Saturday, October 7, 1944. Fighting in the Arctic.

The Sonderkommando Revolt occurred at Auschwitz when the Jewish detailed prisiones rose up with makeshift weapons.  Three SS guards were killed, 200 members of the Sonderkommando, but hundreds of prisoners, all of whom were soon captured and executed, briefly escaped.

Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon signed the Alexandria Protocol leading to the establishment of the Arab League in March of the following year.

The Red Army commenced the Petsamo–Kirkenes offensive in the Petsamo region ceded by Finland and Norway.

Members of "I" Co., 7th Inf. Regt., 3rd Division, move up an alley to screen their movement from German observation, as they go toward the edge of the town. Their mission is to take up a position outside of the town. 7 October, 1944.

The St. Louis Cardinals beat the St. Louis Browns 5 to 1 in game four of the 1944 World Series.

Last edition:

Friday, October 6, 1944. Collapsing.

Labels: 1940s, 1944, Austria, Bill Mauldin, Dunbarton Oaks, Hungary, Serbia, World War Two

Just because a war starts in the Middle East does not mean its the beginning of "World War Three".

Geez, get a grip.

Friday, September 12, 1924. Second Assyrian Uprising and National Defense Day.

The complicated  Second Assyrian Uprising, or the Nestorian Rebellion, broke out in southeaster Turkey.  It was the second such uprising by Christian Assyrians who had returned to their homeland and was brought about due to intentional Kurdish misrepresentations about the intentions of the Turks.

Grossly outnumbered by Turkish and Kurdish forces, relying on promises of British intervention which didn't come, and with most of their fighting age men in British service in Iraq, they were defeated, although the British did end the war with the intervention of aircraft, and returned to Iraq.

In the US it was National Defense Day and the National Defense Test, test of the nation's radio system in an emergency took place.

A lot of military demonstrations and events occurred as well.

Casper participated in events.

Businesses stated their patriotism.

Last edition:

Wednesday, September 10, 1924. Eucharistic Congress, St. Mary of the Woods.

Labels: 1920s, 1924, Catholic, Christianity, Music

Blog Mirror: How Close is Iran to a working nuclear weapons?

 

How Close is Iran to a working nuclear weapons?

2nd Bn, 300th AFA, activates.

Yesterday the 2nd Bn, 300th AFA, commenced active duty for a period of two years, during which they will be deployed to the "Middle East".

The Middle East is a large region.  The US has forces Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates.  Most likely, the Guard is not going to Syria, Qatar (which is mostly USAF), or Iraq, but who really knows?

This is the largest deployment of the 300th since the Korean War, with it being perhaps significant to note that the 300th designation lapsed after the Korean War. During the balance of the Cold War, the Wyoming Army National Guard's artillery in the state was part of the 3d Bn 49th FA, which was part of the 115th FA Bde.

The deployment of a National Guard unit in this role, for this long, really demonstrates the degree to which the National  Guard is part of the overall Army structure today.  If you are in the Guard, you are going to see active duty.

Wars and Rumors of War, 2024. Part 2. Only the dead

Mid-Holocene rock painting depiction of archers fighting, Cueva del Roure, Spain.

You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.

Matthew, Chapter 24.

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

George Santayana

February 1, 2024

Iran v. The United States

In retaliation for the death of three servicemen in Jordan, and implicitly the ongoing Iranian misbehavior through their Houthi proxies, and others, the US is going to engage in retaliatory strikes, including cyber strikes, outside of Iran, over a period of weeks.

This is a gigantic escalation in the ongoing Middle Eastern conflict, and frankly I feel it's an error.  It's a big step towards war.

Not that this expresses sympathy with Iran, a dangerous theocracy basically at war with the world.

Ironically, it might be noted, Republicans have been shilling for a greater response.  In response to this, for example, Nebraska Republican Senator Deb Fischer seemed to complain it was too late.  Keeping track of wars that the GOP feels we're not in enough, or are in way too much, is becoming a chore.

Perhaps showing that Biden is on to something, Iranian backed militia Hezbollah has indicated it will knock off attacks on US installations.  Iran has indicated it does not want war, but in the current Administration's view, it may have basically crossed that bridge already.  The US does not seem to be willing to let the low grade conflict to continue, and it's hard to see Iran agreeing to back down.

Hamas v. Israel

Israel is flooding Hamas tunnels.

Russo Ukrainian War

Ukraine hit Crimea with a missile strike yesterday.

Cont:  

Iran v. The United States

Senator Deb Fischer

@SenatorFischer

·

1h

The administration wants to avoid "escalation" — but it's time to realize that our enemies have already escalated. The only attacks President Biden is deterring are our own.

My gosh, this has a Gulf of Tonkin feel to it.

