George Handlery about the week that was. Selling a pause as a peace. Another “mission accomplished” might be on its way. Hamas’ unconsulted volunteers. East and West do not want the same from NATO. Legitimate self defense requires the approval of the foe. How groups of clients can become beneficiaries of an abuse. Government servants and their politics.
 
1. The season of attempted settlements – as promised by Obama – is approaching. The self-hating friends of the foe, but also well-intentioned fools, will take the mike to sell agreements. The spiel will be to market convenient excuses that make surrender in the substance appear to be a mutual compromise. Through the same magic, an unclear agreement favoring the enemy in need of R&R, will be presented as a peace settlement. (Primarily Iran, Korea and “Palestine” are meant.)
 
2. A speculation is going around. It has to do with Obama’s efforts to extend his hand if Iran will at least promise to consider eventually to stop its nuclear armament program. Once this is achieved, the problem will be declared as “solved”. Thereafter a “mission accomplished” sign will be raised. It will flatter in the hot winds generated by the New York Times. Nevertheless, the Mullahs might prove to be otherworldly enough not to exploit an easy opportunity to release the pressure applied on them. With that done, they could continue to cheat, albeit slowly, on their way toward their unaltered goal. If the deal serving appearances is refused, the Tehran régime’s unbending nature will be difficult to deny. This circumstance could enable those that are wise enough to realize that they are threatened by God’s nuclearized warriors, to take prophylactic measures.
 
3. It is a prejudice to assume that democracy (everyone has a say) results in democratic (basic personal and collective rights protected by the political system) decisions as the result of majority vote. If you add democratic elections (all can participate and choose in secret between different candidacies) to Islam, the result is at best a democratically sanctioned dictatorship of a consenting majority. Such pluralities are likely to regard power to be a legitimate instrument to achieve several things. First, to deprive the losers and members of permanent minorities (religious and racial) of their basic rights. Second, to use pressure in order to achieve a homogenous – as against a pluralistic – society.
 
4. Hamas considers civilian casualties involving individuals who might not have directly and knowingly consented to its actions, to be fallen soldiers of their war. As long as this remains the case, there will be a lot of civilian victims bleeding for the benefit of Hamas’ war on the propaganda front.
 
5. From NATO, Western Europe’s leaders mainly want the appearance of impressive strength. This shell is to raise their significance that enables them to attain a standing that buys a good relationship with Russia. What is meant here is that there are to be no openly admitted differences of the kind that require taking anything but an easy stand. This condition of bliss is expected to be sweetened by Russia’s openly expressed appreciation of the implied concession. This expectation amounts to an assurance that Moscow harbors no ill feeling or corresponding plans regarding these entities. Central and East Europe has different, even conflicting expectations. Dismissively it could be said that these peoples are overly influenced by their recent exposure to Soviet-Russian domination and before that to comparable Nazi oppression. Therefore, these small and, at least secretly, rather despised states desire that NATO protect them from Russian expansionism. The resulting split of NATO is not in the open. That is because those scheduled to be the losers of the deal are too weak and dependent to raise their voice when confronting their more senior protectors.
 
6. “American Arrogance” is, given its frequent absence, a favorite object of combat. Participation involves little direct and immediate risk – unlike in the case of Islamists, Russia or China. This makes the exercise into an ego-soothing undertaking. If taken seriously, “American Arrogance” can also result in repressing the US’ instinct for self-defense. This way the protection of vital interests can become subject to a limitation in that it is assumed to require the approval of outsiders. These outsiders include the enemy. Once this comes about, protection becomes illusionary even if the physical means required for it are available. Consider here that, also in the case of other entities, clarity and predictability contribute to the prevention of conflicts. It is therefore required that those who are enemies by their own choice know where the tolerated limits of encroachment lie. Ignoring this means that, for the sake of short-term advantages, long-term conflicts are accepted.
 
7. We expect our community (state/country/group) to provide us with a protected environment and adequate space to assert ourselves. This is not a gift by the generous, but a rightfully expected elementary obligation. However, there are those who are inclined to believe that, their good fortune has been caused by the generosity of those who are acting as the custodians of the community’s power. These individuals underestimate themselves. Alternatively, they are likely to be, if indeed they are enjoying significant privileges, the beneficiaries of a corrupt and abusive system. Its tyrannical power is confirmed by its ability to deprive someone of whatever it hands over to its clients.
 
8. Many of us are induced to be inclined to ask, “What has the candidate done for me?” Indeed, politicians are delegated to provide on a fiduciary basis, for the full-time management of the public’s weal. Furthermore, they are to apply the power given to them by their constituents for this purpose. This delegation of power has a purpose, namely, to enable the community’s members to pursue undistracted their own individual interests. However, in order to curry the favor of a segment of the public, the governors can be tempted impose punitive “solidarity” on an unpopular class. If this happens, we can safely assume that the receiving part of the electorate is being bribed. Those favored in accordance to the above pattern will, naturally, be inclined to forget that, besides good governance, politicians put in charge of government can give nothing to their people. If they seem to make presents then, whatever is being distributed, has been squeezed out of someone who will, in time, draw conclusions. The deprived will avoid doing what had made them the subject of what is perceived as confiscation. Concurrently, they will also attempt to join that category of the population that is on the receiving end of the transaction.
 
9. The following case comes from a major participant on the “front” of the economy. The story takes place in several continents and six countries. It illustrates an aspect of what is wrong with the way the credit system and the banks function. Now to the story. At the beginning we have a profitable and established firm. It purchases semi-finished material to be used in a good that has not only a market but also a committed consumer. The latest transaction, as well as the supporting financing by the usual major bank, seems to be routine. Once the first installment of the newest shipment is on its way to Europe, the legal department of the bank extending the credit informs the undertaking that its credit is revoked. In panic, the would-be debtor contacts the credit manager. He mentions the old relationship, the credit worthiness of the firm and the economic viability of the end product. This must be a mistake! The credit manager admits that, from a business point of view, the cancellation is unwarranted. In self-defense, he also reveals that this is a unilateral step of the legal department: he has not been consulted in the matter. Obviously, the action has been taken without scrutinizing the economic aspects of the arrangement. The people in charge of credits also tell their old client that this information is confidential. Should he mention the compromising background of the measure, they will be forced to deny everything. They lose their jobs if they do not cooperate silently. Finally, thanks to frantic international travel and rope pulling, a credit could be arranged. Thereby, the shutting down of yet another firm and its suppliers could be avoided.
 
10. One more thing. In every country there are districts/regions in which the governing “apparat”’s employees tend to concentrate. Answer this to yourself: Are in your country these localities politically left-of-center?