February 2012


A few weeks before the congressional hearing on Kosovo — in which Rohrabacher suggested a land swap — there had been an op-ed by him in the Serb-reviling Wall St. Journal. It was written in a language I’ll call officialdumb, reading like a list of State Department talking points until the part where he proposes the land swap. I gave him too much credit in my blog about the hearing, saying that he gives some consideration to the Serbian side. He does not. His compromise suggestion is based simply on avoiding clashes:

A Balkan Peace Bargain (Oct. 18)

…Over recent months, those Belgrade-backed Kosovar Serbs have become increasingly aggressive and violent against the Kosovar government they refuse to recognize. The peace and stability negotiated between the region’s warring ethnic factions in the late 1990s is now at risk of falling apart completely.

(It’s peace and stability when only Serbs are in danger and getting picked off, mowed down, and bombed.)

On Sept. 27 the situation became even more urgent, when EU-sponsored talks between Serbia and Kosovo broke down. This came after four NATO soldiers and 16 Serb civilians were seriously injured in a struggle over the illegal barricades that Belgrade-backed extremists [sic] had erected throughout North Kosovo. The barricades are part of Serbia’s campaign to maintain the embargo on Kosovar products that it imposed after Pristina declared independence in 2008.

Such warning signs should not be ignored, not least because they threaten to unravel the orderly diplomatic strategy designed to resolve the conflict. Contrary to the peace plans of the 1990s, Belgrade has often repeated its intention to make the current de facto partition of North Kosovo a permanent de jure reality. This has fueled the violent factions currently operating in North Kosovo and could result in a repeat of the senseless killing sprees that the region thought it had left behind.

(Or, at least, which Rohrabacher thought it had left behind. Then again, he was paid good KLA money — including with guided trips to Kosovo — to not notice.)

…The first step should be for the international community to admit that while it has helped Kosovars rebuil[d] their country, revitalize their economy, establish democratic institutions and heal the scars of war since 1999, the hardening informal partition of North Kosovo could undo all they’ve accomplished so far.

So the next step will be a for a bold, new strategy that recognizes Kosovar Serbs’ right to self-determination while respecting Kosovo’s sovereignty. Throughout my career in the U.S. Congress, I have argued that if the Kosovars want to be independent of Serbia, they should be. Likewise, if a majority of people in North Kosovo would rather be a part of Serbia, they should be too.

Holy shit!

One option that would be consistent with the right to self-determination and that would bolster long-term stability would be for an honorable transfer between Serbia and Kosovo of roughly equal pieces of territory and population. In North Kosovo the ethnic Serbs would, should they choose to do so by a vote, be transferred to the sovereignty of Serbia.

[sic: Since according to the internationally recognized borders of Serbia, as reaffirmed by UN Resolution 1244, the Serbs wouldn’t need to be “transferred” to Serbian sovereignty, as they are already part of it and have been for the past century and previous centuries.]

Simultaneously, the Kosovar majority in southern Serbia could become part of Kosovo should they so desire. This would offer all parties the opportunity for an equal exchange, based on fairness and self-determination for both sides.

To be sure, there has been a lot of hand-wringing in the U.S. and in European capitals about the viability of land swaps for peace. Critics warn that such exchanges will only set in motion currently dormant conflicts — the ultimate domino effect, leading every disenfranchised minority population to feel that they can and should pursue independence, regardless of the circumstances.

To be sure, that’s what the Kosovo secession set in motion, to no hand-wringing in Washington.