Cont: 

Russo Ukrainian War

Ukraine sinks Russian missile corvette

Hamas Isreali War

Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions on Persons Undermining Peace, Security, and Stability in the West Bank

     By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) and section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. 1185(a)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

     I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, find that the situation in the West Bank — in particular high levels of extremist settler violence, forced displacement of people and villages, and property destruction — has reached intolerable levels and constitutes a serious threat to the peace, security, and stability of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel, and the broader Middle East region.  These actions undermine the foreign policy objectives of the United States, including the viability of a two-state solution and ensuring Israelis and Palestinians can attain equal measures of security, prosperity, and freedom.  They also undermine the security of Israel and have the potential to lead to broader regional destabilization across the Middle East, threatening United States personnel and interests.  For these reasons, these actions constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.  I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.  Accordingly, I hereby order:

     Section 1.  All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

     (a)  any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

          (i)    to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following:

               (A)  actions — including directing, enacting, implementing, enforcing, or failing to enforce policies — that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the West Bank; or

               (B)  planning, ordering, otherwise directing, or participating in any of the following actions affecting the West Bank:

                    (1)  an act of violence or threat of violence targeting civilians;

                    (2)  efforts to place civilians in reasonable fear of violence with the purpose or effect of necessitating a change of residence to avoid such violence;

                    (3)  property destruction; or

                    (4)  seizure or dispossession of property by private actors;

          (ii)   to be or have been a leader or official of:

               (A)  an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (a) or (b) of this section related to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or

               (B)  an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order as a result of activities relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure;

          (iii)  to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person blocked pursuant to this order; or

          (iv)   to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person blocked pursuant to this order; or

     (b)  any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury:

          (i)   to have committed or have attempted to commit, to pose a significant risk of committing, or to have participated in training to commit acts of terrorism affecting the West Bank; or

          (ii)  to be a leader or official of an entity sanctioned pursuant to subsection (b)(i) of this section.

     Sec. 2.  The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order. 

     Sec. 3.  The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include:

     (a)  the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

     (b)  the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

     Sec. 4.  (a)  The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of noncitizens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1 of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended, except when the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate, determines that the person’s entry would not be contrary to the interests of the United States, including when the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate, so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General, that the person’s entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives.

     (b)  The Secretary of State shall implement this order as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish.

     (c)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement this order as it applies to the entry of noncitizens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish.

     (d)  Such persons shall be treated by this section in the same manner as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

     Sec. 5.  (a)  Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

     (b)  Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

     Sec. 6.  I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

     Sec. 7.  For the purposes of this order:

     (a)  the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

     (b)  the term “noncitizen” means any person who is not a citizen or noncitizen national of the United States;

     (c)  the term “person” means an individual or entity;

     (d)  the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and

     (e)  the term “terrorism” means an activity that:

          (i)   involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and

          (ii)  appears to be intended:

               (A)  to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

               (B)  to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

               (C)  to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

     Sec. 8.  For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked or affected by this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds and other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual.  I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.

     Sec. 9.  The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order.  The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury.  All executive departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.

     Sec. 10.  Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government or the United Nations (including its specialized agencies, programs, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, and contractors thereof.

     Sec. 11.  The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

     Sec. 12.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

          (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

          (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

     (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

     (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                             JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

  February 1, 2024.

February 2, 2024

Mexican Border Crisis

More Border Support: Governor Ron DeSantis Sends Additional Florida National Guard and Florida State Guard to Assist Texas. 

On February 1, 2024, in News Releases, by Staff

National Guardsmen and State Guard Soldiers will join FHP, FWC and FDLE officers already assisting Texas at the southern border

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Today, Governor Ron DeSantis announced that Florida is deploying members of the Florida National Guard (FLNG) and members of the Florida State Guard (FSG) will be deployed to assist Texas in its efforts to stop the invasion at the southern border. Florida is offering up to a battalion of National Guard members (approximately 1,000 soldiers) to Texas, who will be deployed based on Texas’ needs. For more information about the announcement, click here.

These deployments are in addition to the more than 90 officers from the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) that are currently deployed to the border. Additional law enforcement resources are standing by and ready to deploy as requested by Texas state officials. In December, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data showed that more than 302,000 illegal immigrants were encountered attempting to cross the southern border – the highest month ever recorded.

“States have every right to defend their sovereignty and we are pleased to increase our support to Texas as the Lone Star State works to stop the invasion across the border,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “Our reinforcements will help Texas to add additional barriers, including razor wire along the border. We don’t have a country if we don’t have a border.”

“This is not a new mission for us. For several years we have supported border security missions in Texas, to include both federal and state deployments,” said Major General John D. Haas, The Adjutant General of Florida. “Last spring the Florida National Guard was one of the first in the nation to deploy rotations of soldiers to support Operation Lone Star in Texas, and we have proudly and readily supported our own state’s efforts in similar roles here in Florida.”

“The Florida State Guard is prepared to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with state agency partners in direct support of our brothers and sisters in Texas grappling with an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration along their border,” said Florida State Guard Director Mark Thieme. “The Florida State Guard is postured to deliver rapid emergency response, public safety operations and humanitarian assistance — wherever the need arises.”

Since 2021, Florida has provided direct law enforcement and military assistance to Texas, including FLNG, which supported the Texas Military Department through mission sets including static observation points, roving patrols and engineer assistance with obstacle improvement. FHP has made contact with nearly 150,000 illegal aliens, conducted over 27,000 traffic stops, resulting in 2,102 Human Smuggling or Human Trafficking charges with 2,278 overall arrests.

