A report from David G. Littman on this Newsweek article and what happened after it was published:
Newsweek decided to enter the Eurabian arena by adorning the front cover of its European edition (July 20, 2009) with a white turban and a clear message for the world at home and at large: “THE MYTH OF EURABIA: THE FALSE FEARS OF A MUSLIM TAKEOVER”. The article by William Underhill, announced under Features, rings loud and clear with its journalist message: “Why the alarmists are wrong”; and his title is even more explicit: “Why fears of a Muslim takeover are all wrong: Analyzing the forecasts of an emerging ‘Eurabia’, hostile to America and Western Values”. My attempt to remind the Newsweek editor of a pertinent omission regarding the most serious analysis of this subject was not published. Below is my letter sent by both email and fax on July 22 and the email exchange with the associate editor.
* * * * *
To the Editor (Letters)
Newsweek
Dear Sir / Madam,
Eurabia: the Contested Truth
Newsweek’s front page image and title, “The Myth of Eurabia” (July 20, 2009), and the covering article, “Why fears of a Muslim takeover are all wrong” by William Underhill reject any possibility of a future Islamization of Europe. Curiously, he makes no reference to the pioneer study by Bat Ye’or – Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, with its detailed analysis and dense documentation (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005, now in six languages), widely covered on Google. Underhill quotes Niall Ferguson on “a senescent Europe”, but seems unaware of the renowned British historian’s overall praise of Eurabia (in his back cover blurb): “No writer has done more than Bat Ye’or to draw attention to the menacing character of Islamic extremism. Future historians will one day regard her coinage of the term ‘Eurabia’ as prophetic. Those who wish to live in a free society must be eternally vigilant: Bat Ye’or’s vigilance is unrivalled.”
Bat Ye’or’s latest book, Toward the Universal Caliphate (Italian edition just out) answers Underhill’s doubts that “the myth of Eurabia implies the existence of a united Islam, a bloc capable of collective and potentially dangerous actions”. She addresses this point in great detail, especially in relation to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its slow takeover at the United Nations and more.
Sincerely,
David G. Littman
(address provided)
* * * * *
In fact, Niall Ferguson’s first reference to Bat Ye’or may be found in his London Sunday Times article (‘The Decline and fall of the Christian empire’, April 11, 2004):
It was the Egyptian-born, Swiss-based writer Bat Ye’or who coined this electrifying term to describe a continent part European, part Muslim, but hostile to the United States and Israel.
* * * * *
On sending my letter, I assumed that the chances of it being published were close to zero, but it was worth once again proving an obvious point on ‘freedom’ in the press. Here is the polite exchange I had with associate editor on this letter after my request.
July 23
Dear Mr. Littman:
Your letter and fax have been received. We will be happy to notify you if the letter is published.
Best regards,
Tilly Lichtschein
Associate Editor
* * * * *
July 28
Hello again,
What has been decided regarding my letter – to publish or not?
I would appreciate your reply.
Thanks
David G. Littman
* * * * *
July 29
P.S. I await a reply tomorrow Thursday. I assume a decision will have been taken by now by the editor responsible regarding my letter, a week after I sent it – or am I mistaken? Sorry to bother you on this. Thanks. David G. Littman
* * * * *
July 29
Not a bother at all. Your letter was not published.
* * * * *
July 30
Thanks. I was pretty sure it would not be published in Newsweek although I gave it a try to test that old ‘freedom of the press’ mantra – in fact, the editor usually decides what’s ‘appropriate’ for their publication. In all fairness, I needed to know your decision before posting the same letter on a well-read blog. FYI, an Italian friend sent me a strong reaction from the Italian newspaper, Folio (pdf here). At least your “Myth of Eurabia” cover and Underhill’s denial article will have awoken many people to the absurdity of such a position on what is looming on the horizon for those with eyes to see.
Friday, July 31, 2009
'The Myth of Eurabia' – Newsweek's front page and main article ignores Bat Ye'or's analysis and turns down a reminder 'letter'
The Powerful anti Israel Lobby
NGO Monitor
July 30, 2009
On July 22-24, 2009, the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People held an NGO conference “to discuss questions related to Israeli violations of international humanitarian law.” The context of Palestinian attacks was not on the agenda.
