Simon Lowe's Blog

[simonloweblog]

"Guess who said this?"

Man has become  stronger and more inventive with age but sadly not wiser for we have to go back many years to find words wiser than these……….

                      " Democracy never selects the best leaders

                         It selects the best liar and that is why

                            Eventually every democracy fails.

                         Democracy does not reward wisdom

                                   It rewards persuasion.

                       The man who understands reality

              Loses to the man who can manipulate perception

                             The honest lose to the charming

                        The disciplined lose to the theatrical

          When competence withdraws, manipulation advances

                        Truth is costly, lies become efficient

And when popularity determines authority,

deception becomes strategy

          Democracy does not collapse from the outside

                          It hollows itself out from within

    And when the lies finally shake the system, the ending is predictable"

                                            ...........................

Plato

[simonloweblog]

There are only so many ways you can spend 100%

Donald Trump told everyone that he had brought down the cost of eggs by 300%. Like so many politicians his grasp of mathematics leaves a lot to be desired! What is clear, however, is that 100% can only be split so many ways.

Everyone knows that the UK is in a mess in more ways than one but as usual, “It’s the economy stupid” that is the problem. The fact is that since the loss of Empire, after WWII, Britain has been in gradual economic decline having lost the bounty that it was accustomed to receiving from its Colonies. Its finances have been deteriorating, while it sold off all the family silver. Since the 2008 financial crisis it has had to borrow increasingly unsustainable amounts. To boot, the situation was exacerbated by the very costly Covid bailouts.

The lack of GDP growth, elevated inflation and higher borrowing costs means that today’s government finances are dire and offer less and less space to juggle and maneuver.

Since 2015 there have been six British Prime Ministers none of whom have offered a credible way out of the unending and deteriorating state of the Country. Speech upon speech made promises that could not be delivered and voters were fooled into believing rash election promises for many years, but no longer. Voters continue to seek someone with a fairy tale wand, but have not  yet grasped that there isn’t one! Politicians are simply only concerned with staying in power and do not have the guts to tell the voters, like a parent sometimes has to tell a child that, “we simply cannot afford it”.

Milton Friedman, considered to be one of the world’s cleverest Economists of the seventies, said of Jim Callaghan’s first party conference speech in 1976, that it was one of the greatest speeches ever given by a British Prime Minister.

Callaghan said: “For too long we have been living on borrowed time and yes for too long this country, yes all of us, have been ready to settle for borrowing money abroad to maintain our standard of life instead of grappling with the problems of British Industry. We used to think that we could spend our way out of a recession by cutting taxes and increasing Government spending but I tell you in all honesty that that option no longer exists”.

That was fifty years ago this summer; “Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose” but sadly, no one in power since  Callaghan has had the  guts to tell the electorate what everyone should know, namely that there are only so many ways you can spend 100%.

Fifty years on, British politicians of all political persuasions still neither understand or are too cowardly to tell their constituents that the days of welfare and borrowing to pay for it are over. They must grasp the nettle and tell it like it is; namely that our propensity to spend more than we can afford cannot continue. Politicians need to spell it out that because as we no longer have the Empire to bail us out, we will have to cut our cloth accordingly.

It is all very well for the electorate to vote for anyone who promises to better their living standards but no one has figured out how to successfully deliver ever-increasing Social Welfare benefits with a bottomless pit of free health services without substantial increases in GDP that can deliver growth and prosperity, neither of which Britain has had for a long time.

Below is a breakdown of the government’s spending budget  for 2025/6 and expected tax revenue for the same period and the resulting deficit for the year. The seven top categories account for over 81% of  Government’s planned expenditure (figs. in billions).

Projected tax  revenue                                                        1,200                                                                 

Total govt. spending budget                                             1,370                                                                 

Deficit                                                                                             137                                                 

Made up of:

Social Security & Welfare        322B            23.5%                                           

Health/NHS                                204B           14.8%                                           

Interest payments on Debt      100B             7.3% 

Pensions                                  200B            14.6%

Education                                     95B               6.9%                                           

Defense                                         62B               4.5%       

Capital Expenditure                  130B                9.5%

 Sub-Total                                   1,113B               81.1%

The following government departments make up the balance of 19.9%. (all figs in Billions): Transport & roads 45: Local govt.40: Public order & safety30: Housing & Communities 20: Net zero & Business energy 40: Civil  Service, Home Office & Foreign Aid & diplomacy 52 Science 25: Block grants- Scotland 47:Wales 23: N. Ireland 17.

As you can see, the top 4 departments take up over 58.5% of the total of the 19 major categories, namely: Social Security & Welfare, Pensions, The NHS and a massive 100 billion p.a. just to pay the annual interest on the Government’s debt. That figure is itself over 100% of what government spends on Education and 150% of what it spends on Defense. 

What was once considered the envy of the world, namely a British education, now languishes in 17th position (in education performance metrics) and as to the British armed forces, especially its Navy that once ruled the waves, we now have two aircraft carriers often without planes and a Navy that could not  muster one ship to send to the gulf last month. Yet, due to a mixture of very generous benefits, a family of four with parents no longer seeking work can earn up to £80,000 a year.

Note: Twenty-five years ago the Government ran a budget surplus of 25 billion, this year it faces a deficit of 137 billion.

It has finally dawned on the British electorate that none of the politicians are going to deliver what they want simply because they can’t!, and until someone presents the truth and the public “gets it”  it is only going to be more of the same.

Rachel Reeves and the left of the current Labour government can continue to advocate taxing the rich as the way to level the playing field but we all know what that leads to is the rich leaving Britain in droves, because many already have. Those in power are well aware that the top 1% of earners already pay 31% of all taxes in the UK but the powers that be do not broadcast that enough for people to understand that a massive redistribution of wealth is not going to happen because those guys are simply not going to submit to higher and higher taxes. .

Clearly the answer has to be found in reducing the expenditure of the top 4 categories and redeploying a good chunk of that money to invest in:

1.Regenerating the British economy, not through public ownership but through well considered and regulated private enterprise and encouraging entrepreneurship with start up capital as they do in the US.

2. Boosting work skills and education and freeing students from the ridiculous loan debt that bogs them down, often for decades.

3. Take a knife to the NHS and restructure it based on the Swiss model which effectively delivers a world class health service with citizens contributing 20% for treatments and operations from their own pockets.

4. Restructure Pensions; the triple lock is simply no longer affordable and too many young people can’t get ahead because they are effectively paying for the old.

5.  Restructure the debt: this is a must and the “clever” minds that created “quantitative easing” back in 2008 can surely invent  some more smoke and mirrors to reduce the annual cost of this huge burden.

Today’s political crisis calls for radical change. Is there anyone who will bite the bullet?

[simonloweblog]

What happens after the ceasefire?

According to ongoing communiques from both the US and Iran, they have both won the war!

In a world of fake news, where pronouncements change almost every moment, it is almost impossible to know if anyone is telling the truth. What does seem to be clear is that Trump has reached the conclusion that his failure to coerce Iran into surrender, as he had hoped, could well lead to his political demise if he keeps on prosecuting a war that he and the world now recognize he has not and will not win. Yes, the US military is capable of destroying everything but that would be like Hitler who miscalculated by thinking that Britain would surrender as a result of him bombing London to pieces. The fact is that Trump does not understand that other countries have a much higher pain threshold than America. His entire political philosophy (if indeed he has one) is governed by “the Art of the Deal” which Kushner, Bessent and Witkoff also share. They just do not “get it” that many in the Iranian leadership are Theocrats willing to become martyrs. The Iranians are simply not “transactional” and therefore have little in common or understanding with their US counterparts.

The outcome of negotiations during this ceasefire period and beyond  will be determined by who the US is negotiating with. If with Abbas Araghchi, the moderate Iranian foreign secretary, then there is a chance of a settlement even if only in the short term. If it’s the IRGC hardliners, who don't really care if all of Iran's infrastructure is decimated, then there is little chance of peace. The truth is that once again the Americans have failed to understand the people and politics of the Middle East.

