Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, September 28, 2026
Sunday, September 27, 2026
[Salon] Why Simon Schama is wrong to claim blood libel - Arab Digest.org Guest Post
Why Simon Schama is wrong to claim blood libel
Summary: a distinguished historian says there is no genocide in Gaza and that to say there is is a blood libel; in doing so he ignores the words and actions of Holocaust survivors who speak against the genocide Israel is committing.
At a recent Holocaust Education Trust (HET) gathering the historian and commentator Sir Simon Schama claimed that those who call what the IDF is doing in Gaza a genocide are committing a blood libel against Jews:
We, the victims of the greatest genocide the world has ever seen, are being called perpetrators of genocide.This is a profound lie….We will not have our job done until anybody uttering the notion that Israel is committing genocide is made to be ashamed for doing so.
He added that “we are in the business of facts in this room.”
Let then the facts speak. Sir Simon as an historian of note must surely be aware of the conclusion reached by members of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) who voted on a resolution in September of last year that Israel is committing genocide.
He may point out that less than a third of the members voted, albeit of those who did 86% were in support. He may want to ignore that the IAGS is considered the world leader in genocide scholarship.
What then of a resolution signed by 32 Holocaust survivors, 77 children of survivors and 132 grandchildren, great grandchildren and other relatives denouncing Israel’s actions?
As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors of the Nazi genocide we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine. We further condemn the United States for providing Israel with the funding to carry out the attack, and Western states more generally for using their diplomatic muscle to protect Israel from condemnation. Genocide begins with the silence of the world.
Although denying the Nazi genocide is criminal in over a dozen countries Sir Simon Schama - who denies Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians - is a BBC presenter whose documentary “The Road to Auschwitz / The Holocaust, 80 Years On” won the 2026 BAFTA Television Award for Best Specialist Factual programme.
In his address Sir Simon spoke collectively of “we, the greatest victims of genocide.” Yet his claim of a blood libel ignores the words and actions of actual survivors of the Holocaust one of whom is the architect Stephen Kapos. Unlike Sir Simon who was born in London in 1945 to British born Jews Stephen Kapos was separated from his parents in Budapest by the Nazis. He, his mother and his father who was incarcerated in Belsen and Theresienstadt survived but 15 members of his family did not.
Kapos has been active in support of ending the Gaza war, marching frequently with other protesters in London. Wearing a sign that reads “This holocaust survivor says stop the genocide in Gaza” he told Mehdi Hasan he protests in support of Palestine and to challenge the lie that the marches are anti-Semitic ‘hate marches’ and ‘no go areas for Jews.’
Kapos speaking as a holocaust survivor is very clear about how the savagery perpetuated on Europe’s Jews by the Nazis has been weaponised to justify the genocide ongoing in Gaza and the settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem and the Occupied West Bank:
The Holocaust has been used by Israel and not only Israel (but by) Zionist forces the world over as a justification for impunity that because of that great suffering they somehow feel justified to inflict similar suffering to others.
Though Sir Simon can brush aside the ICC arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant and dismiss the UN enquiry that has determined Israel is committing genocide by claiming as Netanyahu and his government have repeatedly done that these institutions are biased against Israel, he surely cannot so summarily dismiss the words and actions of Holocaust survivors.
Doing so, it could be argued, is the true blood libel: Sir Simon diminishes survivors and justifies genocide using the Holocaust to do so.
Members can leave comments about this newsletter on the Arab Digest website.
Saturday, September 26, 2026
[Salon] In a US-China world, Asean must do more than avoid choosing sides - Guest Post
Simon Tay
In a US-China world, Asean must do more than avoid choosing sides
Following the uneasy truce at the Xi-Trump summit, Asean must go beyond passive hedging and forge middle-power partnerships to secure its autonomy
SCMP
Simon Tay is a public intellectual as well as an adviser to major corporations and policymakers.