Participants in this exercise included Palestinian NGOs such as Badil, PCHR, and Al Haq, as well as Human Rights Watch and Israeli NGOs Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), Keshev, and Adalah. HRW promoted the campaign to prevent Israel from purchasing weapons, led by Amnesty International, and demanded “on-going international pressure” on Israel. HRW’s participation provides further evidence of bias against Israel.
One speaker from the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency accused Jews of “buying everything” and controlling a “global machine, money,” and another expressed “extreme disappointment” that Palestinian war crimes were even mentioned in passing.
Most NGO representatives expressed support for “lawfare” cases in European courts and international forums against Israeli military and government officials.
On July 22-24, 2009, the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People held an NGO conference, involving Human Rights Watch (HRW), and several European and NIF-funded NGOs, examining “Responsibility of the international community to uphold international humanitarian law to ensure the protection of civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the wake of the war in Gaza”. The objective was “to discuss questions related to Israeli violations of international humanitarian law during the recent hostilities in the Gaza Strip” [emphasis added].
Participants discussed strategies designed to promote “individual and collective action by Governments,” most notably, imposing boycotts and sanctions against Israel, as well as “lawfare.” Core human rights violations by Hamas, including the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians with continuous rocket attacks and the extensive use of human shields in Gaza, were not on the agenda. The session represents yet another UN framework used to attack Israel, in which many EU- and European- funded NGOs play a central role. This event was timed to coincide with the Goldstone mission hearings and supported by the tendentious reports issued by HRW, Amnesty International, Breaking the Silence, and other NGOs.
Presenters included:
Bill Van Esveld, HRW, Israel and PA researcher, Middle East and North Africa Division;
Charles Shamas, partner in the Mattin Group, co-Founder of Al Haq, and HRW board member;
Raji Sourani of the EU-funded PCHR (he is also a vice-president of FIDH);
John Dugard, former UN rapporteur, leader of the Arab League’s “fact finding” mission that accused Israel of “genocide” and “war crimes”;
Pierre Galand – Belgian anti-Israel activist;
Ron Yaron, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (EU- and European go vernment-funded);
Daphna Golan, co-founder of B’Tselem, researcher at the Minerva Center for Human Rights of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, consultant to pseudo-academic study organized by Dugard and Al Haq, claiming Israel is an “apartheid” state;
Rania Al-Madi of Badil (funded by Irish and Scandanavian governments);
Fatmeh El Ajou from Adalah (EU and NIF funded);
Yizhar Be’er from Keshev (EU funded)
The Central Role of Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch (HRW) was featured prominently at this blatantly one-sided event, which took place amidst the controversy over HRW’s anti-Israel agenda and the emphasis on defeating “pro-Israel pressure groups” during a May fundraising dinner held in Saudi Arabia.
Several participants referred to HRW’s reporting on the Gaza war, and Esveld repeated HRW’s unsubstantiated charges that Israel used white phosphorous and drones unlawfully. He claimed that HRW’s “researchers” found no military justification for the use of the phosphorus as a smoke screen, as there were no Israeli forces on the ground at the time.” Media reports and military analysts have refuted HRW’s allegations.
Esveld repeated HRW’s unsubstantiated claims that Israel’s actions against Hamas exceeded “any conceivable military necessity” and amounted to “collective punishment.” He also bolstered the campaign to prevent Israel from obtaining military equipment, led by Amnesty International, by emphasizing more than once that the weapons used by Israel were manufactured in the US. He concluded that it was critical to ensure “on-going international pressure” on Israel.
Israeli NGO Participants Contribute to the Campaign
As noted, several Israeli NGOs participated in the meeting. Analysts have noted the attempt to legitimize anti-Israel and anti-Zionist positions by highlighting agreement from individual Jews, including Israelis, who profess these positions.
Daphna Golan-Agnon, a senior researcher at Hebrew University’s Minerva Center and founder of B’Tselem, alleged that Israel cynically uses international law to pose as a “democratic state” when, according to her, it is not. She asserted that Gaza is an “artificial,20invented zone controlled by Israel,” claimed that Israel “controls” the “population registry” and “legal system” that are run by Hamas, and advocated for a bi-national state. As mentioned, Golan-Agnon was a consultant to a pseudo-academic study initiated by John Dugard (see below) that demonized Israel as an “apartheid” state. [1]
Ha’aretz columnist Gideon Levy also participated, referring to Israeli society as “immoral” and comparing it to a “drug addict” that required “institutionalization.” Levy argued the only ways for Palestinians to end the “occupation” were through “terrible bloodshed,” “sanctions,” or by making Israelis “feel uncomfortable,” and said rocket attacks on Israeli civilians did not merit military action by Israel.
