The border news du jour is Crimea, a peninsula attached to the Ukraine, a country that once was subservient to Russia until the downfall of the Soviet Union.
The dispute, between the Ukraine, to which the Crimea is attached, and Russia, which has "interests" on the Crimean peninsula, including a naval base near 
The Crimea has had many diverse conquerors including, according to Wikipedia:
Cimmerians
Bulgars
Greeks
Scythians
Goths
Huns
Khazars
the state of Kievan Rus'
Byzantine Greeks
Kipchaks
Ottoman Turks,
Golden Horde Tatars,
Mongolseach controlled Crimea in its earlier history.
In the 13th century, it was partly controlled by the Venetians and by the Genoese; they were followed by the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire in the 15th to 18th centuries, the Russian Empire in the 18th to 20th centuries, Germany during World War II, and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and later the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, within the Soviet Union during the rest of the 20th century until Crimea became part of independent Ukraine.
While Russia, at least in its present form, has no contiguous claim to the land, it has a long history there through conquest. It also is only a narrow strait away from the peninsula.
According to Wikipedia, the strait is between slightly less than 3 miles to a little more than 9 miles wide and connects the Azov Sea and the Black Sea and provides a water border between southern Russia and southern Ukraine.
The Question
Perhaps I missed it in all the rhetoric surrounding the "align with Russia" vs. "align with the European Union" question, but did anyone suggest ethic cleansing? Did anyone hear anything about dispossessing the ex-pat Russians living in the Crimea? Any threats at all?
The Russians and the Ukrainians have agreements allowing Russian naval vessels to continue using Crimean ports.
Has there been any hint that the Ukrainian politicians would cancel those agreements? Granted, Russia no longer owns the Black Sea in totality, but how big is a Ukrainian navy anyway?
The question begging to be answered is:"Who started this flap?"
Nationalists in the Ukraine? Considering that the Ukraine has its independence from Russia, that is not likely.
The "news" informs the world that Russia's boss, Vladimir Putin, would like to re-establish Russia to its former ocean-to-ocean glory. Western "news" paints Putin in an unflattering light.
At the same time, The U.S.' president is making noises that are mostly ignored by both former enemies and friends, fair weather and otherwise. Americans fear he will drag us into another distant war in which America has no interest.
Geographically, the Crimea is very much part of - and physically connected to - the Ukraine.
Politically, it is part of the Ukraine. That there happens to be a number of Russian ex-pats there, that there is a Russian navy base there is no different that say the U.S. claiming a chunk of Japan where it has bases, or Germany where the Air Force has facilities.
The whole "who owns the Crimean peninsula" question seems to me to be an excuse by Russia's Putin to pull a "Hitler invades Poland" act (that led to other "Hitler invades …" headlines.
A Russian-Ukraine war hopefully will be avoided, but if it is not, the U.S. should realize that it is not a U.S. war. If there is to be "outside" interference - and the Ukraine may need it - it should come from EU member states; Russia and the Ukraine are, after all, the EU's neighbors and trading partners.
I am neither Russian nor Ukrainian.,/I>
According to the Bloomberg News in an article headed Two Girls Among Four Dead in Attack on Egypt Church Wedding ,
"Egypt boosted security at churches after gunmen killed four people during an attack on a wedding ceremony, the latest attack on the country’s minority Christians following the ousting of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi.
"The shooting outside St. Mary’s Church in the Warraq district of Giza left eight-year-old and 12-year-old girls dead and drew condemnation from both the military-backed government and the Muslim Brotherhood organization that has been the target of a crackdown since Mursi was removed from power on July 3. Four people were subsequently arrested, the state-run Ahram Gate website reported. "
"The Muslim Brotherhood also condemned the violence, blaming the incident on the lack of police protection, according to an e-mailed statement." "
The lack of police protection may have something to do with the fact the Brotherhood and those who share its terrorist bed are attacking police and army personnel at every opportunity, so the police are busy trying to track down the brothers.
Meanwhile, Obungler and the liberals are punishing the Egyptian army for deposing a dictator in the early stages of his reign; an army that is the only hope Egypt has of stability.
At the same time, Obungler & Company have driven the Egyptians into Russia's hands. The president-dictator want-to-be has managed to undo what previous presidents of both parties, from Kennedy on managed to accomplish; to turn Egypt aware from U.S. influence.
He also has endangered the Egypt-Israel peace agreement, ignoring the fact that the peace was kept because Egypt's army wanted the peace to be kept.