FDLE has sent rotations of officers to assist the Texas Department of Public Safety with arrests of violent felony suspects including gang members. Suspects were arrested on various Texas state charges including human smuggling, burglary, firearms, smuggling of persons, smuggling of persons with a firearm, child endangerment, escape from federal custody and possession of controlled substance. FWC has deployed a total of 540 FWC personnel, 525 four-wheel drive patrol trucks and 24 vessels.

In Fiscal Year 2023, CBP recorded 2.5 million encounters – surpassing last year’s record. This includes 169 illegal immigrants on the terror watch list attempting to cross the southern border. Since Biden took office, more than 10 million illegal immigrants have crossed the border, including more than 1.7 million known gotaways. In December alone, roughly 260 million lethal doses of fentanyl were seized at the border.

Russia v. NATO

General Gheorghiță Vlad, Romania's chief of defense, issued a war warning in an interview with the Press, joining General Patrick Sanders, the United Kingdom's army chief, and Germany's Defense Minister Boris Pistorius in having recently said the same, and in urging their countries to prepare for war.   They are not alone in this and this has been a common European theme in recent weeks.

Iran v the West

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force commander Brigadier General Esmail Qaani visited Baghdad to meet leaders of the Iraqi groups to try to stop military action against U.S. forces.  The fear that the US is going to launch major strikes, which the US has said its preparing,and that this will lead to a wider war is clearly impacting Iran.

February 2, 2024

Iran v. the West

The US hit 85 targets in Iraq and Syria in retaliation for an Iranian backed militia strike that killed three U.S. Servicemen tin Jordan.

Nigeria

Unknown attackers killed Segun Aremu, the Olukoro of Koro, in Nigeria and kidnapped his wife.

February 4, 2024

Russo Ukrainian War

It appears the Ukrainians assassinated a Tu-95 pilot inside of Russia.

Putin has been expressing displeasure with Russian scientist working on a hypersonic missile program.

Soldiers' wives protested in Moscow, many were arrested.

February 4, 2024

The House of Representatives will move forward with a  $17.6 billion bill this week that provides military aid to Israel and replenishes U.S. weapons, but leaves out more help for Ukraine.

It will not pass the Senate. 

The Senate apparently left the House out of its efforts to negotiate on these topics, which shows the level of dissention between the two bodies.

Ukraine has become an increasingly hot topic in the House, which is strongly influenced by Trump, who is a Putin fan.

Middle East

The US and UK hit 36 Houthi targets yesterday in Yemen.

Mexican Border Crisis

A Take Our Border Back rally is going on, on the border.

February 5, 2024

Middle East and the US and wars.

The weekend shows featured the bizarre spectacle of Republican politicians criticizing President Biden's actions against Iran for not going far enough when we're on the verge of an outright war right now.

Somehow, we're in the situation where for a lot of Republicans supporting Ukraine is bad, because Trump likes Putin, supporting Israel is paramount, as there's a vague underlying Evangelical feeling its nearly religiously mandated, and we ought to push Iran up to and maybe over the brink of war.

Mexican Border Crisis

On the weekend shows, a preview of the extensive bipartisan Senate border bill was featured.  Mike Johnson is pretty clearly going to oppose it as he has orders from his puppet master. A Republican Senator threatened to push Johnson into a vote over his speakership, which apparently there had been a backdoor deal with Democratic Senators to try to prevent when he was nominated.  This was based on the assertion that he'd broken his promises in that closed door meeting.

Governor Kristi Noem was banned from the Pine Ridge Reservation for declaring she wants to send razor wire and National Guardsmen to the Texas border.

February 8, 2024

Russo Ukrainian War

President Volodymyr Zelensky dismissed of Ukraine’s top commander, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi. The failure of the spring/summer offensive contributed heavily to this.  He will be replaced by Command of Land Forces Oleksandr Syrskyi.

February 11, 2024

Hamas v. Israel

Israel has announced that it intends to enter Rafah.

This is being treated as a surprise for some reason, although I think it's always been clear that it intends to enter 100% of Gaza in stages.

The civilian death toll in Gaza is about 28,000.

February 12, 2024

NATO

Donald Trump's off the cuff comment that he'd invite Russia to attack countries that are delinquent in their NATO contribution has resulted in a firestorm of controvesy.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated:

Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk, I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election the US will remain a strong and committed NATO Ally.

Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov stated; "I am still Putin’s press secretary, but not Trump’s".

Trump's cavalier comments were reckless and frankly weird, which is hardly an unusual thing for him.  It does point out, however, the extent to which he's a reckless isolationist, perhaps in the early stages of dementia (he cannot seemingly control what he says) and bizarrely a Putin fanboy.  The latter has never been adequately explained.

February 13, 2024

Russo Ukrainian War

From ISW:

Ukraine’s Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported that elements of Lebanese Hezbollah (LH) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are training Russian drone operators at the Shayrat Air Base in Syria. 