By blockading the Straits of Hormuz, the US navy is alienating China and many other countries who depend on getting the oil they need through those Straits. It won’t be Trump that persuades Iran to cede and open the Straits. he is hated more now than ever before. The fact is that Iran does not trust him any more than Trump trusts Iran. The Chinese however now have real influence in Iran as they continue to provide intelligence and more munitions to the Islamic Republic. Most probably they will succeed in bringing their influence to bear and the Straits will be reopened but that will not settle the war.

At the turn of the 20th Century, Britain was the most powerful country in the world. It accounted for 25% of world trade, just as the US does today. It had the most powerful navy in the world, just as the US has today, and it shaped the world economy and the institutions that governed it, just as the US does today. But to maintain its dominant position it allowed itself to get distracted by engaging in local wars around the world and in its territories that ultimately sapped its strength in the process. While America continues to spend huge amounts of money, blood and capital on fighting local wars far away, it too is sapping its strength and prestige while China quietly concentrates on building its power as it begins to match and indeed overtake the USA in the technologies and industries of the future. Mark Carney quickly recognized that the old US Order that dominated the World since 1945 is beginning to unravel and new alliances will reshape the world into multi-polar power blocks where the United States will no longer be the King pin.

The tragedy for the US is that Trump’s lack of knowledge of Middle East politics and philosophy as well as his total lack of a coherent strategy, is alienating him from America’s traditional Allies. The EU, Nato, Canada, Mexico, Japan and all of the Gulf States are rethinking their relationship to the United States and are moving to expand their relationship with China who only a few years ago was considered an enemy.

The tragedy for Iran is that their continuing refusal to give up their enriched uranium and ambition to have a nuclear bomb plus their support of  multiple proxy terrorist organizations will leave them even more damaged economically; heaping more pain on their citizens who continue to suffer under a regime that has no interest in the welfare of its people. 

During WWII, Pope Pius XII failed to speak out against German aggression and genocide even when he was made aware of it and might have been able to stop it. Today, Pope Leo XIV has voiced his concerns only to be mocked by a deranged US President who continues to shoot himself in the foot by alienating more and more of his constituents and supporters. On the one hand, I pray that this war will not escalate, while on the other hand,  I hope it does because that would be the surest way of getting rid of this hideous man.

[simonloweblog]

If you do not know who James Talarico is now, you may do so soon.

So, who is James Talarico? He is a Democrat running for a Texas Senate seat which would not normally attract much attention as Democrats are not exactly popular in Texas which has been staunchly Republican for a long time. However, in this case, people are beginning to believe that a Democrat may actually manage to flip and win a Seat in this most conservative State. Talarico recently won the Democratic Primary against a very popular black woman, Jasmine Crockett.

Talarico is thirty-six and a very charismatic, Harvard-educated, former educator and member of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He has a quirky Obama-style smile and is adamant that religion and politics must be kept separate. He is engaging and quick to state that the main problem in American politics today is not between the left and the right, but between the top and the bottom.

New York Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, presented a very left wing agenda during his campaign but in office he is practicing a centralist set of policies. He realizes that if he alienates the NY billionaires to the extent that they flee NYC and migrate to Texas and Florida he will lose a huge chunk of his tax revenue and therefore not be able to carry out the reforms that he has promised.  Much of Talarico’s appeal is that he dismisses the traditional bickering between Democrats and Republicans and  instead focuses on addressing the huge differences between rich and poor; without advocating over- taxing the rich to the extent that he would chase them out of town.  

In 2004, Obama emerged at the Democratic convention giving an electrifying speech that propelled him to the front of the queue of Democratic hopefuls for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Whereas I think that with only two years to go till the 2028 Presidential election, it is too close for Talarico to make a successful run for the nomination, I think he could well be a contender for the 2032 Presidential race.

It is pretty clear that the old style politics of left and right has been rejected by the American electorate. The fact is that polls indicate that constituents neither like nor trust either Party. Just as in the UK the old two party system is broken and there is populism both on the left and the right, the time is ripe for a new style leader to emerge in the USA. In America you really cannot win major elections any longer without oozing charisma. But charisma alone, is not enough. It is just possible that in James Talarico there is a man with a winning formula who could possibly even bring the fragmented and angry adversaries of American politics and the American people back together again.

[simonloweblog]

Does the U.N. have a future

My godson, Mark Lobel, recently interviewed* Lord Robertson (ex. Secretary General of Nato) and the  Brazilian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Antonio Patriota, about the UN and its future. It is sad to say that its predecessor, the League of Nations, failed to keep the peace after the First World War and that The United Nations has equally failed to do so since its creation in 1945. Its eighty-year history has proved that it is impossible for 183 countries to reach a consensus on anything and that the world will continue to be dominated by and be the domain of the superpowers because ultimately "might is right".

In a world that faces an existential threat as a result of climate change, it is telling that both funding and international co-operative action attempting to control it has been drying up while Countries' defense budgets have been mushrooming; effectively the world is moving towards a new arms race. This is a clear indicator of man’s current priorities; far from tackling the world’s problems, current leaders are contributing to them. Sprawling bureaucracies are increasingly giving way to authoritarian governments and diplomacy, be it at the U.N. or at other world organizations, has become a series of expensive talking shops with little or no authority and even less action. Both Lord Roberton and the Brazilian Ambassador were clear that urgent reform of the U.N. is necessary if it is to have any future at all. The US has bankrolled it to the tune of over 50% since its inception but Donald Trump is no longer prepared to do so while making no secret of his contempt for it.

In today’s “me, me, me”  societies where entitlement leads to competition and selfishness, power hungry politicians care for nothing but themselves and it is of little consequence whether you live in a so called democracy or an autocracy because  in both societies “ordinary” people count for nothing and in countries like Russia and North Korea young men are but fodder for the front lines. In this atmosphere there is little room and no bandwidth for protesters who whether in Teheran, Minneapolis or Beijing are open to be arrested or in extremis murdered. Whereas for eighty years the world looked to America to maintain the peace and be a beacon for liberty and inspired millions to attain the American dream of middle class prosperity, today that beacon is being extinguished as the institutions that have provided safeguards and guardrails for the rights of individuals are giving way to greater central authoritarian government.

Therefore, one has to conclude that the U.N. is more likely to die a slow death than find renewed impetus and success in steering the world away from increasingly dangerous and challenging confrontations.

............................................................

*His podcast “Disorder” is available weekly from wherever you get your podcasts.

[simonloweblog]

Europe does not need the US to defend it against Russia, nor does it need to bend the knee to Trump's economic blackmail

In 1945 the empires of the three great European powers; Britain,France and Germany, lay in ruins. Britain was effectively bankrupt, France had been humiliated in two world wars and Germany was completely destroyed. All three countries happily placed themselves under the protection of the United States to halt the advance of Stalinist Communism as it swept through post-war Eastern Europe. That dependency was not only comfortable; convenient and cost effective, but it also reflected the demise of Europe’s dominance as the center of world power for more than  2000 years.

Europe had not only lost its empires but its confidence. Today, political commentators talk of a multi-polar world with the US “ruling” the Western Hemisphere, Russia dominant in Europe and China the Master of the East. But this is the rhetoric of political pundits and does not reflect reality. Both economically and militarily, Europe is more than a match for Russia. I am not referring to the E.U. which is a splintered group of 27 countries that more than often does not act in unison and has a dissident member in Hungary who vetoes any anti- Russian proposal or action. I mean the combined forces of Britain, France Germany and Italy economically and Britain, France, Germany and Poland militarily.

Nato and the all important Article 5 has never really been tested and it looks increasingly likely that the senior partner, the U.S.as things stand under President Trump  is unlikely to honour that Article and could even be heading for the exit.

