Hungary: Communism vs Fascism??

The situation in Eastern Europe is a tricky one. They do not have time honoured political traditions, only vague memories thereof in some countries, not even that in others. The process of transition seems to be painful in all the former Eastern Bloc countries. Right now Hungary is the most turbulent. The unfortunate side of this turbulence is that a well-meaning, or maybe intentionally s*#t-stirring, person leaked a very short quote from a long speech of the prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, a speech that was meant to be kept behind closed doors, to be heard only by the prime minister's cabinet.

The present leadership is basically a left wing party that came to power some two years ago, promising a lot of liberal measures, improvements in all areas of life. Isn't that what the population is expecting now that they joined the United Europe? The problem is that when communism collapsed in these countries they were literally bancrupt. Any government that is elected there has two choices: either they keep some or all of their electoral promises and get the country into a deeper and deeper finaincial quagmire, or they apply temporary austerity measures until the country's financial standing improves and they are truly able to afford social improvements.

But to return to the present situation in Hungary let's see what happened there at the end of September. The leaked speech was made sometime in the summer, after a long session of discussions, plan proposals, etc., In his speech Gyurcsany decided to face his colleagues with an impassioned message saying: "Look guys, in the first two years of our power we basically lied to the people, lying to them day and night, leading them by the nose, promising them heaven with all its stars. We know it is impossible to go on like this. We have to get our act together, tighten the purse strings, do things right." So on and so on. The speech was about 20 minutes long. The quote that hit the media was this short section: "...we basically lied to the people, lying to them day and night, leading them by the nose...", end of quote! So what could all decent people do? They got upset, some of them taking to the street, demanding the immediate dissolution of the government and new elections. Unfortunately, as things often happen in such situations, things snowballed, unsavoury elements joined the demonstrations, causing all kinds of material damage, basically trying to create a good imitation of a popular uprising, a revolution. Except that such a thing is totally unwarranted in this instance.

The blame first of all lies with the person who fed the media the unfairly trunkated quote. We are all familiar with the power of first impressions in the media. People form an initial opinion and after that, no matter how many discussions take place with proper clarifications, dissections of the issue, most people will feel reluctant to rethink their original gut reaction and change their position. Not to speak of those who do not have the time or the educational wherewithal to really understand the whole issue.

Being very aware of this, the Hungarian opposition gleefully uses the opportunity to try and topple the government, hoping that they then can have a clean grab at the seats of power. Hungary's right has a charismatic populist leader in Viktor Orban. Good speaker, who can play the heartstrings of the simple people, who promises great reforms, prosperity. As the original street protests unfolded, he rose to the occasion, organized the proceedings, and as a result the almost daily demonstrations continue to this day, with the police force applying sometimes too little, sometimes too much force to keep the crowd under control, resulting in even more outrage from the part of the demonstrators.

So what would be a good solution? The government, including the acting opposition and all the other parties, acted according to the prevailing laws, and after assessing the situation they called for a vote of confidence> As a result, Gyurcsany was reinforced in his position. No new elections called, a move that the European community acknowledged with a sigh of relief. Why? Because constant elections and re-elections do not do a country any good. Let's just think of the case of Italy where changes of government have been so common in the last half a century that by now they are a yawn. But for them it is OK, the country goes about their business no matter what. It is another matter in these new democracies where institutions are not supported by a long history of routine procedures. In these countries people are inordinately suspicious of politicians, the average voter has no good methods yet of weighing the true merits of all the different parties, let alone the individual candidates (not as if the situation was so much better in the West). Hungary is not alone in the area as far as political problems are concerned. They have all kinds of problems in several of the neighbouring countries. In Poland they bent to the will of the people, they held new elections, which resulted in a wobbly coalition government that doesn't have the power to do nearly anything because of all the bickering. In the Czech Republic they also went ahead with new elections. The result: no government to speak of for months now.

Let us have a look at the possibilty of new elections in Hungary. The present ruling party and Gyurcsany, representing The Left, are in a way the heirs of the communist party of old. In spite of winning at the last election (because of those infamous promises) they have been eyed by the populace with a certain degree of suspicion from the start. Gyurcsany himself is under scrutiny for having become a wealthy man in a relatively short time, even though, as they say, "he has a communist past". This last remark, though, always makes me smile. Why? Well! He is fortyish. Communism fell 17 years ago. Do they accuse him for being a member of the communist youth organization? Who wasn't? Anyone who wanted to become a somebody, to have a good chance to get into university, had to be a member. That was the case all over in the Eastern Bloc countries, that is the case still today in Cuba, Dominican Republic, or any other country still under communist rule. I used to be a member! Does that mean that I was a communist? Are you kidding? Communism would not have toppled so easily if all those "party members" were actual communists. Plus, this party in Hungary absorbed the more moderate left wing Liberal movement, also.