Last Prior Edition:

Wars and Rumors of War, 2024. Part I. New Year, last year's wars.

Levantines

I've used the term "Coastal Arabs" here recently to describe the culture that stretches from teh Sinai to Turkey and which includes a lot of Syria.

Distribution of Levantine Arab dialect. By A455bcd9 - Own work based on: Levantine Arabic 2022.svgReferences:Brustad, Kristen; Zuniga, Emilie (2019) "Chapter 16: Levantine Arabic" in Huehnergard, John , ed. The Semitic Languages (2nd ed.), Routledge, pp. 403–432 DOI: 10.4324/9780429025563. ISBN: 978-0-415-73195-9. OCLC: 1103311755.Eberhard, David M.; Simons, Gary F.; Fennig, Charles D. (2022). Jordan and Syria. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. SIL International., CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=128220068

It turns out, the word that I should have used is Levantines.

The region has its own dialect of Arabic, its own (really good) cuisine, and those who genetic history from the region can be identified by their DNA.  

Yes, they are Arabs, but they are not Bedouin. 

The Palestinian Problem and its Wilsonian Solution.

Lex Anteinternet: Wars and Rumors of War, 2023, Part X, Declarations: 

October 15, 2023

Hamas v. Israel

Egypt has completed a concrete barrier to block Palestinian entrants from Gaza.  Their border is very small, so they will be able to enforce it.

Qatar has refused to take Palestinian refugees.

Why have I linked this in, well to demonstrate part of the problem.

Bernie "I knew Lenin when he was just a baby" Sanders has called Gaza an "open air prison".

It isn't, but if it is, the guards aren't just Israeli, they're also Egyptian, and quite frankly, the Arabs in general.  

Nobody wants the Palestinians, as by this point, to put it charitably, they're acclimated to living off the dole and are inclined to violence. They're like the residents of Northern Ireland at one time, on spades.

We went into the complicated history of what is now Israel the other day, but to unfairly summarize it, the problem was created by this.

Ottoman Palestine.

Jewish immigrants legally started migrating to the region when it was an Ottoman province, and then when it was a British League of Nations Mandate.  When the Jewish population became noticeable, in a region we might note that not only had an Arab population, but an Armenian population and a Greek population, the Palestinians began to worry and demanded that it stop.  They turned to violence in the 1930s/

Prior to this time, it isn't as if it was an independent country and indeed, as the map above shows, is borders weren't really what they are now.  Israel had been an independent kingdom in ancient times, but it had been conquered by numerous ancient empires and kingdoms during its history.  Rome put an end to Israel, as we discussed the other day, until 1948.  Like much of the pre World War One Arabic Middle East, it was ruled under Ottoman rule by various tribal families.  

The period after the Great War was transformational due to the high levels of Jewish immigration, and World War Two made a push towards a restoration of Jewish Israel inevitable.  After over a millennium of being murdered for no reason whatsoever, the Jewish people wanted a homeland of their own. And, by that time, they had the population base in Palestine to demand it.

The Palestinian Arabs simply couldn't accommodate themselves to the thought, and the non-Palestinian Arabs couldn't either. They made a bad bet.  Had the Palestinians imply gone along with it, quite frankly, by now the demographic impact of their higher birth rate would mean that Israel would have a majority Palestinian population. But they didn't, and in becoming refugees they became wards of the world.

Today, inside the Palestinian Authority, they suffer high unemployment, particularly in Gaza, which is an unnatural economic unit. The Arabs, and Iran, support them, but they've largely gotten over Israel by now and they don't want the Palestinians in their country. They'd rather back them economically than let them in.

But, if there's a solution to this, they probably need to.

Following World War One, largely due to Woodrow Wilson's view of how the world should work, everything pushed towards nation states.  Due to the Great War, Germany and Russia were pushed out of Poland. Finland, the Baltics States, and the various Slavic states that hadn't been independent, became independent.  Ireland became independent.  Colonialism started to become a dirty word.

The Ottoman Empire collapsed and Middle Eastern kingdoms, imperfectly drawn, sprang up. 

And populations were somewhat moved.  

After World War Two, this was very much the case again, although mostly due to the Soviet Union seeking to redraw is territory on ethnic grounds.

None of this is pleasant, but the solution to this may be here.

Israel isn't going to go away, and is not going to let itself become an Arab dominated state.

The Palestinians aren't going away either, but their territory, and they aren't getting Palestine back, isn't viable.  They've never, moreover, really had any sort of independent state in the first place.

They are also a Mediterranean people, which means that they are largely a Sunni Muslim (some are Christians, but they're disappearing as a demographic as Islam is hostile to them and for that matter the Israelis aren't keen on them either) Arab coastal people.

Qatar is a coastal, Sunni Bedouin Arab nation.  So is Saudi Arabia. So is Kuwait.  So is Dubai.

All of these countries have a labor shortage.

A solution, and perhaps the only one, is to resettle the Palestinians in those countries.  Not in one country, which will create all kinds of problems, but across them.  

They will not mix in immediately, but they would in fairly short order.  

