David Calling

The David Pryce-Jones blog.

Germany vs. Russia in Cyprus


It’s Germany versus Russia again. The fate of Cyprus might seem a small matter but it is bringing on another round in that age-old struggle between the giants of the continent of Europe that has brought so much death and destruction. Cyprus is bankrupt in all but name, with debts it can never repay. The local banks have shut their doors and some may never open again. A member of the euro zone, the island scrapped its native currency, the Cyprus pound. Now it turns to Germany to bail it out. Germany could do so without much strain. Even back in Soviet days, Russians could enter Cyprus freely, without the visas other countries demanded. So first Communists and then Yeltsin oligarchs used Cyprus to launder their stolen billions. Suitcases of dollars came in. So Russians are the main depositors in Cypriot banks, and if Germany were to bail out such people Mrs. Merkel, the Chancellor, would almost certainly lose the next election.

In a difficult position, Mrs. Merkel agreed to a bail-out on condition the Cypriots also pay. She imposed the confiscation of up to 10 percent of all deposits, on small accounts and on Russian accounts too.

Simple robbery by government is not good policy. Desperate to have their money, Cypriots are rioting. That’s only the half of it. A Cyprus delegation is negotiating in Moscow a possible bail-out by Russia, and suddenly a geo-political crisis emerges. Russia could pay the missing billions in return for rights to gas deposits in Cyprus waters that are ready to be exploited. These gas fields are next to Israeli fields about to be exploited. The first Russian fleet in the Mediterranean was in the 1770s and the Russians have been trying to establish naval bases there ever since. It didn’t work out in Egypt, nor in Algeria, and they are almost certainly about to be forced out of their base at Tartus in Syria. Cyprus would be a splendid alternative.

The British garrisons could be made to leave, Russia could extend its powers of domination through control of energy, and at last secure a permanent presence in warm waters.

The European Union was designed to prevent national rivalries. Critics have always warned that it would in fact regenerate them by putting the strong in a position to bully the weak. So it proves. Mrs. Merkel no doubt meant well, but victimized and enraged Cypriots compare her to Hitler. She obliges them either to submit to robbery by government or to rebel, much as Hitler forced similar pre-war predicaments on Poles and Czechs. What a precedent!

Stealing from Cypriot Depositors


The Great Men and Geniuses in charge of the European Union have sprung one of their astonishing surprises. This involves stealing money officially, to call it by its proper name, what’s more stealing from people in Cyprus who are mostly not well off. Cyprus is the latest EU member to be bankrupt and in urgent need of a bail-out. Depositors in Cypriot banks had been assured that the money in their accounts was safe, guaranteed. That turns out to have been a lie. Depositors will have from 6.75 percent up to 9.99 percent confiscated from their accounts. The measure does not spare anyone, not even pensioners. The big holdings belong to Russian oligarchs, and they know how to take care of themselves, treating Cyprus as an outdoor safety deposit box.

Tacitly acknowledging the injustice, the British government has stepped forward to reimburse British soldiers and support staff garrisoned there.

This is not the first official stealing of the kind. Italy did not meet the requirements to join the euro, and covered its fudging by taking without warning a percentage from deposit accounts. There may well be little money left in countries already bankrupt, but now there is the risk of a run on the banks in Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, and even France, all of whom are as dodgy economically as Cyprus. Any thoughtful person with a bank deposit in those countries will do whatever can be done to empty it.

Germany is the driving force behind this measure, partly to avoid having itself to pay for Cypriot profligacy but also in the belief that it’s salutary for people to go through some collective suffering for the debts accumulated in their name. To lie to the people and to rob them is to break the trust on which the democratic social contract rests. If such arrogance and folly do not end in throwing out the Great Men and Geniuses who have assumed power over them, then Europeans will show that they have been well and truly broken.


Iraq, Ten Years Later: Breast-Beating and Guilt


Swathes of public opinion have come to believe that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein ten years ago was a crime. Or to quote the old mischief-maker Talleyrand summing up one of Napoleon’s decisions, worse than a crime, a mistake. Guilt about the doings of the West is an inverted assertion of Western superiority and power, which is why the public so love it — we are the agents, others are the patients. The breast-beating enfolds self-congratulation. Attaching to George W. Bush, this false kind of guilt helped put Barack Obama in the White House, and has made Tony Blair so unpopular that he hardly dares show his face in Britain. An official by the name of Sir John Chilcot is chairman of a committee due to report on the Iraqi invasion, and the expectation is that this will expose Blair’s frivolity, war-mongering, and subservience to Bush.

Certainly the cost to the Allies in blood and treasure was high. It’s unproven, but as many as 100,000 Iraqis may have lost their lives.

