced their country's leaders to capitulate. Germany's
incredible capitulation, long before it was necessary, occurred
because the German people were so politically angered by the war.
Essentially, Germany capitulated in WW I for exactly the same reason
that America capitulated in the Vietnam War -- because of enormous
political opposition back home during a "generational Awakening"
era.

But when Germany capitulated on November 11, 1918, German troops were
still deep within Belgian and French territory. Writing in his 1931
book World in Crisis, Winston Churchill said that if Germany
had continued to fight, they would have been capable of inflicting two
million more casualties upon the enemy. Churchill added that the
Allies would not have put Germany to the test: simply by fighting on a
little longer, the Allies would have negotiated a peace with no
reparations, on terms far more favorable to Germany than actually
occurred in the peace dictated by the Allies.

Between the Christmas Truce and the early capitulation, it was clear
that the German people had little interest in fighting World War I.

After the war, the young German soldier Erich Maria Remarque wrote
"Im Westen Nichts Neues (All Quiet on the Western Front)"
depicting the heroic soldiers as becoming a "lost generation,"
following a completely pointless war. Some consider it to be the
greatest antiwar book of all time. Churchill - World in Crisis (full text PDF) and Remarque - All Quiet on the Western Front (full text PDF)

****
**** World War I vs World War II and World War III
****

By contrast, WW II was a generational crisis war for Germany (as well
as England and America). That war was no "accident." Hitler planned
his attack on France and England for years in advance, in secret, and
Hitler kept on fighting long after it was clear that Germany would
lose. There was no early capitulation.

As I described in 2008 in "The gathering storm in the Caucasus," today's international
situation is much more similar to the prelude to WW I than to WW II.

World War II could almost have been anticipated by someone watching
the murderous Adolf Hitler - and actually it was by Winston Churchill.
But there was no figure like Hitler in WW I, which was triggered
almost by a random event. When Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was
assassinated by a Serb high school student, the war in Eastern Europe
was triggered. Germany was as shocked by the war as anyone, and had
no desire to invade France, but was forced to by a treaty with
Austria.

Today, a new world war could be launched in the same way as either WW
I or II. There are Hitler-like figures on the scene, including
China's Xi Jinping and North Korea's Kim Jong-un. And there are also
deep xenophobic and nationalistic urges that are prevalent in many
countries, especially in China and North Korea, directed against the
US, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and India.

Furthermore, there's a historical irony. After World War II, the
United States took on the role of Policeman of the World, and in doing
so, signed some sort of mutual defense treaty with many countries:
Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, the Philippines, the Marshall
Islands, the ANZUS agreement with Australia and New Zealand, a special
treaty with Iceland, and the NATO agreement with all of Europe. The
purpose of these treaties was to discourage attacks on any of these
allies that would otherwise have the risk of spiraling into World War
III.

So today, since those are mutual defense treaties, all of those
countries actually have an obligation to defend the US in a war with
China. Even if they stay neutral, any incident could trigger a larger
war. Furthermore, the extreme xenophobia in China makes it more
likely that the Chinese will interpret the mutual defense treaties in
a way that will cause them to attack those countries. The irony is
that these mutual defense treaties were supposed to prevent World War
III, but instead they make World War III more likely.

Finally, with the US distracted in Asia, countries in the Mideast and
elsewhere will feel free to launch their own attacks on their own
enemies.

The most obvious imminent threat is North Korea. Two days ago, China
and Russia both signed off on new extreme Security Council sanctions
that N Korea calls a "total blockade" and "an act of war." It's
becoming increasingly likely that a war with North Korea will begin
soon, quite possibly starting with a preemptive strike by the US, and
that China will tolerate it as long as US troops and S. Korean troops
don't remain in N. Korea, or come close to the Yalu river.

Analysts are hoping that any such situation will end in some kind of
peace treaty, but from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, I
would expect it to escalate in a much larger war in this generational
Crisis era.

And so, a world war could be triggered today by any of a number of
random events, even by a high school student who manages to
assassinate some world leader. Any event like that could spiral into
a regional war and then into a world war, as happened in 1914.