Russia has between 1.2m and 1.5m military personnel in a population of circa 145m. The Ukraine military has circa 880,000  personnel out of a population of 39m. Yet four years into a bloody war, Russia has been unable to conquer Ukraine. To date Europe is fractured and Nato is being blackmailed by its own ally, the United States. The E.U. is too large and splintered to put together an effective army to counter Russia but the combined military forces of the UK, Germany, France and Poland (who has the fastest growing army in Europe) is easily a match for Russian forces who have proved their ineffectiveness in their war with Ukraine.

To succeed both against Russia and the U.S.  strong, ballsy leadership is required. Unfortunately Britain’s leader, Keir Starmer is no Churchill and Macron is almost a lame duck while Merz faces a major challenge from the AfD. Europe could rise to the challenge but it will need these leaders to stop appeasing Trump and become much more aggressive with Putin.

Over the past eighty years nuclear war between Russia and America has been avoided based  primarily on  the “MAD” philosophy of “Mutually Assured Destruction” and during this time, Europe depended on the US’s “nuclear umbrella”. But closer examination shows clearly that we really do not need America’s nuclear protection. Both Britain and France are nuclear powers with nuclear submarines that are practically impossible to detect and therefore even the few nuclear submarines they have nevertheless constitute a formidable nuclear arsenal. Whereas, undoubtedly, Russia has thousands more nuclear missiles than the UK and France combined, together they do have circa 400 nuclear warheads that could destroy Russia many times over. A very credible solution would be to have France and Britain combine/ co-ordinate their nuclear capabilities for that would be a very effective deterrent to any Russian attempt to blackmail Europe or to think that they could win a nuclear war. For the record, Russia’s annual defense expenditure was US$150b in 2024-25 viz. the combined defense budgets of Britain, Germany, France and Poland of US$294b during the same period. In addition, Europe needs to realise that the US is unlikely to engage in a nuclear war with Russia to protect Europe and that therefore we really need to have an alternative strategy and Insurance policy.

In 2025 the UK, France, Germany and Italy had a combined GDP of $14.1trillion viis a vis Russia’s paltry  $2.1trillion. Economically, Russia is no match for Europe. The foolishness of Germany’s previous energy dependence on Russia was laid bare when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and it was further emphasised when Putin invaded Ukraine. But that is now in the past. Today, Europe is no longer dependent on Russia for its energy or its economic success and can no longer be blackmailed by Putin.

Substantial European military re-organization is needed as well as upgrading its rearmament program, which is now under way. It is time Starmer, Merz and Macron along with Tusk tell Trump that they will no longer depend on the US and simultaneously make it very clear to Russia that they have drawn a line and that they will not allow Russia to intimidate or attempt to infringe on the sovereignty of any European country.

Trump, in his quest to acquire land, oil and money has turned the US’s trade muscle into raw blackmail. To date, Canada is the only Nato member and western power to take firm action having recognized the new reality of Trump’s America and has notified the US, in no uncertain terms, that it will not play ball while moving quickly to embrace a wider partnership with a very willing China.

In the latest available annual trade figures (2024) the total value of goods and services exported to the US by Britain, France, Germany & Italy was approx.$560b and the traffic the other way was approx. $504b. Clearly therefore the fact is that there is not a huge imbalance of trade in either direction so if those countries stand firmly together they do have almost equal muscle.Therefore, Instead of cow-towing to the daily whims of an increasing bold and unpredictable President it is time for the leaders of Europe to rediscover their mojo and tell DJT to “F Off”!

As to Trump’s latest threat of Tariffs against these European countries because they will not agree to his intended takeover of Greenland it is the perfect time for them to reassert themselves and draw a line in the sand. In short, the leaders of these European countries  must take forceful action so that they are no longer intimated by two bullies. They can forge a powerful alliance that will replace Russia as the Third power block to the US and China.

[simonloweblog]

"This time the protests may have a different outcome.

There have been many protests and demonstrations in Iran since the 1979 Revolution and many false dawns for those Iranians who long for a change of Regime. To date, the Mullahs have extinguished each one ruthlessly.  There has been loss of life and personal freedom but for the most part the majority of its citizens have suffered quietly. Sanctions have slowly but surely taken hold resulting in increased economic hardship which has become widespread for ordinary people while the likes of the Revolutionary Guard, the Mullahs and their families have amassed vast wealth.

Until recently, during those upheavals there have been two distinctive camps. The progressives in the major cities and the conservatives in the small towns and rural areas. Since the days before the Revolution, the Bazaaris (shopkeepers) who supported the overthrow of the Shah have, supported the Theocracy; but now they may well have turned against it. If true, then this in itself may be a major game-changer. But possibly, the role of the young people may prove to be even more important.  They know little about the Shah and the 1979 Revolution but are very aware of their current economic hardship, the recent massive devaluation of their currency, the regime’s brutality and its propensity to turn off the Internet at the first sign of protest.  Many observers now believe that they may well be the catalyst that brings the Mullahs down.

But the sixty-four thousand dollar question is: if the regime does fall, what will replace it? There is no democratic infrastructure in Iran and little to no organised opposition. What exists outside the current structure are the many entrenched power blocks that are making pots of money and would no doubt fight to maintain their position. The millions of Iranians who fled the country in 1979 show little enthusiasm for Reza Pahlavi’s son, often referred to as the  “Young Shah”, or “The Crown Prince”.  For someone who has never held a job, lived most of his life in the US and not been back to Iran for 46 years, there is little consensus that he is the man to restore anything. Other than the restoration of the British Monarchy in 1660 and  Franco’s restoration of the Spanish monarchy in 1975, there has not been much appetite to restore disgraced dynasties.

The  Middle East does not have a happy history of regime change.  If the US gets involved again, which may initially be greeted enthusiastically, the fact is that recent US Administrations have a poor record in Nation building and creating stability and end up being hated by those they have "liberated".

During the Shah’s reign, Iran had friendly relations with Israel and did not promote terrorism and mischief throughout the Middle East through the various proxies that the Ayatollahs have supported and armed. It would be a huge bonus if Iran were to return to the community of Nations, not only for its neighbours but of course for its own citizens who have suffered 47 years of war, growing economic hardship and religious fanaticism.

But the US and other foreign powers should remember that Iran is a fiercely proud and nationalistic country. For any change in regime to be successful it must surely come from within i.e. be self-determined and not imposed by foreign Imperialists. Let us hope that the Iranian people will succeed in throwing off the yoke of this cruel authoritarian regime but let us also pray that what comes after will be better not worse.  

[simonloweblog]

A new US doctrine, "FAFO"

Using the word “fuck” in everyday conversation is now acceptable in almost all circles; certainly in general conversation and even on radio, TV and in films. But it now seems that it is also de rigeur in political discourse to the extent that there is a new mantra in Washington D.C:  "FAFO”- fuck anything & fuck the outcome.

None of us are under any illusion that the old order is dead. As a baby boomer I have been privileged to live in the UK, Europe, the Caribbean and the US during a time of unprecedented prosperity and peace, established after the Second World war by the United States, a country that saved Europe twice from Imperial aggression and Fascism. The US created the league of Nations in 1920, and when that did not work, it established the United Nations in 1945. The rule of law and the dream of democracy for every nation was perhaps a foolhardy goal but it was at least an aspiration. Today, by contrast, if “FAFO” becomes the go to of Washington’s foreign strategy under the newly emboldened Donald Trump, fresh from his Venezuela triumph, then the hopes and aspirations for a free and fairer world, as envisioned by the US and set out in the UN Charter, will be replaced by a new reality that International law is a work of fiction and the reality is “might is right”.

This year America celebrates its 250th anniversary. What a great journey and experiment it has been. The Founding Fathers created a new country that developed over the past 250 years into possibly the most successful and powerful country the world has ever seen. It did so within its Constitution that espoused among other principles the four freedoms: “freedom of speech”, freedom of worship”, “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.”  Of course, tribal prejudices and Christian white male supremacists have blotted the constitutional promise of equality, but the fact is that in an imperfect world, the USA has in principle been the most successful country in modern history.