Jews whose ancestors emigrated from Ukraine, Poland, etc., 75 years ago do not look back and wish romantically that they could reclaim lost occupations and lands. Frankly, in 75 years, if this was done, Palestinians wouldn't either.  For that matter, in a fairly short period, they'd be fairly mixed with the local Arab population in any event, their identify less of a thing, and their futures better.

Of course, nobody is proposing this, even though many are secretly thinking about it.  Simply pushing the Palestinians out of Gaza has come up as an Israeli solution before.  The Egyptians fear a lot of Palestinians heading their way, and they cannot accommodate them.  That Qatar would reject their entry at this point shows that a lot of Arab states have this on their minds.

And the Palestinians, clinging to a pipe dream, probably wouldn't want to do it either.

Related threads:

Hamas v. Israel. Some observations, and How did we get here?

People seem shocked to learn that Egypt isn't letting Gazans in.

Saturday, September 29, 1923. Mandates and Floods.

April 25, 1920. Settlements that didn't settle.

April 8, 1920 More Strife

The Secondary Waves of the Great War.

The Lord's Prayer in Arabic

 

Donkeys

Donkeys transformed human history as essential beasts of burden for long-distance movement, especially across semi-arid and upland environments. They remain insufficiently studied despite globally expanding and providing key support to low- to middle-income communities. To elucidate their domestication history, we constructed a comprehensive genome panel of 207 modern and 31 ancient donkeys, as well as 15 wild equids. We found a strong phylogeographic structure in modern donkeys that supports a single domestication in Africa ~5000 BCE, followed by further expansions in this continent and Eurasia and ultimately returning to Africa. We uncover a previously unknown genetic lineage in the Levant ~200 BCE, which contributed increasing ancestry toward Asia. Donkey management involved inbreeding and the production of giant bloodlines at a time when mules were essential to the Roman economy and military.

Abstract, The genomic history and global expansion of domestic donkeys.

Friday, November 21, 1941. Storms named Maria, Thanksgiving Parades, the 70th Infantry Division launches an attack at Tobruk, Relief across Lake Logoda, Dutch War Warning.

George Stewart's novel Storm, which dealt with a subtropical storm hitting California, and ultimately even New York, hit the stands. In the novel, the National Weather Service names the storm Maria, which in turn caused the NWS to actually start naming storms, and which inspired the song They Call The Wind Maria in the 1951 play Paint Your Wagon.

I'd often wondered how that suggestion came about.  The lyrics of the song, which is set in the mid 19th Century, famously claimed names for all sorts of natural events.

A Way Out Here They've Got A Name For Wind And Rain And Fire
The Rain Is Jack The Fire Is Joe And They Call The Wind Maria
Maria Flows The Stars Around Since The Clouds're Flying
Maria Makes The Mountains Sound Like Cold Wind Out There Dying
Maria Maria They Call The Wind Maria 

Before I Knew Maria's Name Heard Her Wails And Whining
I Had A Girl And She Had Me And The Sun Was Always Shining
And Then One Day I Left My Girl Left Her Far Behind Me
Maria Blowed Her Love To Me I Need Her Here Beside Me
Maria Maria They Call The Wind Maria 

Out Here They've Got A Name For Rain And Wind And Fire Only
But When You're Lost And All Alone There Ain't No Name For Lonely
Now I'm A Lost And Lonely Man Without The Stars To Guide Me
Maria Blowed Her Love To Me I Need Her Here Beside Me
Maria Maria They Call The Wind Maria

Interestingly, the book was influential, but not so much that it was ever made into a movie.  It was made into a televised Disney production.

Shoppers on that day were enjoying day two of the Thanksgiving Holiday, if they lived in state observing it this week and not next.  The New York Macy Thanksgiving Parade was held on this day in 1941.

The British 70th Infantry division attacked from besieged Tobruk.  The Italians held them back, but Afrika Korps defenses everywhere were rapidly being stretched to the breaking point.

Men of the 70th Infantry Division at Tobruk.

A Soviet horse-drawn supply column crossed the frozen Lake Lagoda outside of Leningrad/St. Petersburg for the first time, meaning that the besieged town is now no longer really encircled, but sill in desperate straits. The first convoy carried food stuffs.

The USSR also, on this day, instituted a tax on childless bachelors, singles, and small families. The tax would remain in place until 1992. The tax was instituted under the Soviet belief that childless people possessed more discretionary income and therefore needed to do more from that to help defend the state.

An elaborate military ceremony was held for the departed Ernst Udet, whose passing the German press attributed to an "accident".  Goering and Hitler were in attendance.

The United States Navy issued the following warning

Have been informed by Dutch Legation that they have received a dispatch as follows: 

 “According to information received by the Governor General of The Netherlands East Indies a Japanese expeditionary force has arrived in the vicinity of Palau. Should this force, strong enough to form a threat for The Netherlands Indies or Portuguese Timor, move beyond a line between the following points Davao (Philippine Islands) Waigeo (Island, Netherlands East Indies) Equator the Governor General will regard this as an act of aggression and will under those circumstances consider the hostilities opened and act accordingly." 