So, the Christmas truce of 1914 is a unique, sentimental story to
think about in this holiday season, as we realize with sadness that
there'll be no Christmas truces in the "clash of civilizations" world
war that's just around the corner.
BBC

Related Articles

• Chinese experts warn China to prepare for nuclear war in North Korea (17-Dec-2017)
  
  
• Chinese geologists warn of looming nuclear disaster from North Korean tests (01-Nov-2017)
  
  
• China approaches Civil War (16-Jan-2005)

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, World War I, Germany, Britain,
Christmas truce, Vietnam War, Woodrow Wilson,
Wilfred Owen, Anthem for Doomed Youth,
Austria, France, Russia, Archduke Franz Ferdinand,
Erich Maria Remarque, Im Westen Nichts Neues, All Quiet on the Western Front,
Winston Churchill, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Vietnam, India, China

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Cynic Hero '86]

(12-24-2017, 11:01 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Furthermore, there's a historical irony.  After World War II, the
United States took on the role of Policeman of the World, and in doing
so, signed some sort of mutual defense treaty with many countries:
Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, the Philippines, the Marshall
Islands, the ANZUS agreement with Australia and New Zealand, a special
treaty with Iceland, and the NATO agreement with all of Europe.  The
purpose of these treaties was to discourage attacks on any of these
allies that would otherwise have the risk of spiraling into World War
III.

So today, since those are mutual defense treaties, all of those
countries actually have an obligation to defend the US in a war with
China.  Even if they stay neutral, any incident could trigger a larger
war.  Furthermore, the extreme xenophobia in China makes it more
likely that the Chinese will interpret the mutual defense treaties in
a way that will cause them to attack those countries.  The irony is
that these mutual defense treaties were supposed to prevent World War
III, but instead they make World War III more likely.

These paragraphs as currently phrased is nonsense. The danger of war between China and the US comes from the fact China wants to invade Taiwan as well as the hostility between China and Japan left over from WW2 and the fact that the US is obligated to defend these countries. Those countries therefore don't have the option of remaining neutral in a war with China. It is America that has the option of neutrality. The danger of war with China comes from the fact that if war breaks out between China and Taiwan or China and Japan, the Chinese would be tempted to attack the US as well due to the defence treaty. Thus There are potential scenarios in which China attacks taiwan, japan and the US simulataniously or instead China attacks taiwan or even Japan without attacking the US. However there is no possibility of China attacking the US without also attacking Japan and Taiwan. This is because if you took away the interlocking treaty system, there would afterwards be no casus belli between China and the US. However if you took away said treaties the hostility between China and Taiwan and especially China and Japan would still exist.

[John J. Xenakis]

(12-25-2017, 12:10 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > These paragraphs as currently phrased is nonsense. The danger of
> war between China and the US comes from the fact China wants to
> invade Taiwan as well as the hostility between China and Japan
> left over from WW2 and the fact that the US is obligated to defend
> these countries. Those countries therefore don't have the option
> of remaining neutral in a war with China. It is America that has
> the option of neutrality. The danger of war with China comes from
> the fact that if war breaks out between China and Taiwan or China
> and Japan, the Chinese would be tempted to attack the US as well
> due to the defence treaty. Thus There are potential scenarios in
> which China attacks taiwan, japan and the US simulataniously or
> instead China attacks taiwan or even Japan without attacking the
> US. However there is no possibility of China attacking the US
> without also attacking Japan and Taiwan. This is because if you
> took away the interlocking treaty system, there would afterwards
> be no casus belli between China and the US. However if you took
> away said treaties the hostility between China and Taiwan and
> especially China and Japan would still exist.

I agree that there's no casus belli between China and the US,
especially since the US saved China's butt in WW II. But was there a
casus belli between Japan and the US or between Britain and
Germany in WW II?

I keep comparing generational crisis wars to sexual affairs because
they're entirely emotional, and are often completely irrational.
Erotic desire is a very powerful emotion in an individual, and
nationalism and xenophobia are very powerful emotions in a generation
or an entire population. People destroy their lives for no good
reason by having an affair, and countries destroy their way of life
for no good reason by launching a generational crisis war.

Friedrich Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

[Cynic Hero '86]

(12-25-2017, 05:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-25-2017, 12:10 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   These paragraphs as currently phrased is nonsense. The danger of
>   war between China and the US comes from the fact China wants to
>   invade Taiwan as well as the hostility between China and Japan
>   left over from WW2 and the fact that the US is obligated to defend
>   these countries. Those countries therefore don't have the option
>   of remaining neutral in a war with China. It is America that has
>   the option of neutrality. The danger of war with China comes from
>   the fact that if war breaks out between China and Taiwan or China
>   and Japan, the Chinese would be tempted to attack the US as well
>   due to the defence treaty. Thus There are potential scenarios in
>   which China attacks taiwan, japan and the US simulataniously or
>   instead China attacks taiwan or even Japan without attacking the
>   US. However there is no possibility of China attacking the US
>   without also attacking Japan and Taiwan. This is because if you
>   took away the interlocking treaty system, there would afterwards
>   be no casus belli between China and the US. However if you took
>   away said treaties the hostility between China and Taiwan and
>   especially China and Japan would still exist.  