In spite of the debacle of the 2008 financial crisis, laissez- faire capitalism has delivered greater economic prosperity over the past century  than either communism, socialism or any other form of government. However, what is unfolding today in Trump’s second term is trampling on and negating three of the pillars of the “four freedoms”.

“Freedom of speech”, has been the cornerstone of American democracy and the envy of the world. Under Trump, expressing anti-Trump speech is leading to vengeance and prosecution. “Freedom from fear” has in US history given the majority of its people the confidence to forge new frontiers in almost every walk of life and “freedom from want” is still the American dream in the land of opportunity, although it has been increasingly challenged as the growing divide between rich and poor.

Man has always been greedy and there seems to be no escape from violence and war. Bullies and tyrants have always existed but at least I believed that the US offered through its founding principles a better way and a brighter future than that found in earlier empires. Sadly, the policies now being pursued by Trump and the likes of Stephen Miller have given up on any attempt to disguise their unfiltered ambitions. Of course, they are being sold under the auspices that America is fed up of being taken advantage of, and that sheer power can achieve all. However, as is often the case, powerful people overstep the mark and in so doing create disasters which result in their downfall. Caesar, Napoleon and Hitler all seemed invincible at one time but all fell eventually.

Trump has some good policies and achievements, but the slippery slope towards autocracy is underway. The world does not need another Putin or Maduro so we must hope that American voters will apply the brakes to his ongoing grab for more and more power and will do so at the ballot box in November.

[simonloweblog]

Trump's invasion of Venezuela

Whereas there are few that will mourn the fall and removal of Maduro, Venezuela’s president who was a ruthless, corrupt dictator, it is clear that the USA is no better that any rogue state that ignores International law and does as it pleases under the auspices, quite simply, that "might is right". No wonder that people all over the world no longer have any faith or respect for politicians especially leaders like Trump who even flaunt their own country’s laws. The US Congress is beginning to resemble the Russian Duma which is but a rubber stamp for Putin’s personal agenda. He can rightly claim that the US has done precisely what he has done, the only difference being that the US has done it more successfully. The United States, once the beacon of democracy, no longer has any moral compass. It has won the battle for Caracas but has lost the war on trust.

What has happened to the UN Charter that sets out, unequivocally, the protection and rights of every Sovereign State?

The key UN Charter provisions protecting state sovereignty are in Article 2; especially 2 (1)that sets out the "sovereign equality of members" and  2(4) that prohibits threats/force against territorial integrity and independence and 2(7) that obligates members to refrain from aggression and respect each other's political independence.

How can the United States, the architect of that Charter, so blatantly trample on its principles? The world had come to expect better from a country that twice had rescued democracy from Dictatorship & Fascism.

How can the world remain silent when what Trump has just done is no different from what Putin did in 2014 and again in 2022 to the Ukraine? At least most in the free world condemned Russia but so far, barely a peep from anyone about Venezuela.

Let's not be in any doubt that this invasion was purely about gaining control of Venezuela's oil, both to replenish the US's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) which has been severely depleted over the past few years so as to keep the price of oil down, but more importantly to ensure that Venezuela stays within the “dollar camp” as opposed to pricing its oil on a basket of currencies and joining BRICS.

Nobody is fooled by Trump's usual melange of lies and fantasy promises as in, "We will make Venezuela great again" and "We will make Venezuelans rich". The message is crystal clear: do as we say or face the consequences. Truth is, it was a brilliant operation and will put the fear of God into other South American countries that are at odds with Trump. He has now clearly defined and laid claim to the Western Hemisphere as America’s exclusive domain. One can only hope that this success will not embolden him too much because if he were to now decide to press ahead with his ambition to take over Greenland, that would be a totally different ball game.

With so many challenges already facing the world in 2026 Trump has just added another one by embarking on an aggressive foreign adventure, the outcome of which is far from certain.   

[simonloweblog]

2026 The year ahead

In 2026 seven trillion dollars of US debt has to be refinanced/rolled over. That tranche was originally financed at very low interest rates during the Pandemic; now with higher interest rates it will create a large refinancing hurdle as it will cost significantly more in interest payments than the original borrowing which in turn will increase the national debt.

In 2025, that debt surpassed 38 trillion dollars; Washington now spends more on servicing its debt than it does on defense. For years, debt enabled the United States to fight wars, global recessions, pandemics, and financial crises, but the bill may soon really get out of hand. The possibility of a once-in-a-century U.S. debt crisis no longer seems so far-fetched.

Together with an impending decision by the Supreme Court on Trump's tariffs and the upheaval that a possible reversal of his tariff policy may cause, a potential major stock market adjustment would combine to create a very rocky year for the US economy. 

 "The Magnificent Seven” (Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet-aka Google, Amazon, Meta, Tesla) together compose approximately 40% of the Nasdaq stock exchange; they are trading at an average of over thirty times earnings. That is because brokers have marked them with multiples that anticipate profits increasing by 25% per annum over the next five years whereas on average they are only increasing by single digits. Sales at Apple increased by only seven percent in 2025 which should indicate a much lower multiple and translate into a market cap of circa $1.9 trillion as opposed to the current valuation of  $3.6 trillion.

 Similar decelerating sales and profits apply to the other six of the "Magnificent Seven”. Apple phone sales are reaching saturation, Tesla car sales are either in decline as in Europe or stagnant as in China. If the market decides that these behemoths will no longer expand at the rate they have done over the past few years that triggered their explosive stock movements, then what has gone up exponentially may come down just as quickly.

If this happens combined with declining poll numbers for Trump and the Republican Party it is very possible that the Democrats will retake the House and if severe enough they may even capture the Senate. In that scenario Trump would most likely be impeached and convicted. That would then put everything into sharp reverse creating massive disruption or worse.

In the UK the housing market is at best stagnant throughout the country while prices in Central London have declined in real terms by circa 25% since 2014.The previously buoyant "buy to let" market has practically been extinguished due in large part to Government tax changes, which are also having a devastating effect on top market properties aided by the flight of millionaires and billionaires from the UK.

The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is more than likely to face a humiliating defeat in May's local elections which may well lead to a leadership challenge. If he is deposed then the prospect of a substantial change and upheaval in UK politics will become a reality making any kind of prediction as to the future of the UK a task for stargazers.

Europe's economies led by Germany and France have stagnated over the past two years and no one is expecting any major revival in their fortunes in 2026 or indeed beyond this year. Macron is a lame duck and Merze is facing an ever-increasing challenge from the neo-Nazi AFD party.

The challenges posed by Russia's continuing war in Ukraine and it's ongoing ambitions to re-establish a Russian Empire will keep Europe busy for as long as Putin remains at the helm and likely even after his departure. There is no unity in the EU because every major initiative can be blocked by any one veto. This was clearly demonstrated when Victor Oban blocked the seizure of frozen Russian assets.

So far, the war in Ukraine shows no sign of abating in spite of the endless peace talks that Trump keeps pursuing primarily to get his hands on the Nobel Peace Prize. Few forecasters believe that the war will end any time soon.

Meanwhile, the twenty point Gaza peace plan is stuck as Hamas shows no sign of disarming and Israel shows no sign of budging on Netanyahu's refusal to countenance a Palestinian State. How long the ceasefire will hold is debatable, but I doubt that anyone is willing to place a big bet on it.

Sadly, in conclusion, my eternal optimism is being severely tested as we start this new year.

[simonloweblog]

Reflections on the America's new National Security Strategy

Much has already been written about last week’s publication of the new US National Security Strategy (NSS). It has shocked and appalled America’s allies around the world while delighting America’s traditional foes. Trump is the ultimate enigma for being consistently inconsistent.

In his first NSS review in December 2017, the main challengers to US security were listed as Russia and China. From most western governments perspective that has not changed but, in this new review in Trump’s second term, that theory has been entirely abandoned. In short, Trump" 2” is walking away from the post WW2 world that America inspired, in particular its eighty-year commitment to European security and a world order that it pursued to create peace and economic prosperity.