Undoubtedly it was a mistake after the military campaign to take on the administration of Iraq. The Allies lacked knowledge of that complex society. At the time I was recommending Ahmad Chalabi to play the General de Gaulle role. I still think he would have been better than the Garners and Bremers who were shaken out of Uncle Sam’s sleeves, and just as good as Nour Maliki, today’s prime minister. When Maliki asked for the unconditional withdrawal of American troops, Obama made no attempt to negotiate. This was another mistake, real and mysterious. A permanent garrison in the country of U.S. troops would have kept the peace if need be, and remained to throw a shadow over Syria, Iran, and Pakistan.

The Sunday Telegraph devotes its recent issue to breast-beating and guilt. Commanding officers complain that Blair left them no time to train or to equip properly. Someone called Mark Etherington writes that he and a single American were left quite alone and without policy instructions in charge of a province with almost a million inhabitants.

“We must tell the truth: Britain was humiliated” is a heading that runs across two pages. In another two-page spread, Sir Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador in Washington in the run-up to the campaign, depicts Blair as a man with no will of his own but “evangelical” in worshipping Bush. Coincidentally, former socialist foreign secretary David Miliband thinks that Bush was the worst thing that ever happened to Blair. Neither of them a Talleyrand, Meyer and Miliband are maestros of self-promotion through guilt.

Maliki is proving uncomfortably authoritarian but he not a killer like Saddam. A political process, however imperfect, exists in Iraq, and that is Bush’s doing. Here was a first chance to settle conflicts of interest without violence, and the Arab Spring at the outset built on that. All European countries including Britain have long since dispensed with a foreign policy worthy of the name, and are powerless even to stop immigration reaching danger levels. Blair was another prime minister unable to stop the rot, but at least he appreciated that support of the United States is also the defense of Europe.

The Syrian rebels are Sunnis in the process of wresting power from the Alawites and shiite Iran behind them. A sunni, Saddam would be aiding the rebels in whatever ways he could. Men and weapons are smuggled across the Syrian-Iraqi border. Iraqi sunnis have already killed Syrian loyalists who had entered the country. It is a blessing for everyone that Bush has made sure that Saddam is not here to exploit and extend this ghastly war.

Beppe Grillo: History Repeating Itself as Farce


One of Benito Mussolini’s better quips was that anyone could govern Italy but it is pointless to do so. And that’s where Italy is today. At the outcome of the general election, the Left and the Right, respectively under an old Communist Pier Luigi Bersani and an old corner-cutter Silvio Berlusconi, are about equal in numbers and equally unable to form a government. Into this political vacuum comes Beppe Grillo. The Five Star Movement is his flash-in-the pan party, and it looks like having some 160 members in the parliament, one of them a 25-year-old postgraduate student who may become the speaker. Swearing not to join a coalition, Grillo is instead institutionalizing instability.

In his sixties, Grillo is a stand-up comedian by profession, and he has disordered white locks, Arafat stubble on his cheeks, and dark glasses, type-casting himself as an ageing hippy. Some of his quips are funny, as were Mussolini’s, but the outlook is too desperate to leave it at that. Italy has a debt of two trillion euros, the highest in the euro zone after Greece. This year alone, Italy has to borrow 420 billion euros to service this debt. The common currency has made the country uncompetitive. In the last decade the economy has shrunk 10 percent and is still shrinking. Youth unemployment is 37 percent. For the politicians who created this horrible mess, Grillo proposes “Tutti a casa,” or send them home. The next recommended step is for Italy to break with the euro and return to its own currency.

“Combinazioni” is the brilliant Italian term for finding all-purpose ways through dead-ends, and maybe in the end Grillo will do deals like the others. And maybe his mind-set will prevent him. A comic, he’s also a nutter who has taken anti-Semitism on board and spews full-time hatred of Jews. Israelis, he believes, are using a translation service called Memri to conspire against Arabs. To him, Iran is a lovely pacifist country, traduced by Zionists. Hitler, he has said, was eliminating Jewish financial dictatorship.

Between the world wars, democracy failed throughout continental Europe, to be replaced by elementary fascism. It’s often quoted that history repeats itself as farce, so it’s quite perfect that Grillo should be a professional comedian. Inept, limited but too vain to acknowledge their limitations, the politicians of Europe have created the political space for the new digital-age fascism. We can’t guess how great the collapse is going to be, but the folly of those responsible for leaving us in this position is hallucinating.

An Open Book





One of the unexpected bonuses of having to do with print is the books that arrive unsolicited.  An advance copy of Distant Intimacy from the Yale University Press has just taken me by surprise.  Frederic Raphael and Joseph Epstein have been exchanging e-mails over the course of a year, the former in London, the latter in Chicago.  I can’t think of a better snapshot of the cultural landscape of today’s English-speaking world.  The mix of humor, regret, praise, and sniping is to be found nowhere else that I know of.