Ron Yaron spoke on behalf of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I).-- and EU- and Swedish-funded NGO, whose political agenda includes assistant to protesters “in solidarity with their struggle against Israeli occupation”. Yaron castigated the IDF investigations as “whitewash” and not reliable. Yaron admitted that “Hamas had systema tically used medical facilities and ambulances as a cover for its military operations,” but summarily and without evidence dismissed what he termed “justif[ications]” of the Israeli army.
Yizhar Be’er, Executive Director of the EU-funded Keshev, accused the Israeli media of demonization, militancy, and incitement, and criticized local newspapers for highlighting the destruction of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, in particular children. Keshev works in concert with Miftah, a Palestinian NGO which promotes anti-Israel demonization, supports boycotts of Israel and was very active in the infamous 2001 Durban conference.
Fatmeh El Ajou of the EU- and European-funded Adalah claimed the war in Gaza was illegitimate because it was “intended to get rid of the democratically-elected Hamas.” Additionally, she declared that Palestinians have no remedy in the Israeli justice system, erasing the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court hears hundreds of cases related to Palestinian rights, including many suits initiated by Adalah,. She also endorsed a bi-national state, which is consistent with Adalah’s “Democratic Constitution” that demands the end of Israel as a Jewish nation-state.
“Lawfare” from international and Palestinian NGOs
Pro-Palestinian activists and Palestinian NGOs bolstered the political warfare conducted20by the other participants. One Palestinian media representative concluded his speech with an antisemitic rant accusing Jews of “buying everything” and controlling a “global machine, money.” A member of the Third World Network referred to Ahmedinejad as a “so-called Holocaust denier,” and a Swiss NGO representative expressed “extreme disappointment” that Palestinian war crimes of firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel were mentioned, even in passing, at the three-day event.
International Ideologues
John Dugard, the former UN rapporteur, accused Israel of “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” “genocide,” and “terrorizing” the citizens of Gaza. Dugard made the absurd claim that that Israel had no right to self-defense in the face of Hamas rocket attacks on its civilians. He also sought to argue that international laws regarding combating terrorism and its financing had no relevance to his legal analysis of the war. Dugard ended his presentation by calling for “lawfare” prosecutions of Israeli military and political figures. In February 2009, Dugard headed the Arab League’s “Fact Finding Mission” on the Gaza War, which made the same politicized conclusions.
More calls for “lawfare” came from Pierre Galand, a Belgian radical and chairman of the European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine. He portrayed Israel as part of the West’s “colonial and imperialist ideology”, stating that Israel “like France and the UK, continually lies.” Galand mentioned that he, Dugard, and Sourani (see below) were planning a “Russell Tribunal” against Israel (such fringe tribunals found the US guilty of “war crimes” in the 1970s, in the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, and the 2003 Iraq War).
Palestinian NGOs
Charles Shamas – head of the Mattin Group, HRW board member, and co-founder of Palestinian NGO Al Haq – called for sanctions against Israel. He focused on pressing the European Union to suspend trade agreements and block aviation traffic with Israel.
In a written statement, Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR – funded by the EU, Norway, Ireland, and Denmark), leveled accusations of “collective punishment,” “illegal siege” and Israeli “impunity.” As reflected in PCHR’s labeling of terror attacks as “resistance,” he did not criticize Hamas for aggression or “war crimes.” Sourani called for more “lawfare” cases against Israelis, even though every one of PCHR’s cases has been dismissed as being without merit. At the July 24 NGO session, other NGO representatives echoed Sourani’s remarks, noting their plan to harass with lawsuits UK nationals who have served in the IDF.
Badil (funded by Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands), this “right of return” NGO accused Israel of “colonial and apartheid policies,” and repeated the canard that Israel was created solely out of “European guilt over the Holocaust.” In order to hold Israel “accountable for its crimes,” Badil called for a general boycott and an arms ban on Israel, as well as suspension of the EU-Israel upgrade agreement.