Why everyone is so shocked is in itself a mystery as Trump has been promoting much of the content of this review for a long time. His rejection of traditional US foreign policy is not new. Europe is no longer the focus of his foreign strategy. As a result, Europe can no longer depend on America either as the ultimate nuclear umbrella or as the lynch pin of NATO. With the President pandering to his MAGA stalwarts and with their approval he intends to withdraw from any further financial aid to Ukraine or indeed any other country. As he is purely transactional the word "sale" now replaces the word "aid". He would now be very unlikely to go to war with Russia to protect Europe and would be even more unlikely to engage in a nuclear war with Russia to save Europe.

His anti-immigration policy is also not new and his de facto white supremacist view panders to a vast swathe of middle America. More confident than he was during his first Administration he now vilifies European leaders for their lack of immigration control and seeks to meddle in European politics by promote right wing nationalistic parties who preach an anti-Muslim philosophy. This includes the Reform party in the UK, the AFD in Germany and National Rally in France. The NSS now predicts that there will be systematic erasure in Europe through immigration. The principal threat being from the Islamization of the continent. But the truth is that the Muslim population of Europe is only 6%. By comparison, the Spanish and Black populations in the US are 20% and 15.2% respectively

Far from its post-war doctrine of spreading democracy throughout the world, the US is moving at pace towards authoritarian government at home and is increasingly comfortable with dictator governments abroad.

The NSS document seeks to protect US borders which has become a cause célèbre across the western world. In principle, this is a sound policy as is the desire to rein in drug-trafficking, but DJT’s swashbuckling approach to trade and tariffs is not only destabilizing his so-called allies it is also upending the economy at home.

The Monroe Doctrine of the 19th century will simply not work in an interdependent world in the 21st century because the world has changed so dramatically in the past 200 years. A pro-South American policy is in harmony with the Monroe Doctrine- namely retreating to “Fortress America” while nurturing its neighbours and creating  mutually beneficial economic prosperity and political stability in that hemisphere, but is a far cry from what Trump is advocating in this document which is more akin to bullying and blackmailing his neighbours into accepting total US dominance.

Sadly, the ultimate joke is that a country that was built entirely on immigration and thrived on it now rejects welcoming diverse ethnicities, cultures and religions to America and if this policy succeeds as Trump wishes it to, it will result in many of the world’s greatest talents going elsewhere. In time, that will result in making America poorer instead of realising Trump’s most famous slogan, “Make America Great Again”.

[simonloweblog]

"Is being anti-Israel the same as being antisemitic?"

The election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City earlier this month heralded the first Muslim leader in a city that is home to the second largest Jewish population in the world after the State of Israel. His election is not an issue per se but his being a devout Muslim who has repeatedly expressed anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian views is. That is because he continues to accuse Israel of genocide and his followers will no doubt try to influence US foreign policy by way of reducing or abandoning America’s hitherto unwavering support for the Jewish State. At the same time he professes not to be antisemitic.

This raises the question: “Is being anti-Israel the same as being antisemitic?”  

The relationship between criticism of the State of Israel and antisemitism is among the most contested and emotionally charged issues in contemporary political discourse. The question carries immense historical weight, given the legacy of Jewish persecution, the trauma of the Holocaust, and the ongoing Israeli Palestinian conflict. At the same time, Israel’s actions as a sovereign nation-state, its policies, political leadership, and military decisions invite scrutiny like any other government. Determining whether being anti-Israel is the same as being antisemitic requires unpacking definitions, motivations, and the complex ways political ideas intersect with identity.

Defining the Terms: Antisemitism is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews as individuals or as a collective, rooted in religious, ethnic, or racial animus. It is one of the oldest forms of discrimination and hatred in world history. By contrast being anti-Israel is a broad concept that can refer to criticism of Israeli government policies, rejection of Zionism as a political ideology, or opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. These positions vary widely in intensity and justification, and the motivations behind them can differ dramatically.

Criticism of Israel, whether of its settlement policies, military actions, treatment of Palestinians, or internal political dynamics is not inherently antisemitic. Israel is a nation-state, and its government, like any other, can be legitimately critiqued. Many Israelis themselves, including prominent Jewish scholars, activists, politicians, and human-rights groups, frequently criticize government policies. There are several reasons why criticism does not automatically equal antisemitism:

Distinguishing People from a Government: Criticizing a government’s policies is not the same as hating its people. This distinction is widely recognized in global politics; criticism of China’s government is not automatically anti-Chinese, nor is criticism of Saudi policies automatically anti-Arab.

Internal Diversity of Jewish Views:  Jews worldwide hold diverse political opinions. Many Jewish communities include anti-occupation activists, anti-Zionists, or critics of specific Israeli administrations. To equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism risks silencing these Jewish voices.

International Law and Human Rights Frameworks: Critiques grounded in human rights, international law, or ethical concerns are part of political discourse, not racial or religious prejudice.

However, there are cases where opposition to Israel does cross into antisemitism; understanding these boundaries is essential.

Holding Israel to double standards: Singling out Israel for criticism while ignoring similar actions by other countries can indicate underlying prejudice. This does not mean Israel cannot be criticised forcefully, but disproportionate scrutiny may signal bias.

Using classic antisemitic themes: When criticism incorporates ideas about Jewish control, global manipulation, it becomes overtly antisemitic even if framed as political criticism.

Targeting Jews worldwide for Israel’s actions: Worst of all is blaming or attacking Jewish individuals, institutions, or communities outside Israel for the decisions of the Israeli government is explicitly antisemitic. This conflates global Jewry with a foreign state in a way that no other diaspora community has been historically treated.

The question is often framed as a “yes or no” issue, but in reality, it is more nuanced. Views about Israel exist on a spectrum. Not all anti-Zionism is antisemitic, but some strands are. Not all severe criticism is bigotry, but some rhetoric clearly crosses the line into hate; motivation matters. A human rights activist criticizing settlement expansion acts differently from a propagandist invoking stereotypes about Jewish power. A person opposing nationalism in all forms, including Zionism, stands on different ground than someone singling out Jewish nationhood as uniquely illegitimate. Historical and political context also shape perceptions. For Jews, the memory of existential threats influences how anti-Israel rhetoric is experienced. For Palestinians, lived experiences of displacement, occupation, or dispossession shape their views. These parallel histories create highly charged emotions.

In conclusion, the claim that being anti-Israel is inherently antisemitic oversimplifies a deeply complex issue. Criticism of Israeli policies, even strong or foundational criticism, is not automatically antisemitic. People must have the freedom to criticise governments and ideologies without fear of wrongful accusation. At the same time, anti-Israel rhetoric can and does slip into antisemitism when it invokes prejudice, double standards, or animosity toward Jews as a people. The key lies in distinguishing between political disagreement and racial or religious hatred.

Ultimately, careful analysis of language, intent, and context is essential to navigating this debate. Recognizing the difference protects both the right to free political expression and the fight against genuine antisemitism, an enduring and hideous form of hatred that should always be challenged.

[simonloweblog]

The Arab/Israel/Palestine conflict-Part  2

Since the Yom Kippur War in 1973 (the last of the four major Arab-Israel wars) there have been two Intifadas and a further three significant conventional-style wars along with numerous other military conflicts and operations up to and including 2025. They were:

The 1982 Lebanon War: Israel invaded Lebanon to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from its bases there. Israel occupied southern Lebanon until 2000.

The 2006 Lebanon War: A conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The 2023-2025 Israel-Hamas war: which began with the October 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel and which is currently in a state of ceasefire.

The First Intifada 1987 to1993: A Palestinian uprising involving mass protests, strikes, and boycotts against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.

The Second Intifada 2000 to 2005: Also known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada, it was a period of more intense violence, including suicide bombings and significant Israeli military operations.

