Radical Threats from All Directions in the Italian Parliamentary Elections

           The Italian parliamentary elections on Sunday, March 4 are of interest because the politics are particularly unusual and there is a risk from radical parties, favored by the Russian Federation, to Italy, which is one of the major European states, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and an ally of the United States in the War on Terrorism.

            Usually in parliamentary states, a leader of a political party is the party’s candidate for prime minister, but none of the leaders of the three major Italian parties in this election are necessarily candidates for premier. The leading party of the leading bloc, according to public opinion polls, has not even announced its candidate.

            The Italian Republic is currently governed by a center-left/center-right coalition, with the center-left party as the senior partner.  The outgoing liberal Prime Minister, who heads a caretaker executive, had taken office after the resignation of his predecessor, Matteo Renzi, who had become premier after succeeding the previous premier as party leader.  Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni has faced relatively little criticism, except from the Left, as his Government continued various reforms and cut taxes while the Italian economy recovers, although only weakly.  The migrant crisis has eased because of support from the European Union and Italy’s missions to Africa to reduce human smuggling.  The Premier is a candidate for Parliament, but not necessarily for Prime Minister, as Renzi remains the party leader, and would more likely be premier if his party wins the elections, although Gentiloni could again be Prime Minister, depending on the preference of the party’s Members of Parliament.  Renzi, the Tony Blair of Italy, has transformed the former Communist Party to a center-left party, which has caused a leftwing faction to break away and form their own party.  The ruling liberal party is running on a platform of defending its reforms, cutting more taxes and of being pro-European.  They are third in the polls, slightly behind the populists.

            In addition to the anti-reform left wing breakaway party, there is a radical far-left party participating in the elections.  Votes for these smaller parties, instead of the larger center-left party, could help the other two major parties obtain a plurality of seats in the Parliament.

            The small center-right junior coalition partner succeeded in pulling the Government somewhat rightward, but its leader is not a candidate for premier or parliament, while its small centrist party ally, which has also been supporting the Government, has joined the right-wing bloc.  The centrists had been kingmakers in former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s second government.      

The centrists, Berlusconi’s center-right party, a smaller more conservative party and the far-right xenophobic Northern League compose the right-wing bloc.

            Berlusconi is prohibited from standing for Prime Minister because of a fraud conviction.  He is appealing the ruling to the European Union, but no decision is expected before the election.  The tycoon and three-time Premier has floated names as possibilities for premier if his conservative party wins the most seats, particularly European Parliament President Antonio Tajani, but not officially named a candidate for Prime Minister.

            The Northern League refers to itself simply as the “League” to prove it has changed from supporting separatism, which had been based upon resentment against funds for Southern Italy, to federalism (devolving more powers from the national government to Italy’s Regions) in order to appeal to Southern Italians, but the characteristic bigotry remains.  It is led by an uncouth, bombastic Donald Trump admirer who is opposed to immigration and wants to deport immigrants, migrants and refugees, despite the lessening of the migrant crisis and the fact that most migrants do not remain in Italy, but only use it as a transit to Northern Europe, and despite a decline in population among native Italians.  The elections are taking place during a disturbing rise in fascist and anti-immigrant violence and other provocative incidents. 

            The right-wing bloc’s platform is more tax cuts (eliminating them on first homes, cars, inheritance, gifts and savings), amending the recent pension reform, improvements to infrastructure (especially for the South), and opposition to immigration.  However, the bloc is fractious, as Berlusconi’s third government was, with the League as junior partner.  The party leaders have agreed that the leader of whichever party receives the most votes would be Prime Minister, if the bloc obtains a majority.  It enjoys a significant lead in the polls, but well short of a majority.  Berlusconi’s conservatives and the Northern League are close in the polls, with only a slight lead for the former.  Neither party could likely win a plurality of seats in Parliament without the other.

            The populists, who had been the second largest party in the Parliament, are currently second in the polls, and thus they are the most preferred single party.  Their leader is prohibited from holding office because of a manslaughter conviction.  They have put forward an unusually young candidate for Prime Minister.  The populists are anti-establishment and anti-corruption, but have been plagued by scandals and internal divisions.  They would have to obtain a majority on their own to form a government, as they will not govern with any other party. 

            Both the Northern League and the populists are Eurosceptic, Pro-Russian and anti-vaccine.  The danger of either radical party winning the elections is a cause of concern to Italians and Europeans. 