That view, however, is unduly pessimistic. I happen to agree with Austrian politician Erhard Busek, the former head of the Stability Pact for Southeast Europe, who told Serbia’s Novi Magazin last month that “Brussels and Washington say that the borders cannot be changed, but if Pristina and Belgrade would agree among themselves, then the Europeans and Americans would also agree.” If executed properly, the land-and-population-swap option would calm rather than exacerbate hostilities…

Picking up on the land swap idea was a Wall St. Journal writer named Goran Mijuk, who named his piece “Kosovo Calling, For New Ideas.” Like Rohrabacher and everyone else who hasn’t been following the region, he too thinks “new ideas” for Kosovo are allowed even as the U.S. guarantees its terrorist leaders nothing short of everything they demand. But he had two paragraphs worth addressing:

[R]edrawing Kosovo’s border risks opening the Balkan’s Pandora’s box, as it could provoke fresh calls for land swaps and border changes elsewhere in the region. For exactly this reason, Kosovo’s prime minister Hashim Thaci told Swiss media this week that there will “be neither a border change nor land swap” in Kosovo. In the same interview he also refuted the idea that Kosovo’s Serbs should be granted a special status or autonomy.

It’s a joke that Mijuk attributes this responsible concern to Thaci’s “reasoning” for not accepting anything less than the full Albanian national demand. Why “swap” anything (i.e. Presevo Valley) when he plans to get it all in the end? And again, Thaci knows that the dangerous precedent set for the region was his Kosovo itself. The preceding is also a good example of the Albanian side not considering any compromise, much less offering the Serbian minority anything like what Serbia offered its Albanian minority via Kosovo autonomy. Meanwhile, the Serbian side continues bending over backwards to come up with compromises, as the other Mijuk paragraph illustrates:

One such idea, which has been floated by Ivica Dacic, Serbia’s interior minister… is that of a federation. The concept, he told the Serbian press, originated during a lunch talk with German chancellor Angela Merkel, who thought the idea “interesting”, according to Dacic.

But getting back to Rohrabacher. Here’s a video of this freak — who still has photos hanging in his office of himself in mujahedeen attire in the Afghanistan war with Russia — serenading America. And yet he wants you to beware of those “nationalist” Serbs.

I remember attending a Sept. 2006 panel discussion sponsored by the American Council for Kosovo and hearing arguments against Kosovo secession. Before it began, I saw a complacent-looking Rohrabacher sprawled out on the couch, skimming the program. When Council director Jim Jatras passed by, Rohrabacher asked him something to which Jim responded, “No, this is a meeting arguing against Kosovo independence.” At which point he swiftly gathered himself up and sped out of the room. After all, he wasn’t being paid to hold that position, was he. (Recall from a 2010 blog that I wrote: “‘[R]adical Muslim groups have contributed substantial amounts of money to Rohrabacher in order to have him support anti-Jewish groups including Hamas, as well as violent Albanian groups across the the Balkans.’ (Note : After being exposed, Rohrabacher did a one-eighty vis-à-vis Israel; as for Hamas’s Albanian counterparts who have been giving Rohrabacher all kinds of goodies for his loyalty, well who’s going to complain about that? Where is that dastardly Serbian lobby?)”)

Even more entertaining than what I’ve revealed so far was the following excerpt from an article that appeared in the Orange County newspaper OC Weekly, a year after 9/11, recalling Rohrabacher’s mujahedeen days:

Rogue Statesman
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s absolutely crazy, quite possibly illegal back-channel chats with the villains of Sept. 11
(Sept. 5, 2002)

“[Rohrabacher] says the Taliban are devout traditionalists—not terrorists or revolutionaries. He believes a Taliban takeover [of Afghanistan] would be a positive development.”

—Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November/December 1996 issue

…”Listen! Hold on!” said Rohrabacher. “I am a bigger expert on Afghanistan than any member of Congress.”

As a speechwriter and special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, Rohrabacher played a key role in the late 1980s getting money and arms, including U.S.-made Stinger missiles, to Afghan holy warriors, then at war with the Soviet Union. He once bragged of being “certainly a major player” in a coalition inside the White House that supported anyone “opposing Communist domination around the world.” In November 1988, he even visited the Afghan front lines during a five-day hike with an armed mujahideen patrol in eastern Afghanistan. Among those fighters he encountered, he later recalled, were “Saudi Arabians under a crazy commander named bin Laden.”

Rohrabacher carried that record to a C-SPAN microphone on Sept. 11…Excoriating the intelligence community, he demanded to know, “Where’s the FBI? Where’s the CIA?” and asked how they would explain their “catastrophic incompetence.”