Both have a lifetime’s experience of this landscape on which to draw.  Epstein was editor of The American Scholar for 23 years, he’s published a great deal in every sort of outlet.  Raphael is the author of many novels, film scripts, a huge range of journalism, with classical studies including a book out a few weeks ago about Flavius Josephus, the Jewish soldier who threw his lot in with the Romans and turned historian.  They belong to the old school but are well able to navigate today’s shallows.   Gossip is one benefit that comes with experience like theirs, offering comic insight into Harold Pinter, George Steiner, Vladimir Nabokov, and a hundred others of their likes and dislikes. “I’m not a passionate admirer of Isaiah Berlin,” Raphael opens up , to go on, “Had he been a washbasin, Isaiah would have only one tap and it would’ve been tepid.” One of his best cracks is about Jean-Paul Sartre: “Maoism was his Viagra.”  Epstein commemorates the great Ed Shils and his falling-out with Saul Bellow.  If Bellow was to spend two hours on the lap of the Queen of England, Shils boiled it down, he’d have two observations, that the Queen had no understanding of the condition of the modern artist, and that she was an anti-Semite. Shils it was who improved on goyim, the Yiddish word for non-Jews, by calling another minority gayim.

You enjoy the book, I can hear the accusation, because these two are your friends and under the panache of with-it prose they’re a couple of old-style conservatives.  Raphael is indeed a friend and I hope one day to meet Epstein.  The poet Dom Moraes was a prodigy, India’s answer to Arthur Rimbaud, and I once said to him that I never wrote about books by friends.  Oh, he said, I only write about books by friends.  Literary reputations on both sides of the Atlantic are bringing me round to that point of view.


The Strange Story of Ben Zygier


The story of Ben Zygier, emerging in dribs and drabs, is as absorbing as it is strange. He was a young Australian who emigrated to Israel. There he had passports in names other than his, and not all identifiable as Jewish or Israeli. Mossad, I presume. When a team of Mossad agents went into Dubai in January 2010 and assassinated Mahmoud al-Mabhoud, the man responsible for arming Hamas, some of them were using Australian passports. Was Zygier somehow involved in that? What we know is that in December 2010 he was found hanged in a prison cell in Israel. Not any old cell either, but one of maximum security built to keep in solitary confinement the young man who shot Yitzhak Rabin dead. What was the accusation? Nothing is known so far about a trial, or a sentence. According to reports, Zygier’s warders did not even know his name.

One theory with currency is that on some trip back to Australia he informed agents there about Mossad’s use of Australian passports. They must have found that out anyhow, and the tip-off, if tip-off it was, hardly seems a reason for putting Zygier away in a maximum-security jail, and even less reason for Zygier to hang himself. Bob Carr, the Australian Foreign Minister, tilts more towards the Palestinians than the Israelis, and he is making mileage out of this business. Prime Minister Netanyahu has let drop some cryptic words about the necessity to keep state secrets under wraps.

Naturally I have no idea of the reality, but the sole frightful treason that Zygier could have committed would be to inform the Iranians of measures to be taken against them. Discovery might be enough to prompt his superiors to put him away in that maximum security jail. Realization of what he had done might have been enough to push him to hang himself. There is bound to be speculation that Mossad will have murdered him. From what I know of Israel, that is inconceivable. I cannot help feeling that Zygier’s fate will prove like a large rock rolling down a mountain, gathering pace and crushing whoever and whatever it hits at the bottom.

Breaking a Taboo in the Arab World



Last October, someone by the name of Abdullatif al-Mulhim wrote an article that broke a taboo. He told fellow Arabs something they are never allowed to hear, that their wars against Israel have only harmed themselves. Hostility towards Israel is almost sacrosanct in Arab countries, and learned men on public platforms solemnly assert that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs. It is dangerous to keep people in ignorance like this. The real enemies of the Arabs, Mulhim spells out, are corruption, lack of good education and health care, and so lack of respect for human life. Arab dictators, he goes on, have committed atrocities against their own people far worse than all the full-scale Arab-Israeli wars. What decided him to write like this was starvation, killing, and destruction in one or another Arab country. The final clincher is that Palestinians in Israel or under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza are happier and in a better situation than their Arab brothers who came to liberate them.

I know nothing about Mulhim except that he is described as a retired officer of the Saudi navy. And now Amal al-Hazzani publishes two articles with similar observations. She is Assistant Professor of Molecular Genetics at King Saud University in Riyadh with quite a list of contributions to professional journals to her credit. In Israel, she writes, “politicians are distinguished by their sincerity and devotion to the higher interests of the state.” Arabs listen to the cheap words of poets and politicians who heap insults on Israel from their luxurious hotel rooms. They are still unaware where, why, and how their feelings of hate towards Israel come about. While they have sunk into hating, the Israelis have built eight public universities and 200 museums and become a rival to America in the programming and software industry. Israelis have got where they are by intelligence, or as she explains, by learning Arabic and studying the culture of Arabs. Her admiration for these achievements is clear.