            The parliamentary elections are being conducted under the new election law.  A certain number of candidates are elected directly, the remainder proportionately.  Parties must reach a threshold to obtain seats of at least 3% of the vote, if they are within a bloc that wins at least 10% of the vote.  Unlike under the previous election law, a party does not receive a bonus for winning the most seats.  As no bloc or party is likely to win a majority, which would be necessary to obtain a vote of confidence to form a government, and because another grand coalition between the center-left and the center-right is not expected, a revote is likely.  

           Nonetheless, the elections are more than a test run, but an opportunity for validation and momentum for any party or bloc that can win a plurality of seats.  They are also an opportunity for Italians to reject the anti-establishment populists and the other radical parties on the far-left and the far-right and express a preference for reasonable leadership to continue the reforms it must make to reduce its public debt and to prosper more fully.   

Russia: Attacks on Americans and Atrocities in Syria; anti-Putin Protests by the Democratic Opposition

           The attack I posted about earlier this month in Syria against American forces was conducted by Russian mercenaries.  In an authoritarian state like the Russian Federation, mercenaries are government subcontractors, not independent private agents.  Meanwhile, Russia has again been targeting opponents of the Syrian regime by bombing civilian areas, including targeting hospitals.  

           Thousands of Russians protested today in Moscow against Vladimir Putin on the third anniversary of the murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov near the Kremlin.  Hundreds were arrested for exercising the freedom of peaceful assembly.  The protestors demanded the authoritarian Putin’s ouster and freedom for Russia.  Putin is seeking a fourth presidential term in elections this spring in which the main opposition candidate, Alexei Navalny, is barred from participating.  Elections in Russia are not free and fair because of the lack of basic freedoms, like assembly and press, and because only candidates who support the regime or who are token opponents are generally permitted to run for president.  The democratic opposition, therefore, is boycotting the rigged elections.  Rigged elections are used by despots to legitimize their rule.

Conservative Analysis of the Pennsylvania Redistricting Dispute

           The dispute over Pennsylvania’s redistricting of seats for the United States House of Representatives is based on a partisan objection, pretending to be motivated by non-partisan reasons, to an inherently partisan process.  Liberal Democrats are relying upon a misuse of a word, exaggerated claims of unfairness and a violation of the constitutional principle of the Separation of Powers.

Liberal Democrats are misusing the word gerrymandering in order to expand its use beyond its narrow meaning to prohibit partisanship and ideology completely from redistricting and exaggerating its effects.  The Democrats are attempting to deny the legislative power granted by the electorate to the majority-Republican Legislature in order to advantage Democrats over the status quo.   

            The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled last month that the Commonwealth’s 2011 redistricting was unconstitutional.  Then, after the majority-Republican General Assembly redrew the map, in accordance with the ruling, the majority Democrats on the Court rejected the redrawn map and then secretly drew and imposed the Court’s own one that was more favorable to Democrats, even though the Court lacked constitutional authority to usurp the legislature, thereby violating the constitutional principle of the Separation of Powers.  The Court imposed the new map with only a few days notice before the beginning of the primary election process, which had already been delayed for the office of US Representative.  Republicans, including several US Representatives, are among those appealing the ruling in federal court.

One of the complaints made by opponents of Pennsylvania’s 2011 redistricting were that U.S. Representatives were choosing their own voters more than voters choosing them.  However, the redistricting is conducted by state legislators, however partisan or ideological their motivation.  Thus, the complaint would only be relevant to state redistricting, not federal.  One valid complaint, which is not about a necessarily partisan motivation, is that redistricting is favorable to incumbents, of either party, as the majority and minority parties in each chamber of the legislature usually compromise with each other and with the Governor to protect themselves and their colleagues.  However, this year a relatively higher number of incumbents were not standing for reelection.