Conclusion
In contrast to the marginalization of radical NGOs in the UN’s Durban Review Conference (April 2009), this conference shows that the power of these NGOs in UN remains significant. Such smaller, less visible meetings may not register in the international media, but they provide a forum for “sharing common practices” in the intensification of the Durban Strategy. Timed to coincide with the Goldstone investigation, the July 2009 “Question of Palestine” event indicates the ongoing legal warfare instigated by NGOs in response to the Gaza conflict.
Human Rights Watch’s participation in this “mini-Durban” conference reflects the organization’s further radicalization and the absence of professionalism and objectivity.
< br> It also highlights this powerful NGO’s influence in the anti-Israel NGO network and the UN. HRW, with its very large resources, media connections, and international reputation, legitimates and amplifies campaigns initiated by Palestinian NGOs – such as the concerted effort to criminalize Israel’s actions in the Gaza war. Radical Israeli NGOs, funded by European governments and NIF, add to this campaign by repeating unsupported claims and promoting a Palestinian narrative. Finally, the UN promotes these campaigns, providing one-sided forums – including the Goldstone commission – for advancing NGO strategies and attacks.
Notes
[1] See 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism, by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, American Jewish Committee, 2007, www.ajc.org/atf/cf/.../PROGRESSIVE_JEWISH_THOUGHT.PDF
NGO Monitor
Seniors – Beware the AARP’s Support of ObamaCare
Natalie Sirkin
Seniors beware! The AARP, claiming to represent you, is supporting the Obama Health Reform bill which is financed on your back. Obama maintains that overall the changes in health-care are helpful to seniors and will save them thousands of dollars. Not so. Seniors are the big losers under ObamaCare according to Betsy McCaughey, the expert who has studied all the congressional bills. In an attempt to make the cost deficit-neutral, which Obama declares is the goal, $500-$550 billion is to be taken away from Medicare spending, this at a time when approximately 75,000,000 Americans will be added to Medicare rosters as the baby boom generation ages.
ObamaCare will squeeze funds from Medicare by cutting payments to doctors, nurses, hospitals and drug companies. The result will be fewer doctors willing to take Medicare patients, i.e. to work for a fraction of their legitimate fees. Seniors will be herded into groups, which will receive slower, less personal and less consistent care from doctors and other health care providers. There will be less money for the medical devices that minimize the handicaps of disability.
For starters, ObamaCare proposes that seniors shift from use of specialists to primary-care doctors, on the misconception that the elderly overuse specialists. Betsy McCaughey reports that studies have shown that for heart patients, a shift to primary care results in a higher death rate. Primary-care physicians frequently misdiagnose heart patients, who are more often readmitted to the hospital. The patients not treated by specialists die sooner.
House Bill 3200 mandates that each senior meet every five years with a consultant in advanced care planning who will help in planning for end of each senior’s life. Some of this is reasonable – it is wise to have health care proxies and living wills – but on p. 427, lines 15-24, the government mandates end-of-life orders which can in effect make the government your proxy on end-of-life decisions. Gullible seniors, many of whom may be all too easily influenced by a government representative supposedly advancing their interests, are likely to sign off on agreements they don’t understand in “governmentalese,” the only language in the world that cannot be translated.
Those Obama has put in charge of medical planning for seniors should fill them with terror. There’s Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, who has been appointed to two key posts: health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. McCaughey points out that in recent articles Emanuel has explicitly promoted discrimination against older patients. It’s not invidious discrimination (like discrimination based on race or gender), says Emanuel, because everyone was 25 once. On this reasoning, all the hard won rules against discrimination on the basis of age go out the window. Tough luck, if you’ve turned 65. Emanuel has also written that he wants doctors to consider not just the medical needs of his patient, but “social justice.” That’s shorthand for whether the money spent on the patient before him could be better spent on someone else, e.g., someone younger or less disabled. For example, those with dementia, writes Emanuel, are no longer contributing to society.
As for that Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, as an Investor’s Business Daily editorial notes, it’s modeled on a similar board in England that approves or rejects treatments by dividing the cost of treatment by the number of additional years the patient is expected to live. Sample decision: the English board requires that elderly patients with macular degeneration wait until they are blind in one eye before they can get the costly new drug that can save the other eye. Presumably the Council will decide if it is an “efficient’ investment to permit expensive surgery for elderly patients. A hip replacement if you’re 80? How about Tylenol?