The Middle East is exploding and the explanation for these articles may lie in the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, that is to say Sunni versus Shiite, or Arab versus Persian. The Saudis are frightened of the imminent finalization of an Iranian nuclear bomb and they see President Obama as weak, variable, more likely to surrender rather than use military measures to stop the nuclear threat. Israel would certainly take military measures and so there is a coincidence of interests. The Arab press is controlled, and it may be that the ground is being prepared for welcoming a strike. As far as I know, neither has been pressured by authorities, let alone punished. Both of these writers may also be free spirits with the courage of their opinions. If ever the word gets out to the masses that hatred of Israel is irrational and counterproductive then there will be a repeat of perestroika and the Arab Spring will become a reality.

The Demonization of Jews by the British Establishment


Gerald Scarfe is the main cartoonist of the Sunday Times of London, and that newspaper sells over a million copies and is addressed to educated people. The latest cartoon is a caricature of Benjamin Netanyahu, looking murderous, holding a bloody trowel with which he is building a wall. The body parts and tortured faces of Palestinian men and women are depicted in this wall. The caption reads, “Israeli elections. Will Cementing Peace Continue?”

A Liberal Democrat member of parliament by the name of David Ward coincidentally issues a statement accusing Jews “within a few years of liberation from the death camps” of “inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new state of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.”

The Sunday Times and the Liberal Democrat party aren’t sets of mindless street brawlers like the pre-war British fascists but defining components of the Establishment. For years, the media have been misrepresenting the Palestinians as blameless underdogs who want nothing but peace and never do anything that might drive Jews to defend themselves. Scarfe and Ward evidently believe that their demonization of Jews is neither shocking nor repulsive but a rightful and heart-felt expression of public opinion. So liberals and leftists easily finish up as storm-troopers after all.

Great Britain to Exit the EU?


For years now, I have experienced the strange sense of living in a Britain that is abandoning its identity, and might even disintegrate. The country is the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. Educated and creative people are all around. The proposition that others had to govern us has always been incomprehensible. Did the British lose an empire only to be incorporated in someone else’s empire?

Part of the strangeness was that Conservative prime ministers advocated this surrender. Mrs. Thatcher, a patriot, resisted only when she was out of office. Apparently the Conservative party could not stand up for its beliefs and would let itself be destroyed. David Cameron has at last made a speech to the contrary. It is not the Churchillian speech required by the circumstances, but a good speech none the less. He claims — I imagine masking the truth — to want the country to stay in the European Union. He proposes to negotiate over the next four years — repeat four — for terms that allow for membership and independence. Then a referendum in 2017 will decide whether Britain is to stay in or get out. One of the many fools who populate the Obama administration instantly spouted that the United States wants Britain to stay in, apparently unaware that in this course of action America’s most reliable ally would become a small part of a bloc designed to stand against America. The polls gave Cameron a boost. A large unanswered question is what he will do if the Europeans refuse to negotiate. It’s been a long decline, and Cameron can be accused of playing for more time, but the first irreversible step has been taken, and Britain at last looks likely to leave the EU and recover itself.

Coincidental with Cameron’s speech, someone called Neelie Kroes illustrated why Britain must have nothing to do with the EU. Not one in a hundred thousand Brits have heard of this Dutch lady, who occupies the grand position of vice president of the European Commission (the body akin to a civil service, unelected, but giving the orders). She commissioned a report that recommends EU control of the media in every country: watchdogs, fines, permanent banning of journalists, all to ensure that standards “comply with European values.” The blood freezes.

On a different note, the death of Robert Kee reminds me of something he used to tell. Robert was a television personality, a novelist and historian of Irish troubles. A pilot in the war, he had been shot down, captured and finished up in a prisoner-of-war camp some miles outside Dresden. In February 1945, Stalin requested the bombing of Dresden to prevent German reinforcements coming through to the eastern front. The British consented, and are sometimes accused of committing a war crime. Robert in his camp could see the night sky illuminated by flames, and he and the other prisoners cheered and sang the national anthem.

They Never Would Be Slaves?


Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin are Christians who have had their lives made miserable for their faith. Nadia Eweida wore a silver cross on a chain round her neck, until her employers, British Airways, suspended her for it. Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, for 30 years had a crucifix on a necklace over her uniform, and the management of the Royal Devon National Health Hospital ordered her to remove it, on the absurd grounds of health and safety. A patient, they said, might have an accident pulling it. At the same moment, Gary McFarlane, a marriage counselor, and Lillian Ladele, a registrar, have also given offence on account of their Christian conscience. Neither had any objection to homosexuality as such, but Mr. McFarlane asked to be excused from counseling same-sex couples, and Miss Ladele from marrying them. Both were fired.

Legal proceedings finished in front of seven judges, none of them British, in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This court found in favor only of Miss Eweida; BA had interfered with her right to express her religion. Rejecting the claims of the three other defendants, the court is giving priority to political correctness over freedom of religious conscience.