The main criticism of Pennsylvania’s redistricting by liberals and Democrats is simply that the legislative lines were drawn to the partisan advantage of Republicans by gerrymandering, which split municipalities and counties and united distant areas through narrow corridors.  Although a few of the districts, like Pennsylvania’s 7^th, had obviously thus been gerrymandered, most were drawn to partisan or ideological advantage without having been gerrymandered.  I had explained last March that partisan or ideologically-influenced redistricting is not necessarily gerrymandering in my post, Gerrymandering vs. Acceptable Ideological and Partisan Redistricting, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2017/03/gerrymandering-vs-acceptable-partisan.html.   Gerrymandering, named in part for a Founding Father, has been a practice since the early Republic.  It refers to the kind of districts shaped like Pennsylvania’s 7^th, not redistricting based, in whole or in part, on partisan or ideological considerations, but which are not thus shaped, which is the way liberal Democrats in Pennsylvania and across the American Union are misusing the word.  Republicans had been elected to a majority of the seats in the Pennsylvania General Assembly by voters knowing that Legislators would have the power to draw districts to their political advantage, as redistricting is an inherently political process, just as Democrats had done before.  The only difference in modern times is that computer technology enables legislators to create districts that are even more advantageous to one party or ideology or another or for the advantage of incumbents of either party.  Democrats had not challenged the 2011 redistricting until they had a substantial majority on the Supreme Court.  

            Even in Pennsylvania’s redistricting of 2011, partisan and ideological considerations were not the only ones, as districts were constitutionally-required to be contiguous and equal in population, based on the decennial federal Census.  Even though the state Supreme Court ruling last month neither expressly prohibits partisan and ideological considerations altogether, nor require the equal representation of the parties in the Commonwealth’s 18 federal House districts, as liberal Democratic Governor Tom Wolf demanded, the Court added the requirement that districts be “compact,” which it defined as drawn with minimal splitting of municipalities or counties, even though certain cultures, demographics, commerce and industries overlap county and municipal boundaries.  It is these considerations that often lead to similarities in party registration and ideology in the first place and why it makes sense to join such individuals together in a district where they can elect someone who understands them and holds similar views to represent them most effectively, instead of the provincial concerns about municipalities and counties, the boundaries of which themselves may be changed legislatively at any time. 

            The argument advanced by liberals and Democrats against Pennsylvania’s 2011 redistricting that it is unfair to Democrats that more Republicans were elected U.S. Representative, despite the Commonwealth’s 800,000 voter-registration advantage for the Democrats over the Republicans ignores the political reality that elections are not based upon registration, but upon how voters actually turn out and vote.  Because more Republicans turn out to vote than Democrats and more Democrats and others cross over to vote Republican than Republicans and others vote Democratic, statewide elections are almost always competitive in Pennsylvania, usually within two or three-hundred thousand votes, with both sides winning one year or the other, or, as last year, splitting the results.  The Republican dominance of state legislative seats, as in county government, is not an anomaly.  Furthermore, Democrats generally tend to be more concentrated in urban areas than Republicans are in suburban and rural areas.  In the rural Southwest, Democrats are more conservative than elsewhere and have been voting increasingly Republican.  Therefore, although redistricting did somewhat advantage Republicans, especially in the few districts that were truly gerrymandered, most of their electoral success in U.S. House contests was not earned because of any advantage from redistricting. 

            The map redrawn by the majority-Republican General Assembly after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling last month did not include any gerrymandering.  The districts drawn, in accordance with the opinion, were compact, without any salamander tail-like corridors linking distant areas, and minimized the splitting of counties and municipalities.  Yet the Court struck down even the redrawn map, instead drawing one itself, without any public input, and without any constitutional authority, which vests the redistricting power with the legislature, and without any possibility of appeal to any higher state authority.  It drew a map that minimized the political disadvantages for Democrats by creating districts evenly divided by party registration.  Although the districts are not gerrymandered in the Court’s map, partisan consideration is its obvious motivation.  The map drawn by the Court, despite its own ruling against splitting counties and municipalities, splits counties and municipalities.  For example, my county of residence, Berks, which is currently split into four U.S. House districts, and would have been split into only two under the General Assembly’s redrawn map, is split into three by the Court, with a tri-point among three municipalities that are not diverse from each other and Exeter Township is split into two districts, unlike on the Legislators’ map.  Unlike the map drawn by the General Assembly, which split Berks and united it with other counties in ways that reflected culture, demographics, commerce and industry, the Court’s map splits the suburban Philadelphia parts of the county into three districts, one of which unites the agricultural parts of southern Berks, not with similar areas in neighboring counties, but with the City of Reading in Berks and the Coal Regions north of the County.  Instead of linking Reading, where I reside, with the similar City of Lancaster, along with linking the similar rural Pennsylvania German areas of northern and western Berks to those of Lancaster and other neighboring Counties, as on the Legislators’ map, this agricultural and industrial region with a similar history and culture is instead split among diverse areas, such as suburbs and mining areas, on the Court’s map.  