I agree that there's no casus belli between China and the US,
especially since the US saved China's butt in WW II.  But was there a
casus belli between Japan and the US or between Britain and
Germany in WW II?

I keep comparing generational crisis wars to sexual affairs because
they're entirely emotional, and are often completely irrational.
Erotic desire is a very powerful emotion in an individual, and
nationalism and xenophobia are very powerful emotions in a generation
or an entire population.  People destroy their lives for no good
reason by having an affair, and countries destroy their way of life
for no good reason by launching a generational crisis war.

Friedrich Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

And there are strong nationalistic passions in China against the Japanese and a lesser extent against Taiwan. Those nationalistic contradictions would exist regardless of US involvement, there is no country that China hates more than Japan.

Regarding WW2 there was no casus belli between Japan and the US in 1929, however there definitely was a casus belli by late 1941 since japan had invaded China, then a US friend and the US had basically declared an economic war against Japan in response by that point. Regarding Britain and Germany. Britain was one of the two powers responsible for forcing the versailles treaty on Germany. Although interestingly enough there was an element in Britain that wanted to ally with Germany against the USSR and France; a faction whose existence Hitler was aware of. This Resulted in the British Political Crisis of 1936 in which the British Prophet Generation Rammed their preferences down the Nomad's throats by engineering the removal of Edward VIII and his replacement by George VI as king of England. Had Edward VIII remained on the throne Britain would have likely remained Neutral or Possibly even Joined Germany against the USSR. However Baldwin, Chamberlain and Churchill rammed their foreign policy preferences down the British Citizenry's throats.

Regarding a US-China war; What is the American Objective?; To defend taiwan. What is the Chinese objective?; To conquer Taiwan and the neighboring sea-lanes.

[Warren Dew]

(12-24-2017, 11:01 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The most obvious imminent threat is North Korea.  Two days ago, China
and Russia both signed off on new extreme Security Council sanctions
that N Korea calls a "total blockade" and "an act of war."  It's
becoming increasingly likely that a war with North Korea will begin
soon, quite possibly starting with a preemptive strike by the US, and
that China will tolerate it as long as US troops and S. Korean troops
don't remain in N. Korea, or come close to the Yalu river.

Analysts are hoping that any such situation will end in some kind of
peace treaty, but from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, I
would expect it to escalate in a much larger war in this generational
Crisis era.

And so, a world war could be triggered today by any of a number of
random events, even by a high school student who manages to
assassinate some world leader.  Any event like that could spiral into
a regional war and then into a world war, as happened in 1914.

This makes a lot of sense.  I still have trouble visualizing how a Korean intervention sparks WWIII, though.  If North Korea nukes the US, Pyongyang gets turned to glass and Russia and China won't step in.

I suppose North Korea could respond to limited strikes by selling nukes to Al Qaeda, which then get used against the US.  There's an outside chance they could nuke Beijing into submission, which would result in a China versus US alignment in a way.

If a world war gets triggered by a random event as with WWI, existing treaty arrangements would tend to put the US and Russia on opposite sides.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 26-Dec-17 World View -- Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah heading for a military confrontation in Syria

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Combined Syrian and Iranian forces taking control of enclave on Israel's border
  
• Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah heading for a military confrontation in Syria
  

****
**** Combined Syrian and Iranian forces taking control of enclave on Israel's border
****


Lebanon-Israel border

The combined forces of Syria's army and Iran-backed Hezbollah militias
are fighting to take control of Beit Jinn, in the expectation that that
its fall would also have a domino effect on all the Sunni anti-Assad
militias in the entire Quneitra region of the Syrian Golan, allowing
Iran and Hezbollah to mass forces in Syria on Israel's border. Beit
Jinn is about 11 km from Israeli army positions on Mt. Hermon in
Israel, while Quneitra is 5.5 km from the Israeli border.

On one side are the army of Syria's president Bashar al-Assad,
combined with militias from Iran-backed Hezbollah, and apparently
supported by Druze militias in the region, for a total of several
thousand fighters, backed by heavy aerial bombing and heavy artillery
shelling.

On the other side are a combination of Israeli-backed "moderate" Free
Syrian Army (FSA) anti-Assad Sunni rebels, combined with Sunni
fighters from formerly al-Qaeda linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), for
a total of several hundred fighters. The combined Sunni forces are
fighting under the banner of Itihad Quwt Jabal al Sheikh, or "Union of
fighters of Jabal al Sheikh," and they are mainly drawn from local
fighters from the area.