In addition, there have been five other significant "Operations". All these conflicts have taken innumerable lives and not one of them has effectively advanced the Palestinian objective to establish a Palestinian State and destroy the State of Israel. In fact, Israel has become even more powerful and entrenched than ever before. In contrast with the Palestinians, over the 77 year period since the establishment of the state of Israel, its population, economy and military strength have grown exponentially. Today, its high-tech based economy and its military power rank in the top ten countries in the world.

Unfortunately, like many other nations whose success and power have grown, it has led recent Israeli Governments to have Imperialist ambitions to further expand its borders while rejecting all pleas to reconsider and negotiate terms to create a two-State solution. Whereas there are many Israeli citizens and politicians who favour such a solution there are two principal factors that continue to make this improbable.

The first is Israel's current right-wing government. Let's remember that Israel is a democracy and that the current government is a legitimate one. To effect a change in government an election must be held; one will be held by next October. If Israelis want a change of direction that will be the time to vote Netanyahu and his right-wing colleagues out of power.  The more moderate Labour Party that held power during the formative years of the State and included Yitzak Rabin and Shimon Peres, have not been in power for over twenty years. The current Opposition party led by Yair Lapid may displace Netanyahu in next year's election but is unlikely to win an overall majority and would therefore have to form a coalition with other parties . The good news for those wanting a change of direction is that if he won there would be little chance that the right-wing extremist members of Netanyahu's current government, namely Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir would be included in his Cabinet. For so long as they have a seat Government there is no chance of a two State solution in fact the right-wing religious politicians believe that Israel has a right to incorporate the lands of Judea and Samaria into the State. Dislodging them from this philosophy and preventing further settlements in the West Bank will prove to be very difficult and so long as Trump is in the White House it is unlikely that he will bring pressure to bear on Netanyahu to change course.

The second factor is that, as set out in Part I last week, the Arabs have not been able to present a united front since the struggle started way back in the opening years of the twentieth century. How can any Israeli government reach a settlement with the Palestinians when there continues to be three competing Palestinian factions. Hamas threw the PA (Palestinian Authority) out of Gaza in 2007 and Hezbollah doesn’t get on with either Hamas or the PA. Whereas the PA recognized the right of Israel to live in peace back in 1993, some of its leaders have since walked back on that commitment. Today, President Abbas is old and presides over a corrupt administration in the West Bank while both Hamas and Hezbollah remain dedicated to wiping Israel off the map. They both remain Iran's regional proxies, so for as long as Iran finances them there will be no possibility of a lasting peace never mind a two State solution.

For there to be any chance of a lasting mutually agreeable settlement there first will have to be a sea change of thought on both sides. This will not come from Trump bullying his Arab friends into sending troops to Gaza or even providing the funds for the reconstruction of it. What is needed is for the USA to use its immense power to persuade Israel to change course. It could do so because in spite of Israel's military superiority over all the Arab States it is still largely dependent on US military hardware, intelligence and logistical support. Under Trump, a major shift is unlikely at this time but Mamdani's election as Mayor of NYC and the devastation that the IDF has inflicted on Gaza has already signaled a shift in US attitude towards Israel that could result in a marked change of America's long-standing almost unconditional commitment to it. Israeli politicians know this full well and should not hide or downplay the fact that Israel's safety and security remain heavily dependent on US support. The US, under President Trump made significant progress of bringing Israel and the Gulf States along with Saudi Arabia closer together with the establishment of the Abraham accords signed in September 2020 and recently Trump has shown his commitment to unwavering support for those states during his recent visit to the Middle East. MBS met Trump in Washington DC last Tuesday to discuss amongst other issues, Saudi investment in the USA and the sale of F35 Fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, as well as to advance action on Trump’s 20 point plan for an overall settlement. To have any chance of achieving this goal Saudi Arabia will need to spearhead an Arab initiative with Qatar to replace Iran as the principal benefactors of the Palestinian cause. For unless Iran is taken out the equation there will be continued impetus for Hamas and Hezbollah to rearm and start anew. Proof of that is well documented in Palestinian actions over the past 100 years. In addition, the Arab States need to persuade the three main Palestinian factions that to have any chance of success they must coalesce into one. President Abbas must be persuaded or forced to step down and be replaced with a new leader who can unite the various Palestinian factions. Furthermore, Hezbollah and Hamas must disavow their commitment to the destruction of Israel..

The good news is that at this time of writing, the last hostages have been returned to Israel, the Israeli bombing of Gaza has almost completely stopped, a partial withdrawal of the IDF forces has been implemented and humanitarian aid is now flowing into Gaza. However, the remaining fourteen items on Trump’s twenty-point plan for peace have yet to advance. First and foremost, Point 6 of the plan calls for Hamas to disarm; to date, they are refusing to do so.  

There is no doubt that with Iran’s military capability severely reduced and with Hamas and Hezbollah defeated, at least temporarily, there is a chance to advance towards a peace and a settlement. But together, all these challenges are formidable and will prove extremely difficult to solve. Depressingly, based on the pure hatred that Palestinians continue to have for Jews and Israelis and in turn, Israel’s intransigence per the current status quo, the reality is that there is little chance that this 77-year-old war will come to a permanent end any time soon.

[simonloweblog]

The Arab/Israel/Palestine conflict: Part I

I have compared the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict to the “100 Years War” in Europe that spanned the 12th and 13th centuries but which actually lasted 116 years. The current conflict between Arab & Jew in the Middle East is now in its 77th year but it is rooted in events that started in Palestine over one hundred years ago. Here in Part I, I review some of the highlights and characters that influenced the course of events that took place between 1917-1948.

Background

Over the years there have been scores of books, billions of printed words, endless discussions, negotiations and years of strife relating to the Arab/Jewish conflict. But to fully understand it and where it stands today we have to go back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 and the now infamous “Sykes-Picot Agreement”.

During World War I the question arose as what would happen to the Ottoman territories if the war led to the disintegration of The Ottoman Empire which had become known as “the sick man of Europe”. The Triple Entente made up of Britain, France & Russia moved to secure their respective interests in the region. During that war, the British had promised the Arabs independence (in the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence, 1915–16) if they revolted against the Ottoman Empire.However, in the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement, Britain and France divided up the Middle East between themselves into zones of control and influence.When this secret deal was exposed after the Russian Revolution in October 1917, Arabs felt betrayed, realizing that Britain had no intention of granting them full independence. This betrayal created deep Arab suspicion toward all later British promises, including those involving Jewish immigration and the Balfour Declaration.

The fact is that Britain’s promises were contradictory. To the Arabs they promised independence and self-rule and to the Jews a “national home” in Palestine.These overlapping and conflicting commitments made it impossible to satisfy both sides, planting the seed for later conflict.By dividing the Middle East into artificial zones, Sykes–Picot introduced borders that ignored ethnic and religiousrealities. When Britain took control of Palestine as a Mandate after WWI, it ruled as a colonial power balancing and manipulating both Jewish and Arab interests to maintain control. This colonial framework intensified rival nationalisms, Jewish Zionism vs. Arab nationalism.Arabs viewed Zionist immigration, initially encouraged by the British Mandate, as another foreign imposition just like Sykes-Picot’s Western carve-up of Arab lands.Thus, opposition to Jewish settlement became tied to a broader rejection of Western betrayal and imperialism that began with the Sykes-Picot framework. Together, these effects laid the political and emotional foundation for the Jewish-Arab conflict in Palestine that erupted during the British Mandate period and continues to resonate today.

To separate the realities from the fantasies of the conflict we need to go back to the beginning of the 20th Century when Jews started to emigrate to Palestine in numbers, predominantly to escape the pogroms in Eastern Europe. Two landmarks in this most complex story are the arrival in Palestine of David ben Gurion in 1906, who later became Israel’s first Prime Minister and the emergence of the founding father of the State of Israel, Chaim Weitzman. These two gentlemen, in particular, were passionate, resourceful and totally committed to the establishment of an Independent State for the Jewish people. Throughout the hundred years of this momentous struggle it is imperative to understand that at no time have the Palestinians had any leaders who were as united and as resourceful as these two men and the lack of Palestinian leadership is a principle reason why the Palestinian Arabs failed in their quest to establish their own State when they had the chance to do so.