            Furthermore, the outcry by liberals and Democrats against “gerrymandering” is inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the federal Voting Rights Act requires truly gerrymandered districts for blacks in certain Southern States.  

           Although the harmful effects of true gerrymandering are mostly of a provincial nature, except when used for incumbent protection, gerrymandering should be avoided as much as reasonably possible.  U.S. House districts ought to be compact, with minimal splitting of counties and municipalities, except when it is more reasonable to unite similar areas, even if doing unites people of similar party registration, party preferences or ideology to the advantage of one political party over another.

A Majority of Americans View George W. Bush Favorably, in Contrast to Donald Trump

           A public opinion poll earlier this month suggested a majority of American, including even Democrats, now have a favorable opinion of former United States President George W. Bush. 

As I had observed in posts during the Obama Administration, Bush’s rating has been rising, as people gain perspective and partisanship recedes and they reflect on his accomplishments with more gratitude, such as keeping Americans safe from another major terrorist attack like those on September 11 and view him in contrast to his immediate successor.  Such a contrast is especially noticeable now between the conservative Republican Bush and Donald Trump, a non-conservative Republican who is viewed unfavorably by Americans, according to every major public opinion poll.

            It is worth remembering that  Bush was criticized by liberals and Democrats for making the promotion of freedom a cornerstone of US foreign policy, whereas Trump ignores, excuses and even praises authoritarianism.  For example, Trump praised the Filipino President’s policy of urging Filipinos to murder suspected drug dealers and praised the Turkish Islamist authoritarian President for the passage of a constitutional referendum, under less than completely free and fair circumstances, to increase his powers significantly to the point of making him an autocrat.  Trump pointedly refuses to criticize Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin.  Because of Trump’s praise of despots and his own authoritarian proclivities, Bush’s promotion of freedom is something that all but the most hard-line Stalinists on the left can appreciate better, even if they disagreed with the specifics of its implementation.  

           The promotion of freedom, the natural state of man, or at least the avoidance of words or actions that advance authoritarianism, is a defense of self-determination, including American independence, even if the promotion only takes the form of moral declarations.  Furthermore, an increase in freedom causes an increase in global peace and prosperity.     

The Focus on Blackmail Re: Security Checks Reminds Why Linda Tripp Blew the Whistle on Bill Clinton

           There has recently been focus on security background checks for character flaws and especially for vulnerability for blackmail for high-level federal appointees because of breaches of security in the Trump Administration because of the lack of security clearances issued to staff because of problems discovered in the applicants’ backgrounds. 

            Most liberals and Democrats argued in 1998, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton that character did not matter, only policy and popularity.  The Trump Administration security scandals have led liberals to acknowledge the necessity of the security checks, in particular because of the concern about blackmail, even if not to acknowledge that character matters for officeholders, whether appointed or elected, as the background checks are also intended to safeguard against corruption, malfeasance and, particularly for those who would receive access to classified secret intelligence, disloyalty to the United States.         

           

            The reason former White House staffer Linda Tripp stated that she was a whistleblower against Bill Clinton and reported his adulterous affair with White House intern, Lewinsky, to the authorities was because the President had made himself vulnerable to blackmail by his misdeeds.  The mistress had told Tripp that Clinton had mentioned to her in a telephonic conversation that a foreign government had been listening into his telephonic conversations.  Clinton was not impeached for his adultery with his subordinate, which was a federal crime in the District of Columbia, and an abuse of office, but for perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment civil lawsuit in which he was the defendant, but he could have been removed from office for such reckless behavior that made him vulnerable to blackmail by a foreign government or any enemy.  

           Protecting whistleblowers is essential for security and good government.  They must be defended, whether one likes those whom the whistleblower is exposing or not.

Restore “Presidents’ Day” to Washington’s Birthday to Honor Him, Not the Presidency and Not Scoundrels

           As I have nearly every year, I again urge the restoration of Washington’s Birthday as a federal and state holiday, in both its name and scheduling. 