Inform Army authorities of foregoing. Request any information you may have concerning development of this Japanese threat against the Dutch East Indies and your evaluation of foregoing information.

For movie goers, two new films hit the screen, one being Shadow of the Thin Man, the fourth installment in that series, and the highly romanticized account of the death of George Custer and his men, They Died With Their Boots On.

Both are noted here:

Today in World War II History—November 21, 1941

Also noted is George Stewart's novel Storm.

Tuesday November 18, 1941. German setbacks.

Yesterday the Finn's stopped advancing on Murmansk and the Germans stopped along with them, bringing to an effective end the German advance in the Arctic with the result that Murmansk would remain open to the Allies for the rest of the war.

On this day, the British launched Operation Crusader, a new offensive in the desert designed to relief the siege of Tobruk.

British tank in this operation passing a burning German one.  The British tank is, coincidentally, a "Crusader".

The attack demonstrated that the British were far from finished in the desert.

The British did conclude Operation Flipper on this day as well, which was not a success.

Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with  Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, giving a sign of the direction it would head in should the United States go to war. The sign had not been obvious, and it was still unclear. Mexico's PRI ruling party engaged in single state rule of the country, and accordingly it had a diversity of radical views within it, including strongly Communistic elements, but also some fascistic elements.  As a result, American defense planning included guarding the southern US border from Mexican incursions in case of it leaning towards the Axis.

Talks continued between the United States and the Japanese diplomatic mission in Washington, with the Japanese mission meeting with the Secretary of State, who issued this report:

After some preliminary remarks the Secretary took up the question of Japan's relations with the Axis. He pointed out that the public would place their own interpretation upon the implications of a situation wherein on the one hand Japan had an agreement with us and on the other was in an alliance with the Axis powers. He said that our people do not trust Hitler and furthermore we feel that it would be inevitable that Hitler would eventually, if he was successful, get around to the Far East and double-cross Japan. The Secretary cited the instance when Germany, after having concluded an 'anti-Comintern pact with Japan had surprised Japan later on by entering into a non-aggression pact with Russia and finally went back on the non-aggression pact by attacking Russia. The Secretary said that he presumed Japan did not know in advance what Germany's intentions were any more than we did. The Secretary expressed great doubt that any agreement into which we entered with Japan while Japan at the same time had an alliance with Hitler would carry the confidence of our people and he emphasized that we would have to have a clear-cut agreement making self-evident our peaceful purpose, for otherwise there would be a redoubled effort by all nations to strengthen their armaments. He pointed out that we are coming out of the Philippines in 1946 and that we are now bringing our marines out of China and in this way we are trying to make a contribution to the establishment of a peaceful world based on law and order. He said that this is what we want to work out with Japan; that we had nothing to offer in the may of bargaining except our friendship. Our commercial program was one, he said, calling for a maximum production and distribution of goods. The Secretary pointed out also that we are even now engaged in efforts to induce the British Empire to reduce its Empire preferences. w He said that what we desire is to put our people back to work in a way that can never be accomplished through permitting armies to overrun countries. The Secretary observed that many Japanese spokesmen had spoken of Japan's desire to have a controlling influence in Eastern Asia, but the only kind of controlling influence which was worth anything was one that could not be achieved or maintained by the sword.

He dwelt briefly upon what we have accomplished in South America through our peaceful policies and through renouncing the employment. of gunboats and armed forces. The Secretary made it clear that we recognized that under present emergency conditions we cannot carry out to perfection our commercial policy which must be modified to meet war conditions, but we can at least establish the. principles. The Secretary said, going back to the situation with regard to Japan's relations with the Axis, that a difficult situation was created thereby as far as our public was concerned-as, for example, when telegrams of congratulations were sent to Hitler by Japanese leaders when he commits some atrocity.

The Japanese Ambassador observed that the United States and Russia were not pursuing parallel courses and yet we are aligned with Russia at the present time. He also said he appreciated very well the relations we had developed with South America but that, although Japan would like to imitate us, Japan was not in a position to be so magnanimous-as, for example, in the mater of extending substantial lend lease aid to other countries. . . . The Secretary then added that he frankly did not know whether anything could be done in the matter of reaching a satisfactory agreement with Japan; that we can go so far but rather than go beyond a certain point it would be better for us to stand and take the consequences. The Ambassador then said that Japan is now hard?pressed and that the Secretary was well aware of how desirous Japan was to reach some agreement with the United States.

Mr. Kurusu said that he had served five years as Director of the Commercial Bureau of the Japanese Foreign Office and that he was familiar with the developments in Japan's commercial policy. He said that the situation with respect to the Empire preferences was one of the factors which had influenced Japan to go into the Axis camp. He said that the United States was an economically powerful country and that the United States was, therefore, in a much better position than was Japan to enter into commercial bargaining. Furthermore, Japan was much more dependent than was the United States upon foreign trade. He felt that what the two Governments should now do would be to achieve something to tide over the present abnormal situation.. He referred, for example, to the exchange control situation which had been developed in Japanese-occupied China and expressed the view that that situation could not be done away with in a short time. He said that perhaps after the war was over it might be possible to adopt a more liberal policy but that he was unable to promise anything on the part of his Government. The Secretary asked whether Japan could not now agree in principle on commercial policy. Mr. Kurusu made no direct reply but went on to say that in the early years of American intercourse in the Far East our main interest was in commerce and not religious and cultural activities; that we had pursued a course of idealism, but with American occupation of the Philippines the situation changed somewhat and the United States tied itself in with the European concert of nations.