“I’ve been begging people to do something about Afghanistan,” he said. “And I said if we didn’t do anything about the Taliban, we would pay a dear price.”

The next day, The Orange County Register reported in a top story, “Horror and Hindsight,” that the terrorist attacks “could turn out to be a horrific told-you-so” for Rohrabacher. To make sure his “angry” comments were amplified, the congressman granted multiple television, radio and newspaper interviews and authored an unsolicited column that carried this note: “A must read. You will be livid over the level of incompetency [sic] in our intelligence agencies.” In it, Rohrabacher claimed that the Clinton administration — out of office for eight months when the attacks occurred — had ignored his pleas not to negotiate with the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic party controlling most of Afghanistan since 1996. (A hardcore partisan Republican, Rohrabacher remained silent about numerous meetings between George W. Bush’s advisors and the Taliban throughout 2001.) On Sept. 17, 2001, the congressman declared, “There is rage in my soul.”

Right-wing organizations across the nation immediately picked up on Rohrabacher’s anti-Taliban, anti-Clinton statements and hailed him a “hero.”

In fact, Rohrabacher’s post-Sept. 11 finger-pointing was a fraud designed to distract attention from his own ongoing meddling in the foreign-policy nightmare. Federal documents reviewed by the Weekly show that Rohrabacher maintained a cordial, behind-the-scenes relationship with Osama bin Laden’s associates in the Middle East — even while he mouthed his most severe anti-Taliban comments at public forums across the U.S. There’s worse: despite the federal Logan Act ban on unauthorized individual attempts to conduct American foreign policy, the congressman dangerously acted as a self-appointed secretary of state, constructing what foreign-affairs experts call a “dual tract” policy with the Taliban.

A veteran U.S. foreign-policy expert told the Weekly, “If Dana’s right-wing fans knew the truth about his actual, working relationship with the Taliban and its representatives in the Middle East and in the United States, they wouldn’t be so happy.”

Nowadays, Rohrabacher and his numerous aides are quick to provide copies of the congressman’s pre-Sept. 11 rants against the Taliban. They will tell you that he labeled them “a pack of dogs killing anyone” and “the most anti-Western, anti-female, anti-human rights regime in the world.” They will also show you records of the congressman berating Clinton administration foreign-policy advisors for misreading Taliban intentions and for trying to negotiate peace in Afghanistan with the militant Islamic group’s Mullah Mohammed Omar, a bin Laden associate.

What they won’t mention is that Rohrabacher also once lobbied shamelessly for the Taliban. A November/December 1996 article in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported, “The potential rise of power of the Taliban does not alarm Rohrabacher” because the congressman believes the “Taliban could provide stability in an area where chaos was creating a real threat to the U.S.” Later in the article, Rohrabacher claimed that:

Taliban leaders are “not terrorists or revolutionaries.” Media reports documenting the Taliban’s harsh, radical beliefs were “nonsense.” The Taliban would develop a “disciplined, moral society” that did not harbor terrorists. The Taliban posed no threat to the U.S.

Although he continues to describe himself as an expert on Afghan history and politics, Rohrabacher was obviously dead wrong on all counts.

Evidence of Rohrabacher’s attempts to conduct his own foreign policy became public on April 10, 2001, not in the U.S., but in the Middle East. On that day, ignoring his own lack of official authority, Rohrabacher opened negotiations with the Taliban at the Sheraton Hotel in Doha, Qatar, ostensibly for a “Free Markets and Democracy” conference. There, Rohrabacher secretly met with Taliban Foreign Minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, an advisor to Mullah Omar. Diplomatic sources claim Muttawakil sought the congressman’s assistance in increasing U.S. aid — already more than $100 million annually — to Afghanistan and indicated that the Taliban would not hand over bin Laden….

After Taliban-related terrorists attacked the U.S. last September, Rohrabacher associates worked hard to downplay the Qatar meeting. Republican strategist Grover Norquist told a reporter that the congressman had accidentally encountered the Taliban official in a hotel hallway.

