WHEN INSULTS HAD CLASS

We all need a respite from the intense national and international political, military and economic environment we have become familiar with. I recently came across a series of annotated insults from a time when adversaries were more sophisticated publishing their opinions about each other, rather than reverting to our currently adopted habit of simply calling each other out using four letter epithets. Taking a break from the multitude of potential topics, I decided to take advantage of research done by multiple historical chroniclers and copy a number of these. Please enjoy: - "He had delusions of adequacy." - Walter Kerr - "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." - Winston Churchill - "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow - "He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." - William Faulkner about Ernest Hemingway - "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?" - Ernest Hemingway about William Faulkner) - "Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I'll waste no time reading it." - Moses Hadas - "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain - "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain - "To create man was a fine and original idea; but to add the sheep was a tautology." - Mark Twain - " God created war so that Americans would learn geography." - Mark Twain - "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends." - Oscar Wilde - "I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend, if you have one." - George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill - "Cannot possibly attend first night. Will attend second ...if there is one." -Winston Churchill, in response - "I feel so miserable without you; it is almost like having you here." -Stephen Bishop - "He is a self-made man and worships his creator." - John Bright - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb - "He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others." - Samuel Johnson - "He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." - Paul Keating - "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." - Forrest Tucker - "He had just about enough intelligence to open his mouth when he wanted to eat, but certainly no more." - P.G. Woodhouse - "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork." - Mae West - "Some cause happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go." - Oscar Wilde - "He has Van Gogh's ear for music." - Billy Wilder - "If you were my husband I'd give you poison in your coffee." - Lady Astor to Winston Churchill - "If you were my wife, I'd drink it." - Churchill's response - "I may be drunk, miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." - Churchill to Lady Astor or Bessie Braddock. -"A modest little person with much to be modest about." Winston Churchill - "He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." - Abraham Lincoln - "There is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure." - Jack E. Leonard - "They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." - Thomas Brackett Reed - "You are a classic example of the inverse ratio between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain." - The doctor, (Doctor Who) - "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that full you. He really is an idiot." - Groucho Marx_ - "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang - "I do desire we may be better strangers." - William Shakespeare - As You Like It - "Well, at least he has found his true love" - what a pity he can't marry himself." Frank Sinatra about Robert Redford - "She got her good looks from her father, he's a plastic surgeon." - Groucho Marx about Elizabeth Taylor - "That woman speaks eighteen languages, and can't say "No" in any of them." - Dorothy Parker - "Thank you for your very amusing review. After reading it ... I laughed all the way to the bank." Michael Douglas to a critic who gave him a bad review My bank won't really care. I do hope you enjoyed these and endeavor to couch your criticisms in more sophisticated terms. Theo Wierdsma

ON THE BRINK - AGAIN

On April 1, Israel bombed an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, Syria, ostensibly targeting a meeting between Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants. The strike killed a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, six Guard Corps soldiers, five Iran backed militants, one Hezbollah fighter, one Iranian advisor, and two civilians. What was unusual of this attack was not that it was executed within the volatile middle eastern war zone. What was unusual was that, while previous Israeli operations inside Iran had been covert, this one was openly admitted to by the Israeli government. Besides, while previous strikes within Iranian territory would have been communicated with U.S. counterparts prior to execution, this one remained secret until Israeli planes were already airborne. Moreover, while virtually all covert attacks in the past were well out of its territory, this attack was well within the country's diplomatic premises, which, according to article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted in 1961, was accepted as inviolable. This meant that an attack on an embassy or consulate is considered an attack on the country it represents. So, given the situation on the ground, it would not seem unreasonable to anticipate impending responses to an openly admitted fatal attack. Iran's massive response, firing 170 weaponized drones and 150 cruise and ballistic missiles, may not appear to have been proportionate. However, it also appeared calibrated, measured, and was communicated in advance. Given the 620 miles separating the two adversaries multiple more aggressive strategies could have been employed. Its response was not meant to do much harm to civilians or significant damage to infrastructure. A well prepared, collaborative effort at preventing potentially significant casualties and damage successfully kept things calm. The question remained, why did we go through this at all? As a cynic - not a fan of Bibi Netanyahu, nor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s theocratic government, the answer is not militarily, it is political. Both adversaries are extremely familiar with their respective military strength. However, each one should also be aware of domestic political dynamics. Let’s face it, it does not take a genius to calculate prospective responses to an admitted fatal attack. So, what were they thinking? Mr. Netanyahu seemed to have calculated that the U.S., even if not informed in advance, would support Israel no matter what the response from Iran would be. Given that only 15% of Israelis want him to keep his job following the war with Hamas, its continuation was essential for the prime minister’s political survival. Simultaneously, more than 60% of the Iranian population has polled to be opposed to the current regime. With elections to be completed on May 2, domestic imperatives were dominant when deciding on effective retaliatory responses. In both cases domestic political considerations may have featured in considering aggressive actions. Mr. Netanyahu has a history of exploiting national security belligerence to stay in power. During the run-up to the 2019 elections the “Washington Institute” observed that “to win reelection, Bibi Netanyahu is waging “wars” at home and abroad, launching air strikes against multiple middle eastern countries” With greatly diminishing popular support, and in need of shifting some of the international focus from the carnage in Gaza, it is not surprising that he continues to flaunt national security prowess to shore up his political acumen. His critics describe him as either a master strategist in complete control, or a hysterical politician in the twilight of his reign, doing everything he is able to to maintain his grip on power. Similarly in Iran, having been aggressively, fatally and openly accosted, the Ayatollah regime could not sit back and absorb Israeli aggression without losing significant support at home. But, having demonstrated its resolve and capability, the Iranian government notified the world that it is not seeking a further escalation with Israel after its retaliatory attack. At this writing, Israel’s war cabinet is still considering its options. Allies urge restraint. President Biden made it clear that the U.S. will not offer support for any retaliatory action by Israel. The Israeli Defense Force vows to retaliate. Israel Katz, the country’s foreign minister is busily posting on social media leading a diplomatic attack. House Speaker Mike Johnson outlined a plan to pass aid for Israel through Congress, separating it from support for Ukraine and Taiwan. The rest of us will keep our fingers crossed in anticipation of politicians deciding which way to move forward. Theo Wierdsma