Many sad aspects come together. The childish conformity of those taking these decisions to ban religious symbolism on behalf of BA and that Royal Devon hospital is unimaginable. One prejudice is being utilized to suppress another prejudice. Freedom of worship is compromised. Christianity is further marginalized. Not a single churchman has come forward to defend these Christians, or if there is one, then he is doing it so discreetly that the mainstream media do not report him. Saddest of all, foreign judges now decide the behavior and beliefs of British people. Those same British people once used to sing that they never never never would be slaves.

The Mess in Mali


Failed states are common these days, and the latest of them is Mali. Most of it is the Sahara desert, awesome and beautiful in its way but not productive. When I was there, the British taxpayer had just made a gift to the Malians of 250 Land Rovers. Vandalized as soon as they were unloaded, 250 unusable carcasses filled a derelict lot. After the desert came miles and miles of sandy scrub, with here and there villages too remote to be in touch with each other. The villagers had open sores due to diet deficiencies which should have been easy and cheap to remedy.

Nomads, the Tuaregs are different from the villagers. They have their own language, too recently codified to have a literature yet. The men are tall, turbaned and often veiled, and nobody is allowed to see Tuareg women. There’s not much to be done locally except camel-herding, so Tuaregs enrolled as mercenaries in Libya. Some seem to have been with Qaddhafi to the end. Returning embittered to Mali, they staged a coup, drove out the president and declared the Tuareg state of Azawad.

It’s none too clear how al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, AQIM for short, got into the act, but they did. So did affiliates and rival groups, all of whom are now struggling for power in a free-for-all of Islamists and war-lords. Reports describe public executions and floggings, and the destruction, Taliban-style, of historic mosques and mausoleums built of hardened mud bricks for Sufis, that is to say the wrong kind of Muslims. On my journey towards Gao and Timbuktoo in old days, I stopped in the desert to search for the battlefield where the Moroccan sultan had conquered the Songhrai emperor in the fifteenth century. Out of nowhere, the police arrived and stuck a parking ticket on our Land Rover, with a penalty larger than the one current in London. Three days of negotiation followed with the police chief, the chef de gendarmerie.

Mali now is like Somalia, Afghanistan, or Yemen, a mess that nobody has any practical ideas for cleaning up. The African neighbors know the danger. Nigeria is already bedeviled by the Islamist fanatics of a movement called Boko Haram. The United Nations, France, the Obama administration, occasionally chatter in a way that proves their lack of resolve and inability to get to grips. Another part of the landscape is disappearing, as it looks as though nobody yet is likely to give even a parking ticket to AQIM and the Islamists.



Georgetown University in Washington some years ago accepted an endowment of $20 million from a rich Saudi to found what is known as the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. More properly, it should be renamed the Center for Misleading Christians about Islam. This is the work of its long-term director, Professor John Esposito. On every available platform, in books and lectures and debates, he masks the violent reality of the Arab and Muslim world as progressive and peace-loving. Hamas, the missile-firing terrorists in Gaza, for instance to him is, “a community-focused group that engages in honey, cheese-making and home-based clothing manufacture.” The Center is carrying on the tradition of the old Soviet front organizations whose aim was deliberate disinformation. This Christmas, the police in Saudi Arabia entered the house of a diplomat, unnamed but said to be Asian, and arrested 41 people for intending to hold a Christian service. That’s the sort of Muslim-Christian Understanding the Saudis actually go in for, and the Georgetown Center then fictionalizes.

* * * * *

The local weekly in the part of Wales where I live is the Brecon and Radnor Gazette. Good people, mostly farmers, read it for the advertisements of second-hand cars and tractors, or reports of sports and sheep sales. Bernard Levin, the late great journalist, often poked fun at the B&R for its provinciality, though how he’d ever heard of it is a mystery. The current issue has an article that is short but completely unprecedented, about a woman educated in a Brecon convent and now described as an “ex brothel madam.” She is helping a Swansea university study into students working in all the varieties of the sex industry. The university is funding this study with public money from the national lottery. That’s it, then. No objections. Not even surprise. Modernity has blighted deepest rural Wales.

* * * * *

William Rees-Mogg was someone out of the ordinary. Owlish, bookish, he seemed a hangover from the eighteenth century. A landed gentleman, a Catholic, a proud member of the Establishment, he stood for parliament unsuccessfully but finished up as editor of the London Times. Years ago, he and I shared an office and together wrote a daily column for the Financial Times. His opinions were marvelously erratic. Noel Coward’s play, The Vortex, he thought was as good as Hamlet. One day a photograph was published of the prime minister asleep at the Wimbledon finals. I thought this a bit unkind, but William said the whole point of having that job was precisely to be able to snooze at Wimbledon. Taken to hospital with terminal cancer, he made a remark worthy of his deathbed, “This is going to be very interesting.”