But that preposterous assertion is contradicted by much evidence:

•Qatari government officials who told Al-Jazeera television on April 10, 2001, that Rohrabacher sought the meeting in advance and that they had assisted in the arrangements. Muttawakil said he agreed to the meeting “on the basis of allowing each party to express their point of view.”

•The congressman himself told other Middle Eastern news outlets that his discussions with the Taliban were “frank and open” and their officials were “thoughtful and inquisitive.” Hardly a casual chat in the hallway.

•Similarly, in an interview with Agence France-Presse, Rohrabacher’s entourage described the meeting as “a high-level talk.”

What’s remarkable is not only Rohrabacher’s attempt to rewrite history after Sept. 11, but there’s also his glaring naivete, evident in his bungling assessment of the Qatar meeting. One member of his entourage, Khaled Saffuri, executive director of the Islamic Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based group that partially bankrolled Rohrabacher’s trip, said he was impressed by how “flexible” Taliban officials appeared. Rohrabacher came away equally impressed. He announced he would travel to Afghanistan to work out details with the Taliban.

But Rohrabacher was out of his league. In the Afghan capital of Kabul the next day, Muttawakil presented Rohrabacher’s plan to the Taliban. Mullah Omar immediately issued a statement denouncing American efforts to orchestrate a new Afghanistan government. “The infidel world is not letting Muslims form a government of their own choice,” he declared.

More darkly, 137 miles east across the border in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden measured the distance between Rohrabacher and diplomatic reality. “I issue a call to the young generation to get ready for the holy war and to prepare for that in Afghanistan,” he said during an April 11, 2001, pro-Taliban rally in Peshawar broadcast throughout the region. “I appeal to you to teach Muslims that there is no honor except in holy war.” The hard-line crowd of 200,000 carried pictures of burning American flags and chanted, “U.S., listen to us! We are the death of you!”

While Rohrabacher waxed optimistic, American diplomats became increasingly suspicious of the Taliban. On April 27, 2001, the U.S. State Department officially rebuked Rohrabacher’s meddling. Alan Eastham, assistant secretary of state for South Asia, told reporters that while the congressman belongs to the president’s Republican party, he did not have authorization for a diplomatic mission. Rohrabacher “did not inform us in advance of his plans with the Taliban,” Eastham said.

News of Rohrabacher’s Qatar meeting with the Taliban was unreported in the U.S. for 16 months. Then, last month, Gerrie Schipske — Rohrabacher’s Democratic challenger in the November elections — issued a press release calling the congressman’s unauthorized discussions “not only illegal but dangerous to our country.” She believes he violated the Logan Act by meddling in American foreign policy and should be prosecuted.

“It is simply outrageous that this rogue congressman engaged in negotiations with the Taliban,” Schipske said. “He needs to explain why he tried to cut a deal on his own and what he promised the Taliban during the meeting.”

According to Schipske, Rohrabacher also lied to Congress about his April 2001 trip to Qatar. “He told the House that he was attending a conference. He did not disclose the meeting with the Taliban. Members of Congress are only allowed to accept paid trips that are connected with their official duties. Negotiating with Osama bin Laden’s protégé isn’t one of them.”

Despite Rohrabacher’s own April 2001 overseas admission of his Taliban dalliance, only a few media outlets on the East Coast picked up Schipske’s press release. Mainstream news organizations in Orange County — including the Los Angeles Times and the Register — have so far ignored this tale of international intrigue. (For the record, the Times OC likely still reels from the congressman’s wrath over its reports of his role in a 1996 voter-fraud scandal; the Register is Rohrabacher’s ideological soulmate and former employer.) […]

And so the congressman’s affinity for the KLA needs little explanation. Rohrabacher went on to defend the KLA and its outgrowths the way he once defended the Taliban.

A March 2010 Mother Jones article went with a version of the story closer to the one Rohrabacher would have us believe: Dana Rohrabacher’s War by Daniel Schulman

In 1988, shortly after winning his first term in Congress, Dana Rohrabacher dabbled briefly in another vocation — freedom fighter. With Afghanistan’s anti-Soviet insurgency a cause célèbre for conservatives, he traveled to the front lines. Sporting a thick beard and traditional Afghan attire, the congressman-elect joined up with a rebel infantry unit whose mission included laying siege to a Soviet position.