Weitzman, who before emigrating to Palestine had lived in Manchester England, was extremely well connected to the British establishment and it was he who managed to persuade Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, to issue the famous “Balfour Declaration” in 1917.

It was a letter he addressed to Lord Rothschild:

“I have pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of his Majesty’s Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet. His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”

It should be noted that the establishment of “a national home” is not the same thing as the establishment of a State.

In the very same year, General Allenby, commander in chief of the British Egyptian expeditionary forces, entered Jerusalem. With the defeat of the Ottomans and the collapse of their empire the way was clear for Britain to establish the British Mandate in Palestine. These two events were effectively to set in motion a thirty year struggle that ended with the disgraceful departure of the British from Palestine and the Declaration of the State of Israel on May 10th 1948.

 “The main Players” : Jews and Arabs- Palestine 1917-1948:

There were several key players on both sides of the conflict leading up to and beyond the withdrawal of the British in 1948, they were:

For the Jews: 

Chaim Weitzman: President of the World Zionist Organization and First President of Israel

David ben Gurion: Head of the Jewish Agency: Key architect of the State of Israel and its first Prime Minister

Vladimir Jabotinsky: He inspired the Irgun and Likud movements both of which were labeled by the British as terrorist organisations

Menachem Begin: leader of the Irgun who were responsible for the attack that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, then the British headquarters in Palestine. He eventually became Prime Minister of Israel and signed the Camp David agreement with Anwar Sadat to bring peace between Israel & Egypt.

Eliyahu Golombe architect of The Haganah which was the official arm of those working towards an Israeli state and was recognised and partly armed by the Brits.

For the Arabs:

Haj Amin al-Husseini: Grand mufti of Jerusalem, head of the supreme Muslim council. He led the Arab revolt against British rule and Jewish immigration and begged Arab countries to supply him with arms to fight the Jews and defend their land but the Arab Liberation Army was ill- equipped and badly organized.

Jamal al -Husseini: leader of the Palestinian Party founded in 1935.

Izz ad-Din al Qassam: preacher and militant leader who organized armed resistance against British rule and Jewish settlements in the early 1930s

Abd al-Qadir al Husseini: military commander of the Arab forces during the 1948 war.

Raghib al-Nashashibi: Mayor of Jerusalem 1920-34. His rivalry with haj Amin contributed to divisions in the Palestinian leadership.

The key difference between the leadership of these two groups was that the Jews were better united in pursuit of their aims whereas the Arabs were constantly at odds with each other and thus were much less effective in achieving their goals.

Palestine under The British 1917-1948:

The Mandate that the British government was given in 1917 was central to British colonial policy and was strategically important for the Empire. They quietly supported the Haganah and planned that the Jewish minority would assist them in doing so and would help control the Palestinians. At the time of the Balfour Declaration the Jews in Palestine formed less than 10% of the population. There was no conflict between Jew and Arab. As two semitic peoples they got on very well and of course all the Jews that lived in Palestine were Palestinians. As the aspirations of the Jewish Agency became bolder and as more and more Jews migrated to Palestine, the first rumblings of discontent by the Arabs began to surface in the 1920s and was primarily led by the young Haj Amin-al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem. By 1930 the Jewish population of Palestine had swelled to 17% and by 1937 to over 32%. By this time, the Arabs were at breaking point and this led to the Arab revolt of 1936 which lasted till 1939. It was ruthlessly put down by the British.  

In Caroline Elkin’s masterful account of the history of the British Empire in "A Legacy of Violence" she describes the sheer brutality of the British which found its most savage face during the time of their Mandate in Palestine. There is no doubt that they treated the Palestinians appallingly and favoured the Jews. This gave the Jews a huge advantage during a critical period.

In 1939 the Brits issued a statement limiting Jewish immigration to 15,000 a year for 5 years and decreed that thereafter no further immigration would be permitted without Palestinian agreement. But by that time the Jews were well on the way to having a well-equipped militia and they were brilliantly organised. By comparison, the Palestinians were ill-equipped and had effectively been destroyed by the British during and after the 1936 rebellion; they never recovered.

By 1946 the Brits were both exhausted and broke and there were 100,000 British troops in Palestine that they could no longer afford to keep. The next year, Minister Bevan declared that Britain would leave Palestine. So, in only 30 years the Brits had gone from conquering Imperialists to making preparations to leave Palestine with their tail between their legs.

 I think it is fair to say that had the British acted more impartially and more even- handed, the outcome for the Palestinians would have been very different.

The United Nations & The Declaration of the State of Israel.

Only months after Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945, America’s grand design of forming a body to replace the failed League of Nations, resulted in the creation of the United Nations on October 24th 1945. The horrors of the Holocaust had already been revealed with the liberation of the death camps by Russian, British and American forces. Harnessing the sympathy and guilt that many countries felt for the remaining Jews in Europe, Jewish leaders in Palestine, Britain and the US ruthlessly promoted their agenda for an Independent Israeli State.  Despite strong Arab opposition, on November 29th 1947 the General Assembly of the UN passed Resolution 181 which recommended dividing Mandatory Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish States.

Six months later, on May 10th 1948, David Ben Gurion declared the State of Israel with the United States being the very first country to recognize it. At no time during this period did the Palestinians declare their own State.

It is important to chart the key moments along the way so that facts not fiction can illustrate how the current ongoing struggle had reached this point.

On the day that Independence was declared, the Arab armies of Egypt, Trans Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq attacked Israel. They believed that they would easily overrun and defeat the nascent State. One of the great controversies of that time is whether the Israelis forced the circa 300,000 Palestinians to flee or whether the invading armies told their Arab brethren to leave advising them that they would quickly defeat the Jews and that they would be able to return to their homes within days. The fact is that there is no proof that the invading Arab countries told Palestinians to flee. However, it is true that some units of the IDF (Israel Defense Force) did force some villages to leave their homes but equally so, historians state that in almost all conflicts throughout history civilians flee war zones of their own accord.

On January 7th 1949, the First Arab-Israel war ended with the Armistice Agreement. The Arab armies had been convincingly defeated and for the first time the Jews formed an overall majority of the population.

During those momentous years the simple truth is that the struggle between Jews and Arabs to wrest the mandate from the British was won by the Jews.  Subsequently in every war waged by the Arabs in an effort to destroy the Jewish State, in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973,  and via various intifadas and “sub” wars they have failed to achieve their objective of destroying Israel and, returning the Palestinians to their homes and creating a separate Palestinian State.

Next week, in Part II, I will comment on the period from 1948 to the present and review the chances for a lasting peace and an equitable solution to this historic conflict.

[simonloweblog]

"The genie is out of the bottle"

The Genie is truly out of the bottle. The downfall of Andrew is almost complete, but the damage done to the Monarchy has only just begun. By stripping him of all his titles and banishing him to his private estate in Norfolk, King Charles hopes that his subjects’ anger will have been satiated and this damaging royal chapter will be closed. That is very unlikely; the US Congress has now invited Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to give testimony in the ongoing Epstein saga and there is every likelihood that there will be further revelations to come. The British public and members of parliament are now asking questions about the Monarchy’s finances which hitherto have been taboo and if the actual cost and value of supporting them without any scrutiny or evaluation is worth it. The level of concern across the nation relating to the current state of the economy is fertile breeding ground for anti- monarchists.  The much admired and loved late Queen was untouchable. She represented continuity and stability in spite of the fact that over the seventy years of her reign society in Great Britain had changed out of all recognition as the traditional boundaries of class definition had shifted. Today the majority of wealth creation  is derived from self-made entrepreneurs. The entire “gong” system of honor rewards is out of date and ridiculous in 2025. The OBE (Order.of the British Empire), MBE, & CBE refer to “the British Empire which is no more. Dukes, which Andrew was one of until stripped of that title are referred to as “Your Grace”; give me a break! How can Brits move towards to a  more equal society if that type of outdated pomp and deference is still clung to?