FROM VISIONARIES TO FUNCTIONARIES - LACKING INSPIRING LEADERSHIP, THE E.U. COMES UNDER INCREASING PRESSURE

War, migration, post pandemic recessions and farmers furious at climate change measures have turbo charged an accelerating populist advance in many of the 27 member European Union. What was once a committed supranational organization led by inspired and inspiring leadership is gradually losing political power under assault by nativist forces. Between June 6 and 9 its member states will select more than 700 representatives to the E.U. Parliament, an election which outcome could prove to be of vital importance to the efficacy of the union. As a supranational union, an international organization which is empowered to directly exercise some of the power and functions otherwise reserved to states, the European Union, in contrast to previous attempts at unification, has been remarkably successful. However, its successful transformation into an organization predominantly maintained by functionaries executing decisions and decrees emanating from compromises reached in the parliament and the European Council may also be its gradual political undoing. Prior to the post World War II period, virtually all attempts at unifying Europe were driven by hereditary authorities or military forces led by a political elite with pretentious visions. Examples include the Roman Empire essentially launched by Julius Caesar's adopted son Augustus in 27 BCE; the Holy Roman Empire, introduced by Charlemagne, king of the Franks, which lasted from 962 to 1806; and Napoleon's custom's union, essentially initiated to embargo the import of British goods. Following a series of annihilating European wars, a number of visionary leaders began seriously discussing the need to change Europe's landscape. During the 30 year war (1618 to 1648) 20% of the European population had perished. During the first World War an estimated 10 million European casualties were recorded. And the total number of military and civilian victims resulting from World War II was estimated at 20 million in Europe alone. From resistance fighters to lawyers and parliamentarians, the E.U. pioneers consisted of a diverse group of people who shared the same ideal: create a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe. The objective was to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible, in contrast with the destructive nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries that began in glorious patriotism and ended in war. Outstanding leaders of this group included: Alcide de Gasperi, prime minister of Italy who mediated between Germany and France; German chancellor Helmut Kohl and French president Francois Mitterrand; Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, French politician Jean Monnet and others. These were inspired professionals delivering an inspirational message. Although they did not necessarily conform to the traditional image of charismatic leaders, they were able to convince much of the electorate in prospective member countries that this was the way out of the doldrums of perpetual war. They were preaching to the choir while the devastation of war was still omnipresent. Their vision quickly took shape. The European Coal and Steel Community was initiated in 1951; the Treaty of Rome, which launched the European Economic Community was signed in 1957; the European Parliament came into being the following year, and further developments followed in rapid succession. Currently the bloc covers 27 nations, 450 million people and accounts for one-sixth of the global economy. It features deep political, economic and social integration, and includes a common market, joined border control, a common currency for most, a Supreme Court and regular popular elections. While its early successful growth spurt borders on being revolutionary, recent political developments in multiple member states threaten to diminish the bloc's continued political power. Countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy, Belgium and The Netherlands all elected right-wing populist or nativist leaning governments. The core issue for these is migration. This also happens to be a major challenge for the European Council, the Council of Ministers, which represents the individual members' governments and defines the E.U.'s overall political direction and priorities. The Council's attempt at forging an agreement on redistributing asylum seekers within the bloc is substantially opposed by these political movements which fear a further dilution of conventional traditions and cultures in their home countries. Since policy positions about sensitive issues require unanimity on the Council, its progress has effectively come to a halt. This issue illustrates the quandary the bloc's supranational decision making powers is facing. In 2014, 28% of representatives elected to its parliament were counted among those identified as Eurosceptic, opposed to increasing the powers of the E.U. and intent on reforming the union from within. This already considerable faction is predicted to grow significantly as a result of the upcoming elections. Consequently, the European Union's ability to construct foreign policy choices may well become diminished going forward, which, in turn, could affect its association with traditional political partners across the globe. The Union's charismatic underpinning has shifted from visionary idealists during the formative period to lackluster political support championed by charismatic native leaders who want to restructure the union or break it up from inside and ultimately reduce it back to simply become a common market again. Theo Wierdsma