When I met Rohrabacher recently at his Capitol Hill office — adorned with mementos of his Afghan adventures, including a tapestry of the legendary mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud — I asked if he’d joined the battle. “Let’s put it this way,” he said, a glimmer in his eye. “I didn’t carry a gun — most of the time.”

It’s the kind of adventure that has earned the Orange County Republican, who’s 62, a reputation as “colorful,” or, as some put it, “bat-shit crazy.” He’s a banjo-playing, folk-singing, arch-conservative surfer…For almost two years, he ran a quixotic congressional investigation (pdf) into the Oklahoma City bombing, dispatching staff as far as the Philippines to prove that Terry Nichols had ties to Ramzi Yousef, one of the planners of the first World Trade Center bombing. [OK, he gets points for that one.]

“I’d be there with guys in full Afghan garb in the executive dining room of the White House,” he recalls. Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, says Rohrabacher was one of the few lawmakers who were “interested in Afghanistan to an extent that surpassed how many dead Soviets there were.”

In the years after the Soviets fled Afghanistan in 1989, Rohrabacher says, his “passion” was to bring back the country’s exiled king, Muhammad Zahir Shah, the only figure he believed could unite Afghans. Instead, by 1996, the Taliban had captured Kabul, and Rohrabacher began actively working to undermine them… “I was flying all over the world,” he says. “And I was on my own. You know, I was a real freelancer on that one.”

In the fall of 2001, Rohrabacher’s friend Massoud was assassinated by a pair of Al Qaeda operatives. Upon hearing the news, Rohrabacher wept in his office. Then he phoned the Bush White House in a frenzy: He believed Massoud’s murder was the prelude to a major terrorist attack and requested an immediate audience with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. He got an appointment for the next day — September 11. […]

But your “doctor” still won’t refer you to a chiropractor. Because those guys are… “quacks.” But it would seem that most of the real quacks have the initials M.D. after their names; they treat what they do not understand.

Common painkilling injections resulting in paralysis, death (David Armstrong, Bloomberg News, Jan. 1)

…Rollie Parrish, nearly blind and in a wheelchair, toots the air horn he keeps on his lap if he wants something to eat or has to go to the bathroom. Four years ago, the Vietnam veteran had just spent a weekend deer hunting when he went to a hospital near his home in Nederland, Texas, for a shot of steroids to his neck to ease chronic pain. He suffered a stroke during the procedure, according to a lawsuit that was settled out of court.

“He knows what happened to him, and he is angry,” his wife of 29 years said.

A surge in steroid injections to alleviate back and neck pain in the United States is bringing with it an increase in severe and unexpected complications, including paralysis and death. Reports of the side effects have prompted the Food and Drug Administration to review the safety of steroid injections into the epidural space near the spinal cord, in consultation with an advisory group, the agency confirmed.

Steroid shots have become the most popular way physicians in the U.S. treat neck and back pain, according to studies.

[Note the admission that the condition being treated is “pain.”]

One by Laxmaiah Manchikanti, chairman of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, found the number of such injections to Medicare patients increased 159 percent between 2000 and 2010.

That growth reflects a rise in spending on all treatments for all kinds of pain, a market estimated to be as much as $300 billion a year. Epidurals are one of the interventional procedures — including implants of spinal cord stimulators and shots of pain killers — on which Americans spent $23 billion this year, 231 percent more than in 2002, according to Marketdata Enterprises Inc….

The rise in the injections, according to doctors, is being driven by two events: an aging population prone to back and neck pain and generous reimbursements for treatments.

“The problem with interventional pain is the majority of treatment is medical management,” Rathmell said. “If you pay people to do stuff, they will do more stuff.”