Turning to the question of the Tripartite Pact, Mr. Kurusu said that he could not say that Japan would abrogate the Tripartite Pact but that Japan might do something which would "outshine" the Tripartite Pact.

The Secretary pointed out that unless peacefully minded nations now start their program of reconstruction it will be impossible to get such a program started later on because the selfish elements would get control of the situation and prevent the materialization of a liberal policy. Therefore, he said it was necessary to get the fundamental principles established, so that we might begin to enable the peaceful forces, which were now demoralized, to assert a leadership. Unless we pursue such a course, the Secretary noted, we shall not be able to obtain the confidence of peacefully minded people when the time for putting into effect a reconstruction program arrives. Mr. Kurusu asked whether the Secretary had a concrete formula for dealing with Japan's relations with the Axis alliance. The Secretary made it clear that this was a matter for Japan to work out. He said that if we could get a peaceful program firmly established, Hitler ought to be asked not to embarrass us too much. He asked whether Japan could not work it out in some way which would be convincing to the American people. He said that if it goes the wrong way every peaceful nation will redouble its defensive efforts. The Secretary emphasized again that the public would be confused in regard to a survival of a relationship between Japan and the Axis while Japan had an agreement with the United States.

The Ambassador asked whether it was not important now to make some understanding to save the situation. The Secretary said he agreed but that he felt that the Tripartite Pact was inconsistent with the establishment of an understanding.

Mr. Kurusu asked what could the Secretary suggest. The Secretary said that if we mix the Tripartite Pact with an agreement with the United States it will not be possible to get many people to follow us. The Secretary said that the question arises whether Japanese statesmen desire to follow entirely peaceful courses with China or whether they desire to face two ways. The Secretary went on to say that if the Japanese should back away from adopting a clear?cut position with regard to commercial policy, with regard to a course in China consistent with peaceful principles and with regard to Japanese relations to the European war this would leave us in an indefensible position in regard to the proposed agreement. We would have to say that the Japanese Government is unable to get its politicians into line.

The Ambassador repeated that the situation in Japan was very pressing and that it was important to arrest a further deterioration of the relations between the two countries. He suggested that if this situation could now be checked an atmosphere would develop when it would be possible to move in the direction of the courses which this Government advocated. He pointed out that big ships cannot turn around too quickly, that they have to be eased around slowly and gradually.

The Secretary replied that if we should sit down and write an agreement permeated with the doctrine of force it would be, found that each country would be entirely distrustful and would be piling up armaments, as countries cannot promote peace so long as they are tied in in any way with Hitler.

Mr. Kurusu pointed out that a comprehensive solution cannot be worked out immediately, that he could make no promises. He said that our freezing regulations had caused impatience in Japan and a feeling that Japan had to fight while it still could. If we could come to some settlement now, he said, it would promote an atmosphere which would be conducive to discussing fundamentals. The Secretary asked if he did not think that something could be worked out on the Tripartite Pact. The Ambassador said that he desired to emphasize that Japan would not be a cat's-paw for Germany, that Japan's purpose in entering into the Tripartite alliance was to use it for Japan's own purposes, that Japan entered the Tripartite Pact because Japan felt isolated. The Secretary observed that it would be difficult to get public opinion in this country to understand the situation as Mr. Kurusu had described it.

He then asked what the Ambassador had in mind in regard to the Chinese situation and whether the Japanese stood for no annexations, no indemnities, respect. for China's sovereignty, territorial integrity and the principle of equality. The Ambassador replied in the affirmative.

The Secretary then said that while he had made this point already clear to the Ambassador he wished to make it clear also to Mr. Kurusu, that whereas the Japanese Government desired to consider our talks negotiations rather than exploratory conversations, the Secretary felt that without having first reached a real basis for negotiations, he was not in a position to go to the British or the Chinese or the other governments involved, as these governments had a rightful interest in these problems. Mr. Kurusu tried to get the Secretary to specify in just which problems each of the respective governments were interested but the Secretary said that he had not yet, for manifest reasons, discussed these problems with these other governments and anything that he might say would be just an assumption on his part. Mr. Kurusu then said that under such circumstances United States-Japanese relations would be at the mercy of Great Britain and China. The Secretary replied that he believed and must repeat that we must have something substantial in the way of a basis for an agreement to take to these governments for otherwise there would be no point in talking to them. Mr. Kurusu said that the situation was so pressing that it might get beyond our control. The Secretary agreed that, that was true but he pointed out that the fact that Japan's leaders keep announcing programs based upon force adds to our difficulties. He said he would like to leave the Hitler situation to the Japanese Government for consideration.