It's a pity Obungler could not have settled to be a Kennedy-like pretty boy who did nothing to embarrass the United States; who smiled at the camera and mouthed words penned by his speech writers. "Ich bin ein Berliner"
It is amazing how the liberals of the world - the U.S. does not have a monopoly on fools - ignore Muslim atrocities in Africa and the Middle East - consider who is keeping the "Palestinians" in the camps; not Israel. The answer is the UN and their fellow Muslims.
No one ignores, for now, Muslim misbehavior in Pakistan because a little girl who only wanted to go to school was shot by a Muslim who preferred she stay ignorant and she made headlines around the world. But she is an exception - she survived.
Any Egyptian who thinks other than what the Brotherhood thinks - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - is a target for the brothers.
Thanks to Obungler, Egypt may turn into another Lebanon.
AND NOW, the Wall Street Journal reports under the headline Spy Chief Distances Saudis From U.S., that "Saudi Arabia intends to scale back the degree to which it cooperates with the United States in arming and training Syrian rebels, a decision that comes amid what the Wall Street Journal describes as "a growing dispute between the U.S. and one of its closest Arab allies over Syria, Iran and Egypt policies." Riyadh late last week declined a seat on the United Nations Security Council for similar reasons, with Prince Bandar Bin Sultan al-Saud reportedly telling diplomats that the decision "was a message for the U.S., not the U.N." The move was broadly praised by Saudi Arabia's regional allies, including Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE. Arab governments have become increasingly public in expressing frustration with the Obama administration, which they fault for withholding aid from Egypt's anti-Muslim Brotherhood interim government and for being overeager to cut a deal with Iran on the country's nuclear program. Privately, Saudi officials in Washington have expressed that they "increasingly feel cut out of U.S. decision-making on Syria and Iran." Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal on Monday in Paris in an effort to reassure the Saudis that the administration takes seriously the concerns of its long-time allies."
He messes up domestic politics and he messes up international politics. But the liberals love him.
Pity.
Egypt – and remember Russia
Egypt has an interim president replacing deposed Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s first “democratically elected” president.
The people who deposed his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak, toppled Morsi after only a year in office.
The Egyptian army is back in control and the politicians are puppets, at least for now.
Was Morsi any good?
Was his sponsor, the Muslim Brotherhood up to the job?
Will American-style democracy even work in Egypt?
We’ll never know the answer to the first two questions; I doubt we’ll learn the answer to the third in our lifetime.
Egypt’s “democracy revolution” and the Russian’s “capitalist revolution” are very similar.
In both places, transition was difficult for the people. Their immediate expectations and gratifications failed to materialize.
In both places, the army was the power behind the throne.
In Russia, the former Communist leaders knew how to use the army to put down dissent; it did, often ruthlessly.
In Egypt, the army decided to align itself with the average person rather than the theo-political (and therefore dangerous to the army) Muslim Brotherhood. Rather than go against the masses, it elected to remove the object of the masses anger.
Russia still is “transitioning” into a capitalist society. It’s painful, especially for the average Russian, but “progress” is being made.
In Egypt, the people must start over. Hopefully this time “democracy” will be given a chance. Sacrifices will be required, and the leadership must lead by example.
The Muslim Brotherhood won its political power by filling a gap in Egypt’s social services area. As long as it continues this role, it will maintain a base with the Egyptian poor. The army – the true “power behind the throne” – must replace the Brotherhood and provide the services if it hopes to wean the poor from the Brotherhood.
As far as “American-style democracy” coming to Egypt – or Russia – the question is “Why should it?” Let Egypt, and Russia, develop their own, unique types of democracy. “Democracy” in the UK is different than in the US; ditto in Israel and France and – you name any “democratic” country. Bottom line: The US should never try to force American-style democracy on anyone. Encourage, maybe. Insist, never.
Chief rabbi
The politics of the chief rabbi – Ashkenazi and “Sefardi” (Mizrachi) – in Israel are a disgrace. To Judaism. To Israel. To the rabbinute, both political and rank-n-file.
It appears that none of the candidates is above reproach or their decisions “questionable” in light of the times.
R. Ovadia Yosef, long-time kingmaker of the “Sefardi” chief rabbi, the Reshion l’Tzion, wants his fourth son, Holon’s chief rabbi, Avraham Yosef, to be the next Hakham Bashi, a position his father held from 1973-1983. He prefers Avraham over another son, Yitzak Yosef.