Known as corticosteroids, the drugs used in the injections have anti-inflammatory powers that make them popular for easing pain in hips, knees, shoulders and other parts of the body, in addition to the back and neck…the agency is focusing on steroid injections made with the transforaminal approach, which brings a needle within millimeters of critical arteries feeding the spinal cord. It was the method used on Parrish, the lawsuit said.

About half of the 8.9 million epidural steroid shots in the United States last year were administered that way, Manchikanti said.

Another area of concern, according to Rathmell and other physicians advising the FDA, is the use of particulate steroids, a form of the drug that is slow to dissolve and that they said may create blockages that trigger strokes if accidentally shot into arteries.

Particulate steroids include Kenalog from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Depo-Medrol from Pfizer, as well as generic versions of the two.

The labels for both formulations of Kenalog “clearly state they are not indicated for epidural use,” said Ken Dominski, a spokesman for Bristol-Myers, in an email. The Kenalog label says that “reports of serious medical events, including death” have been associated with such shots. Parrish was injected with a mixture that included Kenalog, according to the lawsuit.

Until about a decade ago, the kinds of injuries Parrish suffered weren’t thought to be a possible effect of epidural steroid injections, according to doctors who specialize in pain treatment. They said the most common consequences they saw were relatively minor, such as headaches.

Then researchers and malpractice insurance companies began learning of cases of people becoming paralyzed and even dying after receiving the shots, recounting the phenomenon in alerts to doctors and in medical publications.

For Rollie Parrish, who worked as a painter for the city of Beaumont, Texas, the goal was getting relief from neck and shoulder pain so he could enjoy Christmas in 2007, according to his wife. His doctor referred him to anesthesiologist Ravi Halaswamy, who specializes in treating pain.

On Dec. 13 at Christus St. Elizabeth Hospital in Beaumont, Parrish received a shot of two steroids — dexamethasone and Kenalog — in the middle of his neck. Halaswamy inserted the needle into an area where nerve roots exit the spinal canal, the lawsuit against Halaswamy said.

Within seconds, the lawsuit said, the upper left part of Parrish’s body began contracting in signs of a stroke. A breathing tube was inserted, and critical care experts decided Parrish should undergo surgery to relieve swelling in his brain, the lawsuit said. It said he was left with what hospital records described as “terminal and irreversible” symptoms. Three weeks later, he was diagnosed as being in a “locked-in” state that the lawsuit described as similar to being buried alive. While Parrish was able to hear and see, he couldn’t respond because his muscles were paralyzed.

Intense physical, psychological and speech therapy have allowed him to speak again, Valinda Parrish said. The lawsuit claimed he wasn’t warned brain injury was a possible consequence and said that if he had been, he probably would have declined the procedure.

I wish he had spoken out. Oh well. I got the following item (shortened below) in an email yesterday from Ruth King, of the Ruthfully Yours blog.

Editor’s [Ruth’s] Note: This is an updated version of a chapter from Mr. [Gerald] Honigman’s book The Quest For Justice In The Middle East: The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Greater Perspective

Now tell me, what would you do in the age of nationalism — which came relatively late to the Middle East — if your national group already had almost two dozen states on over six million square miles of territory (conquered mostly from other national groups), wanted to create at least one more, but another people’s sole, tiny, resurrected nation state stood in the way?

Well, please take a look — like many of us have over the decades — at the answer through the oft-quoted words of a spokesman for that above national group itself, PLO executive committee member Zuheir Mohsen, on March 31, 1977, in the Dutch newspaper Trouw.

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese… Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism…

…As I deliberately like to reemphasize time and again…millions of native peoples were simply conquered and forcibly Arabized in the name of the Arab Nation and the spread of its Dar ul-Islam — imperialism and colonialism, pure and simple — and millions of native Egyptian Copts, black Africans, Kurds, Imazighen (Berbers), Jews, and others are still suffering the consequences of this murderous subjugation to this very day.

In a post-Holocaust age, however, in the struggle to win over hearts and minds from abroad, how could Arabs demand twenty-two states while denying Jews their one?

The answer — as Mohsen so correctly stated above — reinvent yourselves.