Mistakes & Salman Rushdie


Salman Rushdie versus Islamism: The world became accustomed to this contest, and even bored by it. Besides, Rushdie wasn’t very nice, was he? He’d brought his troubles on himself, hadn’t he? The Satanic Verses was bound to give offense, and there’s never any need to do that. A memoir just published with the title Joseph Anton is Rushdie’s detailed account of the ordeal he went through, and it serves as a major document of these uncertain times.

Issuing the fatwa that condemned Rushdie to death for blackguarding the Prophet Muhammad, Ayatollah Khomeini was not concerned with theology or literature, and anyhow couldn’t read a book written in English. He had found the pretext he wanted to declare that he would be imposing his version of Islam on the world and was ready to kill to do so. To call for the murder of someone not within the jurisdiction is an enormity, nothing less than the staged opening to a war, the equivalent of the SS storming the Polish radio station of Gleiwitz to launch the Second World War.

Faced with the fatwa, the British Foreign Office reactivated the Chamberlain policy of appeasement. Instead of opposing the Iranians with uncompromising statements that freedom of speech is not negotiable, the officials concerned were always seeking a deal. In other countries, presidents, heads of government, men who ought to have known better, ducked their responsibilities, usually promising help which petered out to nothing. Shameful Western surrender only aroused more Iranian contempt. In a moment of weakness, Rushdie falsely declared that he was a good Muslim. This surrender to intimidation was a Mistake, the word duly capitalized by him.

Representative Leftists like Edward Said or Michel Foucault had greeted the new Islamist Iran with delight as a valuable new source of anti-Americanism. Rushdie’s friends, much praised in this book, are all Leftists of the sort, such as Günter Grass, Nadine Gordimer, Susan Sontag, Harold Pinter and others. The fatwa caused a split between Iran and its potential allies on the Left. The Mistake of the Iranians was to put Rushdie and his supporters in the position of arguing principle while themselves arguing politics, bigoted politics at that.

Full disclosure: I have met Rushdie very occasionally and briefly. Until I read this memoir, however, I had not properly grasped how much we owe him. Armed only with his pen and his wits, this unlikely immigrant from India won the first big campaign in a war most of us don’t even realize we are engaged in.

June 1940, and Today


On June 14, 1940, the German army entered Paris unopposed. German generals took the salute as the Wehrmacht marched in soldierly fashion down the Champs Elysées. This was a moment when the fate of the continent and the wider world hung in the balance. Nazism had proved stronger than democracy. Capturing Paris, Adolf Hitler became the master of Europe, and had he chosen peace instead of further war, the course of history would have been different and he might be remembered for setting up a whole new order.

Quite a few people accepted that something irreversible had happened. A documentary film made at the time shows Parisians lining the streets and mostly applauding, presumably thankful that their lives and their homes had been spared. But others elsewhere recognized that this was a crisis so great that it endangered the future, and many registered their shock, anger, and finally their determination to confront Hitler’s nightmare vision.

This Christmas I have printed and sent out to friends a little booklet quoting reactions to the fall of Paris to be found in diaries and correspondence. They range from Anna Akhmatova in Moscow to Stefan Zweig in exile in London, taking in testimonies not just from intellectuals but from people in all walks of life.

Those responses to that moment illustrate how public opinion takes shape. Parallels should not be drawn too closely, but in the troubled Europe of today the future is again in the balance. The European Union has just received the Nobel Peace Prize. It is the one good joke that all can enjoy, as everyone understands that NATO alone has kept the peace while the EU is setting nations against each other and breaking up populations. What about the malign EU role in the civil wars of Yugoslavia? What about the riots and embittered nationalism resulting from the straitjacket of the euro? There are no realistic foreign or defense policies. Wealth is draining away. Prestige has sunk irretrievably. The solution that EU representatives propose is to maximize the measures that have created this latest nightmare vision of a new order in the first place.

Hope springs eternal, especially at Christmas time. Publication of my booklet, I sense, coincides with the intention of more and more angry and shocked people to determine their lives for themselves. The way they did after June 1940.

Viewing the Middle East from Australia


The Australian/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, otherwise AIJAC, had invited me to Australia, but perhaps I ought to be kept away as outbreaks of Middle East violence seem to coincide with my visits. The first time I went there Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and the First Gulf war erupted. Next time Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. Now Hamas has waged its latest campaign, in the knowledge that its attack on Israel was certain to bring retaliation down on its own subjects, the Palestinians in Gaza. For Hamas, in short, massive self-destruction is worthwhile if it wreaks even a little destruction on the enemy. Irrational calculation of the kind is a measure of the ideology motivating the leaders. Unfortunately, it is rational to conclude that the cease-fire will last only until Hamas leaders again think the ideology has the chance to advance the cause and they start attacking once more.