Viktor Orban, as the other major contender in an eventual election, is not exactly the most savoury character a decent voter could vote for in good conscience. He is the representative of The Right, with its own baggage of irredentist historic idealogy. Not that there could be a danger of any ontoward action from the part of such a government within the European community, but even insensitive remarks can potentially cause problems.

So what would happen as a result of a new election? They could reelect Gyurcsany, whose government now has admitted to the planned austerity measures, like having to pay for medical services, drugs, university. On the other hand, the Right, if elected and then really sticking to their promises to the electorate, would just create a vicious cycle by further increasing the deficit.

There has been a tendency, specially so in the last week, to compare the events of today to the revolution in 1956. It is happening in the media, because it is a convenient parallel to draw while commemorating the 50th anniversary of that event. In the streets, people see it as an extension of the symbolism of those times. Yet, whatever is happening in that country right now is not a revolution, no matter how some people there would like us, and themselves, to believe that. The role of a revolution is to change the entire political system. The present system itself in Hungary is not in need to be changed, even the demosntrators in the streets would agree to that. Unfortunately those in the street do not realize that there are now other ways and places where situations like this can and should be resolved. Definitely not by confrontations with the police which is out there simply to restore order, to make sure that life is not upset in the capital to the point of an economic paralysis. Yet, the political right does not seem to be willing to give up this "street show" that seems to play so nicely into their court. Could they win in the end? Who knows... But it certainly would not be in interest of the country right now.

Hamas-Fatah standoff

Something is brewing in the Palestinian territories. For months we have been witnessing confrontations between the old guard, Fatah, and the acting Hamas government. What we see is just the top layer. There are major differences between the two movements. From here afar it is hard to tell them apart, yet for a long time analysts were talking about even a possible civil war between them.

President Mahmoud Abbas was in Jordan for the past week, trying to call an emergency meeting of the Fatah central committee, the goal of which would have been to find a solution for the standoff between Fatah and Hamas. Unfortunately news leaked somehow from Washingtom that the US allegedly pledged 42 million dollars for opponents of the Hamas regime. The timing made the meeting by Fatah suspect. They were technically forced to give up on it and return home. Whether the committee will have another go at it is to be seen. With or without the meeting, there are two options for Abbas: call an early election, or simply dissolve the government and form a temporary one until the next election.

Naturally, Hamas and their followers have been incensed by the leak. If Abbas makes the expected move and removes them from power, that would make them return to terrorism. This time, though, they would not only target Israel but American interests in the region, also. Jihadist tones are taking over in public speeches, in the mosques, in the streets. The Hamas movement has the following options: hit back and fight Fatah, which could mean civil war, or turn their anger against Israel and the West, in particular against the US.

Video tapes of 9/11 terrorists

A week ago UK's Sunday Times released five video tapes, altogether lasting about an hour, that were made at Al Qaeda headquarters. The most important aspect of these tapes is that one of them shows Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah, two of the 9/11 highjackers together in Afghanistan, and at one point apparently reading their martyrdom messages. The problem is that the tapes are silent and lip readers were unsuccessful to dicipher yet what was being said on them. But the two terrorists' mere presence is a chilling proof of their Al Qaeda connections.

Ahmadinejad’s absurd theory on the Jewish presence in Israel

Here is an article written by Bertrand Ramas-Muhlbach that uses a somewhat twisted tongue-in-cheek logic at the end but one that is definitely thought provoking. :)

-------------------

Ahmadinejad’s absurd theory on the Jewish presence in Israel
By Bertrand Ramas-Muhlbach

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to increase his comments about the illegitimacy of the State of Israel and the invention of the Holocaust as the reason for the pillage of Muslim territory. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presentation demonstrates perfect sophism, (I) but the Iranian president ought perhaps to mistrust his own logic because, taken at face value, it could justify an eviction (actually impossible) of the totality of the non Jewish population presently settled in Israel (II).

I ) The classic theme developed by fundamentalist Islamists is that of the need to rid itself of the Jewish “enclave implanted” on Muslim territory.

