Category Archives: Foreign Policy

When a disastrous 7.8 magnitude earthquake recently struck southern Turkey and Syria, a number of countries sent search and rescue teams, medical personnel, and emergency supplies. Among the first to do so was Israel.

Israel’s rush to offer aid to those two countries may strike some as puzzling.  Syria has never recognized the State of Israel, and in fact considers itself in a state of war against it. Not surprisingly, the Syrian government quickly rejected Israel’s offer.

Israel’s relations with Turkey are more complicated. In 2011, following the Gaza flotilla incident, Turkey expelled Israel’s ambassador. In 2013, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan called Zionism “a crime against humanity.”  In 2018, Turkey expelled Israel’s ambassador again, this time following protests in Gaza over the U.S. opening of its embassy in Jerusalem. Relations have warmed considerably since then, and the two countries announced the restoration of full diplomatic relations last August. But Turkey continues to openly support Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and has hosted its delegations in 2019 and 2020.

Why does Israel rush to offer aid to countries whose policies are hostile to it?

Wars are unpredictable affairs. Experts can evaluate troop strength and weaponry. But morale and courage do not lend themselves to quantifiable analysis. Nor does leadership. No one can predict when a former KGB agent will become psychotic, or when a former comic will mutate from a Charlie Chaplin to a Winston Churchill.

But allowing for the uncertainty, it now appears likely that Russia will lose its war against Ukraine.

Russian forces are running out of supplies. There are reports of hungry Russian soldiers looting supermarkets and gas stations, desperately seeking food and fuel. Russian rations have been found bearing 2002 expiration dates, evidence of corruption within Russia’s military bureaucracy. That 40-mile convoy of armored vehicles, the subject of much speculation, has been stalled outside the capital for days, apparently unable to move. The reason may relate, again, to corruption. Reportedly, government officials bought cheap Chinese imitations of the Michelin XZL military tire, and the shoddy merchandise is failing, as counterfeits are wont to do.

Cable television maps show expanding Russian penetration into the country. But appearances are deceiving. Ukraine is very large, and the Ukrainian defense forces are trading territory for time. The further the Russians advance, the longer and more vulnerable their supply lines become. So while they may occupy more space, they are unable to capture many cities.

Moreover, it is not clear whether capturing cities represents any kind of victory. Russians troops may blast their way in, but once in, they lack the manpower to control. In the southern city of Kherson, military units were greeted by defiant crowds, jeering and calling them “fascists.” In one video, a local resident can be seen climbing up on a Russian armored personnel carrier, triumphantly waving the Ukrainian flag while local citizens cheer. From the video, it is hard to tell who has conquered whom.

Russia has now committed all of the personnel mobilized for the invasion. There are no remaining reserves. Russian casualties are much higher than expected. Ukrainian military officials recently claimed the figure exceeds 11,000, while Russia put the figure at a much lower 498. Both figures may be dismissed as propaganda, but the actual number doesn’t really matter. What matters is that Russia has become so desperate for manpower that it is hiring Chechens, and offering large cash payments to Syrians, to fight in Ukraine.

The bombing of civilian targets, however inhumane, is another sign of weakness, not strength. Putin and his commanders would not be unleashing this misery if they thought they were winning. Instead, they would be preparing to install a puppet government to rule a sullen and subdued populace. Bombing civilians just stiffens Ukrainian resolve. It is the military equivalent of a childish temper tantrum, and further evidence that Russia is losing.

Anything can happen. But in view of what is happening so far, it may be time to start planning for Russia’s defeat. And that planning should begin with this somewhat counter-intuitive realization: historically, Russia and the United States have been friends, not enemies.

As fighting flares in the Middle East, many in the American media establishment and commentariat  have adopted the familiar crouch position known as “equivalency.” The New York Times, for example, faithfully includes both sides’ latest casualty figures, and carefully juxtaposes photos of bombing damage in Gaza with rocket damage in Israel — as if efforts to kill civilians are equivalent to retaliatory efforts to prevent the killing of those civilians.

In that same newspaper, Hamas terrorists are never called “terrorists” because that would undermine the equivalency narrative. Instead, the terrorists are called “militants” –to distinguish them, one supposes, from the imaginary Hamas “moderates.”

The problem with equivalency is not that it adds extraneous information to the mix. Arab lives do matter. Destruction in Gaza is newsworthy. It is proper to report on those subjects.

Rather, the problem with equivalency is that it doesn’t report enough information. It provides no perspective. It doesn’t tell the reader anything about the actors, other than their respective suffering. It would be acceptable for media outlets to present both sides’ casualty figures, and both sides’ property damage — IF those outlets also presented both sides’ values, motives, and aims.

But they do not.

Fortunately, that information is readily available. One need not guess or argue about it because it is there, in the parties’ own words.

President Joe Biden came into office promising to unify the country. So far, unity has proved elusive. On confirmations, immigration policy, Iran, and countless other issues, the parties seem as combative and disunited as ever.

But if unity is elusive, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It’s just a matter of finding issues on which both parties can unite.

Here is one: Freeing Dr. Shakil Afridi.

His is not exactly a household name. But it should be. Millions of Americans who watched the 2012 Academy Award winning Zero Dark Thirty caught a glimpse of a Pakistani doctor who set up a polio vaccination program in an effort to secure DNA samples from the residents of the compound which the CIA suspected housed Usama Bin Laden. That character, unnamed in the movie, is based on Dr. Afridi.

Last month, hours before the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn the United States for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Ambassador Nikki Haley said: “I’ve often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member of this body.” An interesting question. But a better question would have been: Why has the United States chosen to remain a member of that body?

It is easy to understand why the United States joined originally. The UN emerged from the World War II alliance formed to combat the Axis Powers.  On January 1, 1942, three weeks after Pearl Harbor, the United States and 25 other nations signed the “Declaration of the United Nations,” pledging to commit their full military and economic resources to defeat Germany and Japan.  During the war, 20 additional countries signed the Declaration. These 46 countries were invited to attend the San Francisco Conference in 1945, which formally established the organization.

We are now three generations removed from that genesis. During those years, the UN has metamorphosed from its original mission as a bulwark against dictatorships to a safe harbor for them. According to Freedom House, only 45% of the members of the General Assembly are full-fledged democracies. The rest range from repressive authoritarian regimes such as Russia, Iran, and China, to full blown prison camps like North Korea.

If the United States were not already a member, would it make sense for it to join the UN in its present form? Continue reading →