Hamas is in a peculiar position, midway between its natural backers, the Muslim Brothers under President Morsi in Egypt, and its sponsors and armament suppliers in Iran. These two regimes, the one Sunni and the other Shiite, are testing out their mutual relationship. Egypt gives medical supplies to Hamas; Iran ships missiles. In another peculiar triangle, Hamas is in the midst of a silent coup to swallow Fatah, the Palestinian rival on the West Bank. Israel is ensuring the survival of Fatah at the very moment when its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has won a vote in the United Nations General Assembly for Palestine to be accepted there with the status of observer rather than member. A Hamas takeover of the West Bank would bring Tel Aviv within close range of those Iranian-supplied missiles. At AIJAC functions where I spoke, I didn’t like to rub in that the two-state solution is dead for the time being and maybe the next two or three centuries.

On the final evening of my visit, AIJAC held a dinner to honor John Howard, statesman and nonpareil parliamentarian who won three consecutive elections before retiring. His lengthy speech of thanks was a brilliant blend of reminiscence, anecdote, and political generalization, all spoken without notes. “I can see that’s not the first speech you’ve ever made,” I said on being introduced afterwards. Next morning I spent an hour with him, and then flew home wishing someone of that caliber were my prime minister.

Russian Informer Alexander Perepilichny Found Dead


Alexander Perepilichny had been a Russian exile in Britain for the past three years. Aged 44, and in good health, he was rich enough to be paying a huge five-figure monthly rent for a house in Weybridge, a spot in Surrey where nouveau-riche people cluster. A couple of weeks ago, he went out jogging, and was found dead by the side of the road. Tests have failed to reveal the cause of death. Toxology tests are due in case he was poisoned by radiation like Alexander Litvinenko in an earlier and somewhat similar case. There may be an innocent explanation, but more probably here is another of the crimes that give frightening insight into today’s Russia.

According to press reports, Perepilichny was an associate of the Klyuev Group, who were tax officials in Russia skimming off public funds. They framed Hermitage Capital, an investment company whose chief executive officer was, and is, William Browder. (He is the grandson of Earl Browder, once general secretary of the American Communist party. “The smiling moustaches of Earl Browder,” runs a line in a poem by Roy Fuller that exemplifies the fellow-travelling absurdity of the Thirties.)

When I met Bill Browder, he told me how these tax officials had set him up and run him out of Russia. He engaged Sergei Magnitsky, a well-known young human-rights lawyer, to defend him. The day after Magnitsky named names, he was arrested. Then he was found dead in the Lubyianka, the old Soviet hell-hole in Moscow. But there was a paper trail of hundreds of millions of stolen dollars leading through banks to Switzerland and the purchase of property abroad. Perepilichny apparently could document the whole vast scam, and he handed the information to the Swiss authorities. One can only guess at his motives, but the reports describe him as a “supergrass,” an activity that may have cost him his life. In Soviet times, the top officials took steps to kill whoever gave secrets away, and this case might prove they haven’t changed.

An Orwellian Inversion of Alliances


For the past eight days I have been in Australia on a speaking tour, hence out of the blogosphere. Right now I am overlooking the boats and yachts criss-crossing Sydney bay. What a relief it is to be in a country with the free and easy spirit that once characterized England. A visitor like me has no stake in an ongoing public row here with accusations and rebuttals about misappropriation of trade-union money, a slush fund, a mortgage, all of which dates from long ago and may or may not involve the young Julia Gillard, now prime minister. Those on the right say she cannot survive, those on the left say there’s nothing to it. Happy the nation with that sort of worry.

And unhappy the nation like Egypt, where President Mohamed Morsi has thrown off the mask of democracy and declared that his word is final in matters of law and the constitution. He is resorting to a Vatican-like claim of infallibility in order to install the Islamist state the Muslim Brothers dream of. The judiciary would be an obstacle, but he has sacked the chief prosecutor and judges appointed by the previous regime. Resisting for the sake of judicial independence, the judges can call upon enough popular support to divide the country. Morsi is following precedents in Pakistan where the judges and the government fought for power, and in Turkey where President Tayyip Recep Erdogan sacked two or three thousand judges in the process of converting a secular state to Islamism.

Not the least surprising feature of this coup is the White House’s approval. No doubt Washington is grateful to Morsi for his help in dealing with Hamas in the latest crisis with Israel. All Muslim Brothers together, he could have thrown his weight behind Hamas but instead brokered the cease-fire. Washington used to describe the Muslim Brotherhood and its activities as “state-sponsored terrorism,” but now Mrs. Clinton speaks of Morsi’s “leadership and responsibility.” It stretches credulity to find Egypt suddenly praised for the peace and stability it brings to the region.

In 1984, George Orwell’s masterpiece of insight into the immorality of power politics, perpetual violence is punctuated by Two-Minute Hates, whereby former enemies unexpectedly become allies, and vice versa. The Hamas-Israeli clash has been a Two-Minute Hate, and at its culmination we have experienced an Orwellian inversion of alliances.