“Presidents’ Day” is the popular name and the typical name of state holidays for this federal holiday that is legally known as “Washington’s Birthday.”  The use of “Presidents’ Day” diminishes the emphasis on George Washington alone and only on his presidency, instead of his whole life as a military leader and Founding Father.  As a result, the focus on the holiday is on all of the other, less great, United States Presidents, including several scoundrels.  Today, as usual, for example, there are numerous media articles about the presidents other than Washington.  Because the holiday, under federal law, is never scheduled on his birthday, it further distracts from emphasis on Washington. 

Restoring the name of the holiday legally by the States and in popular use and rescheduling the holiday, at least to the Monday closest to Washington’s birthday, which would allow for it occasionally to be celebrated on his birthday, would allow for him to honored as intended and for contributions to be more greatly appreciated and for his example to be more inspiring. 

            This year, the foolishness of honoring all of the “Presidents” with their own holiday is even more apparent, both because it emphasizes the presidency over the other Branches of government and because of the unworthiness of honoring some of the Presidents, including the current holder of the office. 

The point I made in last year’s post about honoring the “Presidents” with a federal and state holiday and not the two other co-equal Branches of government, the legislative and the judicial, is even more fitting now, as the constitutional its checks and balances, based on the principle of the Separation of Powers, are increasingly necessary to restrain Donald Trump’s authoritarian impulses, imperiousness and kleptocratic practices. 

There degree of serious questions about the legitimacy of the election and the patriotism about a president, as with Trump, are unprecedented.  Honoring William Jefferson Clinton, who had protested the U.S. on foreign soil during the Cold War, as part of a Communist anti-American propaganda campaign, was appalling enough, even thought his actions preceded his presidency, let alone that he was impeached and ought not to have been acquitted.  But honoring Trump, who was reliant upon the assistance of the Russian Federation, a hostile foreign authoritarian state, for his election to the presidency and, in office, has remained loyal to his Russian benefactors instead of defending America proves abundantly the inappropriateness of honoring all the “Presidents” with a federal and state holiday.  Alas, even the regrettably necessary discussion of Clinton and Trump is detracting from focus on the greatness of Washington, although, in a way, it makes his greatness appear even more outstanding.  

The service and contributions of all of the Presidents, including before and after their presidencies, ought to be remembered and appreciated.  The great members of Congress and the Supreme Court deserve similar recognition, as do those institutions themselves.  But there is one person who, more than being a great president, was the indispensable man of the American Revolution and whose memory is more unifying than divisive.  George Washington the Great deserves to be honored above all other Americans with a federal and state holiday commemorating his birthday.

Foreign Digest Updates: South Africa and Russia

South Africa

            After the ruling leftwing party finally turned on South African President Jacob Zuma for corruption, he lost a vote of confidence in the Parliament and his presidency was thereby terminated.  He was replaced by a member of the ruling party. 

            Zuma’s removal from office follows the military coup by the leftwing ruling party of neighboring Zimbabwe against that country’s longtime dictator.

Russia

            The Russian Federation is blocking the website of main democratic opposition leader Alexei Navalny, after he published a video expose of bribery by a Russian oligarch, who has a business relationship with United States presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign manager, of the Deputy Prime Minister and discussions about relations with the Americans.  The Russian authoritarian regime interfered on Trump’s behalf in the elections.  The oligarch, who was offered special briefings by the campaign manager, was one possible liaison with the Russian government.  As I explained in my last post, Navalny, who has been arrested several times for exercising his freedom of peaceful assembly, was barred by the Russian dictatorship from standing in the upcoming presidential election, despite obtaining the requisite number of signatures.  Censorship of independent media is typical in Russia, among other violations of liberty, which no longer has any independent press.  

           Meanwhile, the United States, the United Kingdom and other states today blamed the Russian authoritarian regime for a cyber attack last year targeted at Ukraine that hit businesses around the world, causing them several hundred million dollars in damages.  The announcement follows testimony by the leaders of US intelligence agencies that the Russians interfered in the American presidential election, as the Russians do in Europe, and that the Russians regard their active measures as successful.  The intelligence leaders also announced that the US remains under Russian attack and that Russia is focused on interfering in the 2018 mid-term elections.  The leaders, who were appointed by Trump, also observed a lack of leadership from him on countering the Russian threat.  American officials have referred to cyber attacks as acts of war.

The Democratic Opposition Boycotts Elections in Venezuela and Russia

           Elections in Venezuela and Russia are being boycotted by the democratic opposition of each country, as the elections in both states are not free and fair.