Thus, at the conference held in Teheran on October 26th, 2005, on the subject « A world rid of Zionism », Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called « wise » the proposal by Imam Khomeini who said (speaking of Israel) that « the regime of occupation should be wiped off the map».

To demonstrate the illegitimacy of the Jewish presence in Palestine, the Iranian president postulates that the arrival of the Jews to Palestine is based on a « lie » about an « imaginary massacre” of the Jews perpetrated during World War II.

This argument was repeated in his speech in November 2005 on the margin of the Summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OCI) in Mecca when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reaffirmed that the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis was a « legend ».

This declaration naturally earned him a condemnation from the United Nations Security Council.

Notwithstanding, the thesis was further developed on December 14th 2005 in Zahedan when he said that «The Westerners have invented the myth of the massacre of the Jews and are placing it above God, religions and prophets. ».

With this address, the Iranian president demonstrated his talents as a perfect orator.

To begin with, he subtly positioned his theory on religious grounds by alleging that the Western infidels had placed the lie above their highest transcendental values:

« If someone in their country insults God, no one says anything to him ; but if someone denies the myth massacre of the Jews, the Zionist spokespeople and the governments on the Zionist payroll begin to vociferate».

In doing so he comforts his audience, acquired from Islam, because in Western society, which he judges to be decadent and dehumanized, it is possible to doubt the existence of God but not the « lie of the Zionists about the massacre of the Jews from 1939-1945 “.

Furthermore, the sequence of the concepts predicated demonstrates not only that the Jews are "liars and traitors", but also begs the question « why the Palestinians have to pay the price for the imaginary massacre of the Jews »:

«If you say that you have massacred and burned six million Jews during World War II, if you have really committed this massacre, why is it the Palestinians who have to pay the price? Why create a false Zionist government ?».

The Iranian president can then make proposals about an acceptable settlement of Jews in another part of the world.

«Our proposal is the following: give them a piece of your land in Europe, in the United States, Canada or Alaska so that the Jews can create their state. And be sure that is you do this, the Iranian people will no longer protest against you and will support your decision», (declaration made on 14/12/2005)

These statements became a lament of Holocaust denial in February 2006 in the Karlsruhe federal park (punishable in Germany with 5 years imprisonment) and since then, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not stopped outdoing himself.

Thus, at the time of the war fought by Israel against Hezbollah in July 2006, he compared Israel to Nazi Germany : "Their methods are like those of Hitler. When Hitler wanted to launch an attack, he also invented an excuse» before concluding: «the Zionists say they were Hitler’s victims, but they are of the same nature as him».

And it is once again this intellectual construction (in ever more subtle nuances) which was again picked up by the Iranian president at the UN General Assembly on September 19, 2006, when he said once again that :
- Palestine was conquered with the pretext of sheltering part of the survivors of World War II,
- Afterwards, many people who had not been affected by the war were taken to Palestine (the Zionists)
- this occupation of Palestine is a tragedy that constitutes a threat to the Middle East
- and that this tragedy has not been solved by the creation of a regime on land that belongs to others.

The Iranian president, brilliant orator, nevertheless naively asked the UN General Assembly «why the Holocaust is used by the Jews as a justification for the occupation of Palestine ».

This evidences a lack of sophistry, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ought to mistrust the principle according to which an illegitimate conqueror must leave the land it has taken.

In fact, this principle could justify a departure from Israel for all the non-Jewish population there, since they are the descendants of foreign invaders.

II ) THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ILLEGITIMATE FOREIGN CONQUEROR

For Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the reasoning is simple, the Jews are only occupiers without title, who came to steal the land of the Palestinians who must, because of their states as conquerors, return towards another part of the word that the international community would choose for them.

The statements of the Iranian president have naturally sparked off anxiety, stupefaction, indignation and disgust, but it might be of interest to pay attention to the arguments he uses.

If, in fact, the Iranian president were right, this would mean that a population, by the mere fact of its conquering status (or as descendants of conquerors) should leave the country upon which it has established itself.

The solution could be, finally found for Israel and for the Palestinian problem in the measure that the populations of Palestinian origin that remain in Israel or, more broadly, in the Middle East, should immediately leave their places of residence due to their situation as «descendants of foreign invaders ».

First of all, the name of « Palestinians » which the Palestinians give themselves, justifies their eviction because it was given to the region by the Roman Emperor (and invader) Hadrian in 135 of the Common Era.

If the Palestinians recognize themselves through the name of this Roman invader, they are perhaps direct descendants.

If such should be the case, and following Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s logic, surely it would make sense to send the parties to Italy.