Israel’s Line in the Sand


The late Ahmed Jabari was the leader of the military wing of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood movement that took power after a coup in Gaza. The several thousand men under his command served as a kind of secret police force, far more powerful than the other Islamist or tribal armed groups in Gaza. More powerful too than political leaders like Ismail Haniya or Khalid Mashaal, who in effect are civilians.

Over the last few days the Hamas military wing has fired 115 missiles and rockets out of Gaza into Israel. A number like that reflects the state of politics. In the usual run of things only a few rockets are fired, not enough to do more than prove that Hamas is active, and certainly not enough to warrant an armed Israeli response. One hundred and fifteen in a few days is a very different matter. Hamas leaders can only have wanted to test out the balance of power after the American election. They may well have concluded that Israel would not dare respond for fear of President Obama’s condemnation. In which case, they could fire off another 115. They have a fail-safe option as well. They are confident of the support of the parent Muslim Brotherhood group now in power in Egypt. The Egyptian leadership is bound to condemn Israel in public, for otherwise it will be exposed as hypocritical — talking enmity with Israel but in practice inactive.

Taking out Jabari, Israel has drawn a line. Token rockets, yes perhaps; a barrage, no. Jabari lived underground out of precaution. To have identified his whereabouts accurately and to have struck the car he was in is a feat requiring the highest levels of intelligence and technical skills. The pity of it is that previous Hamas leaders have deceived themselves that this strategy of violence will eliminate Israel, only to pay for such folly with their lives. Each time a master terrorist like Jabari is killed, they swear they will open the gates of hell on Israel, only to find that they are herding themselves through those very gates.

Israel’s Line in the Sand



The late Ahmed Jaabari was the leader of the military wing of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood movement that took power after a coup in Gaza. The several thousand men under his command served as a kind of secret police force, far more powerful than the other Islamist or tribal armed groups in Gaza. More powerful too than political leaders like Ismail Haniya or Khalid Mashaal, who in effect are civilians.

Over the last few days the Hamas military wing has fired 115 missiles and rockets out of Gaza into Israel. A number like that reflects the state of politics. In the usual run of things only a few rockets are fired, not enough to do more than prove that Hamas is active, and certainly not enough to warrant an armed Israeli response. 115 in a few days is a very different matter. Hamas leaders can only have wanted to test out the balance of power after the American election.  They may well have concluded that Israel would not dare respond for fear of President Obama’s condemnation. In which case, they could fire off another 115. They have a fail-safe option as well. They are confident of the support of the parent Muslim Brotherhood group now in power in Egypt. The Egyptian leadership is bound to condemn Israel in public, for otherwise it will be exposed as hypocritical — talking enmity with Israel but in practice inactive.

Taking out Jaabari, Israel has drawn a line. Token rockets, yes perhaps, a barrage, no. Jaabari lived underground out of precaution. To have identified his whereabouts accurately and to have struck the car he was in is a feat requiring the highest levels of intelligence and technical skills.  The pity of it is that previous Hamas leaders have deceived themselves that this strategy of violence will eliminate Israel, only to pay for such folly with their lives. Each time a master terrorist like Jaabari is killed, they swear they will open the gates of hell on Israel, only to find that they are herding themselves through those very gates.

With Whose Rights Are Western Governments Concerned?


Abu Qatada and Ali Musa Daqduq are two prominent figures in the worldwide Islamist jihad against the West. They are united in their determination to do everything in their power to advance that jihad, which of course means violence and terror. Abu Qatada, a Jordanian, came to Britain to raise funds for bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. He was in contact with terrorists; he recruited through preaching. In Jordan he is wanted on a murder charge. Ten years ago, he was arrested in London and ever since he has used every twist of the law to avoid deportation to his own country. Judge Mitting, presiding over a Special Immigration Appeals Commission, has just decided that Abu Qatada cannot be deported but instead could be released on bail. Prime Minister Cameron told parliament that he is “completely fed up” with this failure to deport Abu Qatada.

Ali Musa Daqduq is Lebanese, and a member of Hezbollah, the Shia terrorist group, who traveled to Iraq. In 2007 he and others kidnapped five American soldiers in Karbala, and tortured and killed them. Captured, he admitted to his crimes. When President Obama pulled American forces out of Iraq, they did not take Daqduq with them but handed him over to the Iraqi authorities. An Iraqi court now orders his release.

What it comes to is that Britain and America are less concerned with the safety of their citizens than with the well-being of enemies willing to murder them. The rights of nationals are secondary to the rights of those who would destroy those nationals. Games-playing with the law has protected wrongdoing and crime, and denied the course of natural justice.  We shall lose to the jihadis until such time as we recognize them as the terrorists that they are, and deal with them accordingly.

The same unrealistic and pettifogging view of human behaviour is evident in the hoo-ha about General David Petraeus and General John Allen. Their private relations have no bearing on their military capacities. Remember Harriet Wilson. She threatened to expose her affair with the Duke of Wellington, only to be told, “Publish and be damned.” They did things differently once.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review