            The Socialist dictatorship of Venezuela has invited international observers to monitor upcoming elections for its newly-created national legislature, but the invitation is a propaganda ploy to make the regime seem legitimate, as the opposition is boycotting the vote.  The dictatorship had created the new legislature, which supplanted the Congress, using a special constitutional provision, after the democratic opposition had won a congressional supermajority, despite the violations of liberty by the authoritarian regime.  The new legislature is partly appointed and has seats reserved for regime-backed constituencies.  Elections in Venezuela are not free and fair because of the lack of freedom overall and because regime opponents are persecuted or prohibited from taking their seats.

           

            In Russia, seven candidates for President of the Russian Federation have been permitted to stand for election in March against tyrant Vladimir Putin, but the candidacy of the main opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, is prohibited, even though he had obtained the requisite signatures.  The democratic opposition to the authoritarian regime is boycotting the election.  Only regime-approved candidates or token opponents are ever permitted run for president.  Elections are also not free and fair in Russia because election campaigns do not take place in freedom, as the freedoms of speech, peaceful assembly and the press are curtailed. 

            The Venezuelan and Russian regimes were originally elected democratically, but became increasingly authoritarian.  The Venezuelan and Russian people are no longer free.  Authoritarian regimes in general, but especially those originally elected democratically, use elections as a pretense to make their regimes seem legitimate.  Because despots are afraid of being held accountable and losing power through popular elections, however, authoritarian regimes rig elections by various means in order to guarantee the outcome of the regime retaining power.  The despot then uses the pretense of the popular will in order to quash dissent even further.  

           Therefore, free countries ought not legitimize authoritarian regimes by recognizing the outcomes of undemocratic elections and must instead insist on free and fair elections.  

Foreign Digest Updates: Germany and Syria

Germany

The ruling center-right Christian Democrats, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, her conservative Bavarian allies and the center-left socialists reached agreement late last week on a cabinet in order to form a government for Germany.  The Christian Democrats, followed by the socialists, had won the most seats in the September parliamentary elections, but without obtaining a majority.  As no party could form a coalition to govern on their own, a grand center-left-right coalition was necessary, which kept the far-right and far-left from power.  Once the proposed government is presented to the President, he will give a mandate to Merkel to be Chancellor for fourth term.  She has governed Germany since 2005.  The center-right will retain the Defense Ministry in its portfolio, but the center-left will hold that of the Foreign Ministry.

As a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Germany is an ally of the United States.  Germany also provides non-combat support to the US-led War on Terrorism.  Germany is the wealthiest member of the European Union. 

Syria

            There have been several developments over the last few days in the Syrian civil war.  The Bashar Assad regime continues to use chemical weapons against the opposition, including in heavily-populated civilian areas.  Specifically, the Syrian government uses chlorine, which, despite its history as a chemical weapon, was not prohibited in the agreement brokered by the Russian Federation to remove Syria’s chemical weapons.  Russia backs Syria, which retained and used some of its other stock of chemical weapons of mass destruction. 

            After the Syrians and their allies attacked a base of American-backed non-Islamist rebels, the United States responded with an attack on Syrian positions.  A similar incident occurred last year at an American position, which led to a retaliatory strike by the US. 

            After a drone was launched by Iran, which is Syria’s main ally, toward Israel from Iranian positions in Syria, Israel launched attacks yesterday on multiple Iranian and Syrian positions.  Israel has responded with attacks on Syrian positions after rockets fired in the Syrian civil war have strayed into Israeli territory and the Israelis have hit Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’ite terrorist organization backed by Iran and Syria that is defending the Syrian regime, or Syrian chemical weapons facilities, but the Israeli attacks on Iranian positions signifies that the Jewish State regards the Islamic Republic’s presence and activities in Syria as a threat.  

           The Syrian civil war began as a popular uprising in 2011 against the tyrannical Baathist regime of Assad.  Both non-Islamists and Islamists participate in the rebellion, while the Syrian government also has both types on its side.  The war has claimed over half a million lives and displaced 13 million people, creating the largest refugee crisis in Europe since the Second World War.  Iran and Russia back Syria militarily, while the US leads a coalition of mostly Arab and European countries against the Islamic States and al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.  The American-led coalition backs non-Islamist Syrian Arabs and Kurds.  Turkey opposes Syria, but focuses mostly on fighting Marxist terrorist Kurds.  Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and serves as a conduit for Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.