Since the Queens passing in 2022, Charles who many doubted would have an easy ride, has been well received but he too represents a bygone era.

The youth of today simply do not revere royalty as did their parents and grandparents, nor do they care much for the pomp and ceremony that their elders claim is so valuable to Britain’s soft power standing in the world. Donald Trump loves gold and his ride in a royal gold carriage on his first State visit was prized by him but was of little value to the majority of UK citizens. The truth is that unlike other European monarchies that have been substantially streamlined since WWII, the cost of running the British monarchy continues to escalate. Yes, a few of the minor royals have been cut lose but the seven hundred odd servants that do the bidding of those who have spent a lifetime cutting ribbons and making small speeches can frankly no longer be justified.

Andrew’s disgrace provides the perfect opportunity to examine the validity and appropriateness of the Monarchy if not in its entirety but certainly in its current form. There are those who lament the passing of the traditional values of British society but the fact is that the Britain of today is not the same as it was during the days of Empire. The Ottoman and Russian Empires fell in 1917, the German and Austro Hungarian Empires in 1918 and since then, the Greek, Italian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Yugoslavian, Albanian, Egyptian, Iraqi, Chinese, Libyan, Afghani, Indian, Nepalese and Iranian Monarchies have all been abolished. Yet in 1917 our German royal family  changed their name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to “Windsor” to sound more British and less German. At that time the British people were happy to continue on with a constitutional monarch supported by a land-owning aristocracy and a parliament governed by white Christian men and Prime Ministers almost all of whom were educated at Eton. Women did not even have the vote. Over the past hundred years since then British society has radically changed but the Monarchy remains largely intact and as it was back in 1917. Yes, the late Queen agreed to pay some taxes, but she decided which ones and the amounts that she would pay and there has never been any scrutiny of the Windsor's finances.

As head of the Church of England, an institution that is diminishing annually in terms of importance in the daily lives of the British, the Prince of Wales now declares that he is not sure if he is a believer or not. When inevitably he ascends the throne, how could he become head of the Church under those circumstances?

The truth is that every aspect of British life and Britains role in the world has changed and it is time for the future of the Monarchy to be examined and assessed by the British people. Many in the commonwealth from Barbados to Australia and Canada think that it is no longer appropriate to have a King never mind one who lives thousands of miles away. I suspect that those nations no longer want to sing:

             “God save our gracious king…. long  to reign over us."

[simonloweblog]

A new voice and a new rallying cry for the Democrats

Since November 5, 2024, the Democratic Party has been conducting an ongoing autopsy on why they lost the Presidential election and how Donald Trump won the votes of so many of their traditional constituents. He managed to persuade single young men, Hispanics and many voters who were struggling financially that he was the one who would bring down the cost of groceries and that he had their b est interests at heart whereas the Democrats were married to Wall Street, DEI and Woke.

Over the past one hundred years there have been three Democrats who really preached democracy and mesmerized the American electorate: FDR, John F. Kennedy and Barrack Obama.

In a world of headlines and news dominated by social media there are three essential ingredients that a candidate must have to win elections:

Charisma

Commanding oratory.

A plan that convinces the electorate they will deliver.

Kamala Harris is not charismatic nor is Pritzker and neither are great orators. Gavin Newsom does not have a “plan”. Look at Britain's Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. He is an intelligent, well-meaning, educated Barrister, but he has had a charisma bypass, is at best a dull orator and His “plan” has unraveled miserably. Hitler oozed charisma, was a brilliant orator and definitely had a plan. Like Hitler, Trump also has all three essential ingredients but Hitler's plan did not work and I believe that ultimately neither will Trump’s.

Today’s vociferous, disgruntled young electorate is fed up with the old establishment personified by the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Neither one possesses any of the three essential characteristics.

There is however a new young man who does; Zoran Mamdani. He has been labeled a communist by DJT, a jihadist by white right-wingers and a dangerous Muslim fanatic by Republicans but from polling only 1% in October 2024, he now stands poised to win New York's Mayoral election tomorrow with a substantial majority.  Of course Mr. Mamdani’s “plan” may fail at the first hurdle. The power players in NYC are unlikely to become his friends and if threatened they may simply decide to “take him out”. His co-"conspirators", Bernie Sanders and AOC have been shunned by the Oligarchs and the big wigs of the Democratic establishment and they are deemed to be too left wing for the majority of Americans. Genuine as they are they do not possess the charisma nor charm or have the right tone in their delivery.

As always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating but if Mamdani is seen to be genuine and makes a good start he may just galvanize the youth and moderates in America and by evoking the policies of FDR, become a national figure and an alternative to the narcissistic divisiveness of Trump's Maga movement.  Listen to his speech at his final rally last week and decide whether this is a man who has what it takes to turn out the vote and capture the imagination of the millions of Americans who are currently struggling, have no hope of realizing the “American dream” and who have lost all faith in traditional politicians

[simonloweblog]

The Jury is Out

Throughout the world, politicians on the left and right are ramping up the rhetoric; trying to outdo each other with accusatory remarks and extremism. "Hands across the aisle" and “consensus politics” are a thing of the past- at least for now. The divide is not only between left and right but between old and young.

Respect between people of different religions, cultures and age groups is no longer a pillar of a civilised society. Every aspect of social etiquette can be mocked or challenged. Young people communicate in a totally different way to their elders and patience is no longer a virtue- immediate decision making and action is. Social media and 30 second soundbites are the new pillars of learning and communication amongst the young and frankly many of those in power simply do not understand or "get it".

Freedom of speech is attacked in the US when House Speaker Mike Johnson says, "you are either with us or you are a traitor" when referring to speeches made at many of the "No King" marches across America last week.Even freedom of dress can no longer be taken for granted. In Italy, Prime Minister Meloni is to ban the Burka in public places.In the US, people convicted of crimes in a court of law receive pardons or have their sentences commuted, while former pillars of the Establishment are being prosecuted because they have spoken out against the President.

Even more disturbing were comments recently made by Katie Lam, an English MP with aspirations to lead the Conservative party.  In an interview with the Sunday Times  last week  she referred to "cultural coherence" in the context of her remarks on immigration and the status of legally settled migrants in the UK. Lam argued that a significant number of people who have “indefinite leave to remain in the UK” should be deported in order to achieve what she called a “culturally coherent” society.Her remarks provoked condemnation from opposing parties with the Labour Party describing her proposal as “utterly grotesque” for seeking to remove legally settled individuals for the sake of “cultural coherence”. 

It is 57 years since Enoch Powell, UK Shadow Defence Secretary at the time made his infamous speech known as  "Rivers of Blood". He proposed "repatriating" black and brown immigrants even though they had come to the UK as Citizens of the British Empire. He was branded a Fascist and that one speech destroyed his political career. His raison d'etre was in the same vain as Katie Lam's. But times have radically changed  and what was unacceptable then is acceptable now. I doubt that her political career will be destroyed by her remarks; on the contrary it may even enhance it! She goes even further than Enoch Powell did in so much as she expresses, in posh language, what Nationalists everywhere feel and often fear; namely that their traditional values and lifestyle are threatened by people of a different religion, colour or culture who come to live in “their” country. The idea so often touted by American Liberals that "we are not the Blue States or the Red States but the United States” sounds very hollow today but not more so than the gaping divide between The Labour and Reform parties in the UK or the Social Democrats and the AFD in Germany.

The postwar era of peace and prosperity that the West inspired the world to emulate and deliver to its citizens is no longer the model that the rest of the world envies or aspires to. It's economic, cultural and political systems are in serious jeopardy and are being challenged on all fronts. Will Enoch Powell's  "Rivers of Blood" speech dictate the future policies of the Western democracies or can the aspirations of Liberal democracy prevail? The jury is out.