Published: 8:30pm, 25 Sep 2026
The good news is, when US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Washington this week, neither chose confrontation. Amid the high pomp and ceremony, what China has called “constructive strategic stability” continues.
Even an uneasy truce in great power relations can be useful. Both recognise the considerable incentive to prevent their economic rivalry from spiralling out of control. Even limited understandings can reduce risks in artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies, and many will look for mechanisms that can stabilise the relationship.
But that does not mean an end to competition. Washington and Beijing continue to differ over technology, industrial policy, security and the shape of the international order, while Iran and Taiwan remain fraught topics. They have moved away from the broad tariff war waged last year, but targeted restrictions and industrial measures continue.
The contest will play out in efforts to win influence and support across our region. As the Xi-Trump summit ends, and Asean leaders prepare for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in the Philippines, the familiar question arises again: must the region choose between the two?
For many years, the answer has been no. Seeking good relations with both and not being drawn too closely into either camp has been the common response. Yet by itself, hedging is no longer sufficient. The challenge for Asean and the wider region is to preserve the ability to make our own choices.
There are obvious pressures to align. Security concerns push some countries towards the United States. Economic geography, trade and investment bring others closer to China. Technology restrictions, tariffs, supply-chain policies and defence arrangements can increasingly turn seemingly separate decisions into strategic choices.
China’s Defence Minister Dong Jun, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Prak Sokhonn and Cambodia’s Defence Minister General Tea Seiha meeting on April 22 in Phnom Penh. Photo: Handout / Agence Kampuchea Press / AFP)
China’s Defence Minister Dong Jun, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Prak Sokhonn and Cambodia’s Defence Minister General Tea Seiha meeting on April 22 in Phnom Penh. Photo: Handout / Agence Kampuchea Press / AFP)
Picking a side also carries costs. Consider Cambodia, which has an exceptionally close relationship with China. Yet during Cambodia’s border conflict with Thailand last year, Beijing treated both countries as friends, stressing its impartiality. That was understandable for China, as Thailand matters greatly too. But there is a lesson to draw. A close relationship does not necessarily mean a major power will support you when interests diverge.
Similarly, consider the Korean peninsula. South Korea is a formal US treaty. Yet Trump’s renewed interest in diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un led to substantial cuts in the US-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises. Seoul has not been abandoned, but it is a reminder that great powers will do what great powers do. Alignment is no guarantee that interests will coincide when it matters.
Yet not choosing is not enough. Nor does this concern only security.
US restrictions on advanced semiconductors and other technologies are directed primarily at competition with China, but increasingly affect third countries. Rules of origin and tariffs put Chinese investment and manufacturing throughout Southeast Asia under scrutiny even as China’s presence in electric vehicles, batteries, renewable energy and digital systems deepens. Decisions about technology, investment and manufacturing therefore acquire geopolitical significance.
Simply hedging and refusing to choose does not preserve autonomy. Countries need to create more choices with other powers to exercise autonomy in what I call a “Minus 2” world.
From time to time, subtract both the US and China from our mental map and ask what everyone else can do together. The possibilities are considerable
A Minus 2 world does not mean excluding the US and China. Nor should middle and smaller powers organise a third bloc. The proposition is more modest: from time to time, subtract both the US and China from our mental map and ask what everyone else can do together.
The possibilities are considerable. Japan has deep technological and industrial capabilities. South Korea is important in semiconductors, batteries and advanced manufacturing. India has scale and a growing technological base. Europe offers investment, markets and green technologies. Australia has resources, education and security capabilities.
Their interests are not identical. Some are US allies. Asean members are diversely oriented. But almost all share one important interest: they do not want every consequential decision to be defined by US-China rivalry.
Diversification is often valued in economic terms. Countries and companies diversify markets and suppliers to become more resilient. But there is today a strategic dimension to diversification. A Minus 2 mindset can give smaller countries more choices and agency, and foster more centres of influence. The more either great power pressures others to choose sides, the stronger the incentive for these others to work with one another in a genuinely multipolar world.