From now on, you’re no longer Arabs — you’re “Palestinians.” And then depend on the ignorance of most of the rest of the world to back your claim, “If Jews can have a state, why not Palestinians?” And, further more, don’t you know, “Palestinians” are the new formerly stateless Jews.

Forget the facts…

Like most, Arabs never saw the land of the Jews — Judaea — until their own murderous imperial conquests brought them out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. when they spread out in all directions.

Serbs have been similarly shafted.

Albania is an independent nation southwest of the former Yugoslavia. The Serbs fought their first major battle for Kosovo against the spread of the Dar ul-Islam (this time led by Turkish imperialism) in 1389 — over six centuries ago.

Albania had become at least nominally converted to Islam via the Ottoman conquest. Over the centuries, ethnic Albanians encroached upon traditionally Serbian lands.

Enter the late 20th century… Everyone knew that with the death of Marshal Tito…Yugoslavia would fall apart.

Now, if you’re an Albanian in Serbia and you already have an ethnic Albanian state in existence (so you can’t claim “statelessness”), how do you stake your claim for additional territory — at another people’s (Serbs’) expense?

Hitler played a somewhat similar game with the large population of ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland. World War II soon followed, as his sights were set far beyond the Czechs’ and Slovaks’ domain.

According to this reasoning, America also better watch its own southwest very carefully — especially since it really was once part of Mexico anyway…The answer, however, regarding Albanians in Serbia is[:] You follow the advice of the Arabs’ Zuheir Mohsen’s above.

But instead of renaming yourselves “Palestinians,” you, of course, call yourselves Kosovars instead. And then get assorted Jihadis from the rest of the Arab/Muslim World to assist you — along with America and NATO.

There is no doubt that too much of the conflict regarding the breakup of Yugoslavia was deliberately biased against the Serbs. Atrocities occurred (as they had for centuries) — but on both sides, with Serbs often the victims — victims the American State Department ignored as it sought Muslims it could point to as championing while America was fighting others in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. American bombers led the final dismemberment.

There’s a lesson here and Jews, Kurds, Imazighen, and others need to pay close attention. Instead of demanding just the rebirth of their one state, Jews need to demand others as well.

Jews have a long history in Morocco, as just one example — long before Arabs conquered both Jews and Imazighen (”Berbers”) alike there. Over 600,000 Moroccan Jews now live in Israel …more Moroccan Jews than Arabs who got their own nation states in Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, etc. when they were created. Additionally, many more Moroccan Jews live in America, France, and elsewhere today — including Morocco.

Why multiple states for Arabs, but not for Jews?

As early as Roman times, Jews fleeing the Roman wars in Judaea began to travel inland in North Africa and forged both economic and cultural ties with the Imazighen — especially in the Atlas Mountains. Some of the latter folks even adopted the faith of their Jewish neighbors.

When Arab Muslims invaded, Jews and the Amazigh people fought them together. Across the Atlas Mountains, Queen Dahlia al Kahina (whom the famed Muslim scholar, Ibn Khaldun, called “the Jewess” ) led both Jews and Imazighen in battle against invading Arabs, who would later massacre and subjugate both peoples.

Why not states for the Atlasians, at least one for Jews and one for the Imazighen, in North Africa?

Why “Palestinians” and “Kosovars,” but not “Atlasians?”

While we’re at it, some thirty-five million stateless Kurds need to jump aboard as well. Kurds predate Arabs in “Arab” Syria as well as in “Arab” Iraq…and in “Turkish” Turkey. But we all know what happened/happens when Kurds try to assert their rights there. Their best hope right now is in the place where they were indeed promised independence after World War I — in northern Mesopotamia, part of today’s renamed Iraq.

While I don’t really expect that much of the above will happen, it’s worth asking those academics, State Department folks, left-wing know-nothings, and other hypocritical practitioners of the double standard Why not?

…The reality, of course, is that all of these oppressed peoples are still struggling to maintain or obtain basic political and human rights in what Arabs simply and exclusively call “purely Arab patrimony.”

That others buy into their subjugating mindset is the real travesty.

« Previous Page