Turning to the China situation the Secretary asked how many soldiers the Japanese wanted to retain in China. The Ambassador replied that possibly 90 per cent would be withdrawn. The Secretary asked how long the Japanese intended to keep that remaining 10 per cent in China. The Ambassador did not reply directly to this but he invited attention to the fact that under the existing Boxer Protocol Japan was permitted to retain troops in the Peiping and Tientsin area. The Secretary pointed out that the question of the Japanese troops in China was one in which there were many elements of trouble. American interests even had suffered severely from the actions of the Japanese forces and we had a long list of such in stances. The Secretary made mention of the great patience this Government had exercised in the presence of this situation. He said the situation was one in which the extremists seemed to be looking for trouble and he said that it was up to the Japanese Government to make an extra effort to take the situation by the collar. He said also that the United States and Japan had trusted each other in the past, that the present situation was one of Japan's own making and it was up to the Japanese Government to find some way of getting itself out of the difficulty in which it had placed itself. The Secretary went on to say that the situation was now exceptionally advantageous for Japan to put her factories to work in producing goods which are needed by peaceful countries if only the Japanese people could get war and invasion out of mind.

The Ambassador said that our conversations had been protracted and if the American Government could only give the Japanese some hope with regard to the situation it might be helpful. He added that our country was great and strong. The Secretary replied that our Government has not made any threats and he has exercised his influence throughout to deprecate bellicose utterances in this country. He added that the Japanese armed forces in China do not appear to realize whose territory they are in and. that the people in this country say that Hitler proposes to take charge of one-half of the world and Japan proposes to take charge of the other half and if they should succeed what would there be left for the United States? Mr. Kurusu suggested, that Japan would have to move gradually in China, that one step right lead to another and that what was important now was to do something to enable Japan to change its course. The Secretary asked what was in Mr. Kurusu's mind. In reply to a suggestion that it was felt in Japanese circles that we have been responsible for delay the Secretary pointed out that we could more rightly accuse the Japanese of delays, that he had met with the Japanese Ambassador promptly every time the latter had asked for a meeting and had discussed matters fully with him. The Secretary added that when Japan's movement into Indo-china in July took place this had caused an interruption of our conversations and it was then that the Secretary could no longer defend the continued shipments of petroleum products to Japan, especially as for the past year he had been under severe criticism in this country for not having cut off those shipments. Mr. Kurusu asked whether we wanted the status quo ante to be restored or what we expected Japan to do. The Secretary replied that if the Japanese could not do anything now on those three points?getting troops out of China, commercial policy and the Tripartite agreement-he could only leave to Japan what Japan could do. The Secretary said that it is our desire to see Japan help furnish a world leadership for a peaceful program and that he felt that Japan's long-swing interests were the same as our interests. The Ambassador said that he realized that our Government was suspicious of the Japanese Government but he wished to assure us that Japan wanted to settle the China affair notwithstanding the fact that Japan desired to keep a few troops in China for the time being. The Secretary then asked again what the Japanese had in mind. Mr. Kurusu said that it was Japan's intention to withdraw Japanese troops from French Indochina as soon as a just Pacific settlement should be reached and he pointed out that the Japanese Government took the Burma Road situation very seriously. The Secretary asked, if there should be a relaxation of freezing, to what extent would that enable Japan to adopt peaceful policies. He explained that what he had in mind was to enable the peaceful leaders in Japan to get control of the situation in Japan and to assert their influence. The Ambassador said that our position was unyielding and that it was Japan's unyielding attitude toward Chiang Kai-shek which had stiffened Chinese resistance against Japan. He asked whether there was any hope of a solution-some small beginning toward the realization of our high ideals. The Secretary replied that if we do not work out an agreement that the public trusts the arming of nations will go on; that the Japanese Government has a responsibility in the matter as it has created the conditions we are trying to deal with. The Ambassador then suggested the possibility of going back to the status which existed before the date in July when, following the Japanese move into southern French Indochina, our freezing measures were put into effect. The Secretary said that if we should make some modifications in our embargo on the strength of a step by Japan such as the Ambassador had mentioned we do not know whether the troops which have been withdrawn from French Indochina will be diverted to some equally objectionable movement elsewhere. The Ambassador said that what he had in mind was simply some move toward arresting the dangerous trend in our relations. The Secretary said that it would be difficult for him to get this Government to go a long way in removing the embargo unless this Government believed that Japan was definitely started on a peaceful course and had renounced purposes of conquest. The Ambassador said that the Japanese were tired of fighting China and that Japan would go as far as it could along a first step. The Secretary said that he would consult with the British and the Dutch to see what their attitude would be toward the suggestion offered by the Japanese Ambassador. In reply to a question by the Secretary the Ambassador replied that the Japanese Government. was still studying the questions of commercial policy involved in our proposal of November 15. He said he assumed that what we had in mind was a program for dealing with the situation after the war. The Secretary replied in the affirmative, so far as the full operation of a sound program is concerned, but added that it should now be agreed upon as to principles.

When asked by the Secretary as to when the Ambassador would like to confer with us again the Ambassador said that he would get in touch with his Government and would communicate to the Secretary through Mr. Ballantine.