US President Donald Trump with Asean leaders at the 13th Asean-US summit during the 47th Asean summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on October 26, 2025. Photo: AFP
US President Donald Trump with Asean leaders at the 13th Asean-US summit during the 47th Asean summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on October 26, 2025. Photo: AFP
The coming Asean summit brings that into focus. Of course, this is a platform to engage the US and China. But it should also strengthen relationships that give Asean members greater room for manoeuvre. Many other partners will already be around the table, offering a practical application of how Asean thinks about “centrality”.
The group must go beyond merely convening meetings at which the two great powers compete for attention. Asean centrality can connect a wider range of countries with one another and advance practical cooperation. There is already an agenda to build on: concluding the Asean Digital Economy Framework Agreement, advancing the Asean power grid and cross-border electricity trading, and strengthening regional supply chains and investment.
These are some projects already making progress. They can also provide platforms for deeper partnerships with Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, Europe and others, including in AI and digital technologies, green finance and advanced manufacturing.
The Xi-Trump truce may give breathing room. But the initiative must be taken by others in Asia, using that space to deepen connections among themselves.
Strategic autonomy is not secured simply by refusing to choose. It grows from having more choices and a Minus 2 perspective. The Asean summit is an opportunity to show the region has agency.
Simon Tay
Simon Tay is a public intellectual as well as an adviser to major corporations and policymakers. He is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, an
--
Friday, September 25, 2026
Thursday, September 24, 2026
Wednesday, September 23, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time - micheletkearney@gmail.com - Gmail
Many people find today's parable unsettling. It doesn't seem fair. Imagine paying someone who worked only one hour the same wage as someone who labored for 12. By our standards, it simply doesn't make sense.
But then again, many of Jesus' parables don't make sense at first glance.
Think of the unforgiving servant, whose enormous debt is completely forgiven. No king in the first century would have cancelled such a debt, any more than Visa or Master Card would erase a person's credit card debt today.
Or, consider the shepherd who leaves 99 sheep to search for one that wandered away. What shepherd would risk the entire flock for a single sheep?
Or the woman who turns her house upside down to find one small coin. Or the father who joyfully welcomes home the wayward son instead of putting him on probation to prove his repentance.
Each of these stories surprises us, because each reveals something extraordinary about God. His ways are not our ways. His mercy is greater than our expectations and His generosity goes far beyond what we think is fair.
The same is true in today's Gospel. The workers who labored all day in the scorching heat felt cheated when those hired only an hour before quitting time received the very same wage.
But Jesus isn't teaching a lesson about fair wages or labor relations. He's teaching us about grace.
The landowner represents God, whose generosity cannot be measured by human standards. Whether someone has served Him for a lifetime or comes to Him at the very end, His mercy is freely given. None of us earn God's love. Every one of us receives it as a gift.
This parable is meant to leave us asking, "What kind of God is this?"
The answer is simple: He is a God who never stops seeking the lost, never tires of forgiving and never measures His love according to what we deserve.
As the Prophet Isaiah reminds us, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways."
God is not bound by our calculations of fairness, or our notions of who deserves what. His defining characteristic is love. And for that, we should all be grateful.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, September 22, 2026
aftale_eng.pdf - Denmark, Greenland, and US Agreement
aftale_eng.pdf
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK
TOGETHER WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF GREENLAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT OF
27 APRIL 1951 PURSUANT TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THE DEFENSE OF GREENLAND (1951 DEFENSE
AGREEMENT), INCLUDING ALL RELEVANT SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS RELATED
THERETO
Monday, September 21, 2026
Sunday, September 20, 2026
Saturday, September 19, 2026
Friday, September 18, 2026
The Decline & Fall Of Brussels | Armstrong Economics
The Decline & Fall Of Brussels | Armstrong Economics
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/the-decline-fall-of-brussels/?awt_a=1JPVU&awt_l=1yd7E&awt_m=8.cUTzVDeS4vxrVU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)