Avraham Yosef opines, following in his father’s lead, that (civil court) judges “cannot be allowed to have a presence and they cannot be included [in a minyan] or speak in a synagogue. They have to be ignored, as if they were nothing but air. Even if he [the judge] knows how to pray well, once he has agreed to be named a judge he has disqualified himself from participating in a minyan."
Rabbi Avraham Yosef's main rival is Rabbi Tzion Boaron, endorsed by outgoing Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar and Zefat Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, endorsed by the national religious party, Habayit Hayehudi.
The remarks that got R. Eliyahu into hot water with Hatnuah Justice Minister Tzipi Livni include:
“A Jew should not flee from Arabs. A Jew should make the Arabs flee. There is a silent war going on here for land”; “most of the violence in Israeli society stems from the Arabs”; and “the Arabs have a different code, and violent norms that have become an ideology” — these were among the statements Eliyahu made in a 2010 interview with the Maariv daily.
He also generated controversy over the past few years for a variety of statements and rulings, including one ruling that forbade the rental or sale of Jewish-owned property in the city to Arabs. (Never mind that in PA-controlled Israel selling land to a Jew is a capital offense.
Eliyahu is the son of former Hakham Baski Mordechai Eliyahu who served from 1983 to1993.
Both current chief rabbis – Shlomo Amar and Yona Metzger – have an undistinguished history with the civil authorities.
The rabbinute wars on the Ashkenazi side are no better.
IMO, the last time the chief rabbinute had men of quality was the 1993-2003 period when R. Yisrael Meir Lau and R. Eliyahu Kakshi-Doron held the positions. I also have a great respect for R. Mordechai Eliyahu (1983–1993).
The “bottom line” for Israel and the chief rabbinute can be summed up in two words: “Who cares?”
The hard-line haredim follow their own rabbis to the exclusion of all others.
The heloni Israeli follows no rabbi.
The observant Israeli Jew, if he aligns with any specific rabbi at all, probably takes his questions and concerns to his local (city) rabbi.
Perhaps the real question ought to be: Do Jews even need “chief rabbis?”
R. Shmuley Boteach, trying to put words in Obama’s mouth, would have the president tell Syria’s Assad “(W)e have decided to arm the rebels in their fight.” ( http://tinyurl.com/n2n76x3)
Never mind conflicting reports about who is killing who in Syria; Boteach wants to arm the rebels who, by the way, have been accused of cannibalism – and of bragging about it.
Does Boteach really think the U.S. can buy the rebels friendship IF the rebels prevail, and as of today, 19 June 2013, that’s questionable.
Does Boteach really think if the rebels, a fragmented bunch at best, will be able to control the country and, in particular, the cease fire along the Israel-Syria border. Certainly not based on some of the rebels’ published promises.
Perhaps the real question is: Does Boteach think at all?
Obviously Boteach, who frequently reminds his readers that someone called him “America’s rabbi” and that “Newsweek and The Washington Post call ‘the most famous Rabbi in America’, is the international best-selling author of 29 books,” is ignorant of history.
He apparently fails to realize that America cannot buy friends or, for that matter, cannot defuse Muslim anger by paying off the Islamists. He pointedly ignores the lessons of Afghanistan where the U.S. armed the Taliban to fight the then Soviet Union, only to have the U.S.-provided weapons turned against U.S. soldiers.
He fails to recognize the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine – a doctrine developed to keep the U.S. out of foreign wars, “civil” or otherwise.
Botach rails against the Russian head of state’s endorsement of the Assad administration. “It’s a travesty that Russia was invited to the G8 summit, especially as Putin shamelessly disregards the pleas of the international community to withdraw his support from the criminal regime. This summit is meant to facilitate the collaboration between civilized nations for a better future. If we can’t stop the ongoing slaughter or, at least, bar Russia’s participation from the summit until they change their policy, then the forum becomes guilty of passive complicity.”
Even as he notes that the “summit is meant to facilitate the collaboration between civilized nations for a better future” he would banish the Russian to prevent any communication between his point of view and any others’ points of view. My way or the highway attitude.
Syria is NOT the United States’ problem.
Syria is NOT the G-8’s problem.
Syria MIGHT be a problem to be handled by the Arab League, although the Arab League is hard pressed to do anything other than ask non-Muslims to protect their assets.
Syria certainly is not a problem for the UN’s Blue Bonnets who are best known for turning tail and disappearing when someone says Boo!.