The Sunni groups are denying that they're close to surrender.
According to an official from one Sunni group, "The Iranian-backed
militias are trying to consolidate their sphere of influence all the
way from southwest of Damascus to the Israeli border." Reuters and Israell National News and Al Manar (Hezbollah) and Debka (Israel)

Related Articles

• US shoots down Syrian warplane, as Iran launches missiles into Syria (19-Jun-2017)
  
  
• US warplanes strike Syrian regime military convoy near al-Tanf base (19-May-2017)
  

****
**** Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah heading for a military confrontation in Syria
****

With the collapse of the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL
or Daesh) in both Iraq and Syria, and with Russia's recent
announcement that it was going to remove most of its forces from
Syria, Iran is moving to consolidate its control over parts of both
countries. Two objectives are, first, to establish a land highway
from Tehran (Iran) to both Damascus (Syria) and Beirut (Lebanon), and
second, to establish an Iranian military base in southern Syria near
the Israeli border. A further objective would be the eradication of
the "Zionist regime."

In November, Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman said that
Israel will feel free to act in any way it wants in Syria, in order
to defend its own security, and particularly to prevent Iran
from establishing a military base in Syria:

<QUOTE>"We maintain absolute freedom of action and the only
considerations that guide us are the security considerations of
Israel. ... With regards to Iran, we will simply not allow for
Shi'ite consolidation and Iranian entrenchment in Syria nor will
we allow Syria to become a forward operating base against the
State of Israel. Anyone who has yet to understand that is advised
to do so."<END QUOTE>

A report in November said Iran is establishing a permanent military
base outside Al-Kiswah, located 14 kilometers (8 miles) south of
Damascus. Early in December, there were airstrikes attributed
to Israel on Al-Kiswah and other targets around Damascus.

According Ron Dermer, Israel's ambassador to the US, the chances
of a military confrontation between Israel and Iran
are growing quickly. Dermer was asked what the chance was of
a military conflict with Hezbollah in the next year:

<QUOTE>"Well, I wouldn’t put a percentage on that, but I
think it is higher than people think because of Iran’s continued
push through the region. If Iran is not rolled back in Syria, then
the chances of military confrontation are growing. I don’t want to
tell you by the year or by the month. I’d say even by the week.

Because the more they push, we have to enforce our red lines, and
you always have the prospects of an escalation, even when parties
don’t want an escalation because we will not allow Iran to
establish that presence and establish another terror front against
Israel in Syria. We’re not going to allow it to happen. So in
taking action to defend ourselves, you don’t know what could
happen. But I think it’s higher than people think."<END QUOTE>

The last major clash between Israel and Hezbollah occurred in 2006.
The war was triggered when two Israeli soldiers were ambushed and
kidnapped while on patrol near the border with Lebanon. Israel panicked and launched the Lebanon war with Hezbollah within four hours,
with no plan, no objective,
and no idea what was going on. The war that was considered disastrous
for both sides. Jerusalem News Service and Meir Amit Intelligence Center and Reuters (12-Nov) and Politico

Related Articles

• Israel and Syria have unprecedented missile clash over Jordan (19-Mar-2017)
  
  
• Syria says that Israel bombed al-Mazzeh military airport near Damascus (14-Jan-2017)
  
  
• Hezbollah building tunnels into Israel to prepare for next war (04-Jun-2016)
  
  
• How Israel panicked in pursuing the summer Lebanon war with Hezbollah (23-Dec-2006)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Iran, Hezbollah,
Beit Jinn, Quneitra, Mount Hermon,
Free Syrian Army, FSA, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, HTS,
Itihad Quwt Jabal al Sheikh, Union of fighters of Jabal al Sheikh,
Avigdor Lieberman, Ron Dermer, Al-Kiswah

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Cynic Hero '86]

Boomers are subjecting young people to tyranny by making the choice between right and wrong for them. Rather than allowing natural evolution take place and letting the make their choices on their own and alowing the subsequent consequences of said choices to unfold. You talk of Generational decisions, however here in America the dynamics are being artificially warped because instead of the decisions made by four to five generations influencing events: in this country events are currently being influenced only by one generation's decisions.

The root of the boomers selfishness in both foreign and domestic policy derives from the attempt by boomers to create a world system that regulated intent. This inevitably leads to a paradox; the police does not and cannot  lock up criminals because they think the criminal might commit a crime. The police locks up criminals because the criminal HAS committed a crime. That is something boomers never understood and something they refuse to understand.