Their origin may, however, be more recent.

If they are the descendants of the Arab invaders who, after taking Damascus in 635, saw themselves took over Syria and Palestine in 636, it would make more sense to send them to Saudi Arabia.

It is also possible that the Palestinians are the descendants of Crusaders who in 1099 came to establish the Latin Kingdom in Jerusalem in 1100. In that case, the conditions of their return are slightly complicated in so far as, before their departure, one would have to study their genealogy in order to get to know the probable European provenance of their ancestors.

In so far as they are « Palestinians » whose ancestors trace their origins to 1516, date of the dominion of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey could well be their next destination.

Finally, for those Palestinians who settled during the time of the British Mandate, a return to the United Kingdom could be highly recommended.

Will there be any cases of Palestinians for whom one cannot find the origin of « conquering invaders » implying that their ancestors were really born in this part of the world?

For these last, the solution is to be found thanks to the thesis of Tsvi Misinai who, in his work « Incredible but True », has highlighted that a section of the Palestinians come from the Jewish people, descendants of the Hebrew tribes and the Moabites and Edomites converted to Judaism by King David before being converted by force to Islam.

For these last, and taking into account their Jewish origins before their forced conversion to Islam, it would be possible to envision a conversion to Judaism which would constitute not a geographic return, but a veritable “teshuva”, that is, a spiritual return.

Thanks to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Palestinian problem would be finally solved because in this part of the world, there would only remain descendants of 2,000 year old Jewish populations which would have remained on this territory.

These last could, with the authorization of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, invite the members of their families dispersed throughout the world for the past 2,000 years to join them and the Iranian president would never again be considered a menace to Israel but rather as one of the greatest Zionists of all times, earning eternal recognition from the Jewish people who had never imagined such an opportunity.

We are not there yet, but, while we wait, let us admit that by wanting to erase Israel from the map, the Iranian president joins the ranks of those rare Arab heads of state who recognize that Israel is fine on the world map.

---------------------

It is an interesting idea but at the same time a totally impossible one, since by Islamic law one is not allowed to convert AWAY from Islam. If you do so, you are an open target for anyone to eliminate you. Which then again would allow all Muslims to go after all those "returning Jews"...

Putin's attempt to intimidate Georgia

Interesting developments in a spy story!

Tensions developed between Russia and Georgia when four Russian soldiers were arrested for allegedly spying on the Georgian military. Russia's reaction was swift and draconian. They recalled the ambassador from Tbilisi. This was followed by an economical embargo on Georgia, and even military action was hinted at. Georgian owned restaurants, a casino and entertainment complex in Moscow were shut down, claiming that the owners were "criminal bosses". Residents in some parts of Moscow were ordered to report to the police. Even the Georgian cultural centre was searched.

Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili was quick to respond with conciliatory words, even releasing the soldiers on Monday. Yet the anti-Georgian campaign continues. Russian parliament is considering limiting bank transfers to Georgia, people with double citizenship may not work in state service any more, and Georgian children will not be allowed any more in schools set up for and by the Russian military in Georgia.

Is there something more behind the tensions than just the "spies"? Or it is just a scapegoating reaction to an act viewed as public humiliation, since Saakashvili turned to the West diplomatically instead of towards Moscow. Russia's reactions are disproportionately insane, though, and it would be appropriate for the other G-8 coutries to let them know so!

Islamic intimidation

On September 19, 2006, a French professor of philosophy, Robert Redeker, wrote an article about the growing number of threats and violence perpetrated by Muslims in France and all over Europe. The title of the article is: "In the face of Islamic intimidations, what should the free world do?" In it he accused Islam of “exalting violence.” The response was the kind of response that we are starting to get used to: "How dare anyone accuse Islam of being violent? Off with their heads!"

Although a good topic for a cartoon, this is no laughing matter. Robert Redeker has a fatwa on his head, he has received death threats, is now in hiding, under constant police protection. The chief editor of Le Figaro had to appear on Al Jazeera, publicly apologizing for the article, just to save his own head. And all this because of a newspaper article written by a Frenchman is his own country, now hunted in his own country...

And Muslim outrage goes on! Do you remember the Pope's speech at the University of Regensburg, with the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manual II Paleologus? He also caved in to the Islamists and made an apology... well, sort of... It was not enough. An elderly Catholic nun, Sister Leonella Sgorbati, helping the poor in Mogadishu, was murdered in response to the war cries that gushed forth from the Muslim media.