Hopefully, no matter what side or sides finally prevail, Syria will not become a problem for Israel, Jordan, or Turkey. Iran and Iraq – they are contributing to the problem as are Hamas and Hezbollah.
I know Boteach is running for political office.
If he really wants to get the U.S. involved in Syria’s internal problems, I hope he is soundly defeated. I understand he’s running for a local spot, but his “buddy” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will use a Boteach win to claim America’s rabbi and America are behind him (POTUS) in what would be Obama’s latest misadventure.
Shmuley Boteach is not this scrivener’s rabbi and, the last time I checked my passport it showed I am very much an American.
The fools on the Hill: IMO – nothing “humble” about it – U.S. politicians (a) are blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other, (b) are Polyannas, (c) they are just plain “stoo-pid,” or (d) “all of the above.”
SYRIA: The fools inside the beltway want to supply arms, albeit “small” arms, to the Syrian “rebels.”
The U.S. has no business meddling in Syria’s internal affairs; its civil war. Yes, I know Iran is sending troops and I know terrorists organizations (Hamas and Hezbollah) are sending fighters, and yes, I know Russia is promising, but apparently not yet delivering, arms to the regime.
That STILL does not justify U.S. involvement in Syria.
Does anyone remember that the U.S. outfitted the Taliban in Afghanistan? Does anyone remember what the Taliban did with the U.S.-provided weapons when the Taliban kicked the Russians out? If you forgot or never cared to know, the Taliban first turned the weapons on the Afghans and then, when the U.S. sent in troops to protect the non-Taliban Afghans, the weapons were turned on U.S. boys who really had no business in Afghanistan.
The U.S. (mostly) removed Sadam Hussein from power in Iraq. To what end? So that Iraqis, with a little help from there Iranian and Islamist friends, could plant IEDs along the roadways and so that Iraqi police and army “trainees” could murder U.S. soldiers. Does anyone really think Syria would be different? The idea that “cutting the head off the snake” would resolve all the problems obviously is a bad idea. Ben Laden is gone, but Al-Qaida carries on with renewed vigor.
U.S. politicians are living in La-La land if they think removing a strong leader – a dictator such as Syria’s Bashar Hafez al-Assad, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti, or Libya’s Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi - will suddenly turn the people they controlled into Friends of America? It failed to work in North Africa. It failed to work in Iraq. It failed to work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. America has no friends in Egypt. Saudia is a false friend at best. “Palestine” – both Hamas’ “Palestine” and Hezbollah’s “Palestine” both consider the U.S. an enemy, yet Washington’s fools, of both parties, continue to support it at the expense of its lone ally in the area.
IRAN just held a free and democratic election for a new Iranian president. The winner was, according to many western sources a “moderate,” cleric Hasan Rowhani.
Unlike the U.S., Iranian politicians are elected by direct vote, in theory a true democracy.
However, in Iran “democracy” is tempered, and tampered with, by the ayatollahs and, in the end, the Shi’ite Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Iran's “supreme ruler.” Rowhani, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before him, is only a mouthpiece for Khamenei, so no matter how “moderate” the liberal press declares Rowhani to be, he is only as “moderate” as the Shi’ite’s grand ayatollah.
Iran’s rush to nuclear weapons will go on full speed ahead, even under the “moderate” who "just happens" to be Iran’s top nuclear negotiator.
The only way Iran will see political change is if the general populace throws out the ayatollahs from political power. Given the ayatollahs control of the military, a regime change is unlikely sans outside interference.
Like Syria, Iran is – not yet – the U.S.’ problem, although it is becoming an increasing danger to the U.S.’ only reliable ally in the region. Greece, Turkey, and Jordan all have their own problems to manage, and Lebanon has been Syrian controlled for decades and is a non-state of no consequence. Egypt and North Africa are in turmoil and Iraq, for all practical purposes, is in Iran’s political pocket.
AND THEN THERE’S RUSSIA that wants to be seen as a major player, a superpower returning as the phoenix rising from the ashes. As before, for every move the fools of the Kremlin make, the fools in Washington think they must make a counter-move. Russia is supporting Assad therefore the fools along the Potomac feel they must support the anti-Assad forces. With support from both parties - at last, cross aisle cooperation, even if it IS detrimental to the nation in the long term, is in play – the politicians from Chelm are preparing to arm our future enemies to fight a war in which the U.S. has no political, geographical, financial, or other interests. The U.S. “must” counter the Russians in a game of checkers . . . forgetting that in the end the game will be Chinese checkers and both Russia and the U.S. will lose.