There are now bills in both House (HR3200) and Senate that would shift control over Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers from Congress to the President. Reimbursement rates would be set by an “independent commission,” i.e. an unelected executive agency, which the President would then approve or disapprove. The idea is to insulate Medicare from the pressures – to which politicians have to respond – and that will be sure to flow from outraged doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and seniors.
Even wiping out the access of seniors to many of the medical advances that have made their lives productive and comfortable will not make Obama’s health care revolution “cost-free.” Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office, to the discomfiture of the White House, asserted that government can’t “save” money on health-care by insuring everyone. The cost will be from $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion over ten years. Elmendorf was invited to the White House for a meeting with President Obama and a phalanx of economic and health-care advisers. Perhaps intimidated, Elmendorf has since issued a supplementary more equivocal statement. Former CBO head, Douglas Holtz-Eakin observed: “They’re leaning on him. CBO was created to do independent analyses for Congress.”
How can an organization representing seniors possibly endorse legislation whose chief victims will be seniors? In backing ObamaCare, the AARP is derelict and deceptive to boot. A trip to its website will give seniors zero information on this legislation, so central to their future welfare – it won’t even tell them the AARP supports it. All there is on ObamaCare is a video of a question and answer session the AARP organized in which Obama reassures seniors that they will come to no harm under his plan and be subject to no rationing of care. Otherwise the website is full of information on discounts available to AARP members, what foods are good for you, profiles of interesting senior citizens, what drug plan is good for you, etc. What makes AARP’s dereliction of duty in failing to provide its members with the most elementary information on Obama’s health care proposals doubly shameful is that there are no other organizations representing seniors: AARP holds a monopoly.
Given its true mission (AARP powers-that-be never saw a proposal for or toward nationalization of health care they did not like), seniors must both put pressure on the AARP to represent their interests in fact, not in rhetoric, and until (if ever) that goal is achieved, make their views heard so as to prevent the AARP from being viewed as the undisputed voice of seniors in this country.
Seniors who want their voices to be heard on this important matter should be deluging their legislators and AARP as well. Send the organization “unsubscribe” notes. Write to AARP, 601 E Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20049. You can list friends and relatives who agree with you. If you prefer to phone (it can’t hurt to both write and phone), unfortunately AARP has pretty well insulated itself from public complaints. Still, you can call 1-888-AARP and if you are patient through its complicated menu, can get a representative (at a call center in Nevada or California). Voice your opinion. Word will get back. There is also a direct phone number to the AARP Foundation in Washington D.C. 1-203-434-6200.
Be heard – before it is too late.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Natalie Sirkin, a senior citizen, has for many years written a regular column for the Citizen News of Sherman, Connecticut.
Mandelblit leads IDF battle to comply with international law
Amir Mizroch , THE JERUSALEM POST
The fact that there are almost 100 internal probes into allegations of IDF misconduct during the last Gaza war shows three things: that there is concern some soldiers broke the law during their stay in the Strip; that mistakes may have been made during the fighting; and most importantly, that the army is taking all accusations leveled against it seriously.
Judge Advocate General Brig.-Gen. Avihai Mandelblit is not always a popular figure in the military, especially when he punishes soldiers who break the law while fighting Israel's enemies in Gaza, Lebanon or the West Bank. For Mandelblit, there is no difference between routine security operations and full-fledged war, and no difference between Arabs and Jews. There is only the law.
From his third-floor office at IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv, Mandelblit represents the core of Israel's defense against the legal onslaught by unfriendly countries and organizations across the world. While the shooting has stopped, Operation Cast Lead is not over yet - it has just moved to another front.
The UN's Goldstone Commission is soon to present its findings on alleged Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza. Amnesty International has taken aim at IDF drones. The Red Cross is pounding away at the walls of "the Gaza prison," while "Free Gaza Ships" try to reach its shores. Human Rights Watch is raising money in Saudi Arabia by painting Israel as a pariah state.
And it is not just in Spain, Britain and Belgium that lawyers and jurists are using legal means to attack Israel. Within Israel, too, Yesh Din, Gisha, Breaking the Silence and Rabbis for Human Rights (partly funded by European countries) are also chipping away at the IDF's legitimacy.
The NGO approach is to take the sum total of Israeli operations during Cast Lead and paint the IDF as an immoral army that uses vastly disproportionate force. This approach doesn't look at individual actions and assess them on their proportionality but rather puts all of the IDF's actions together into one picture and argues that in the Gaza case, there were 1,400 people killed on the Palestinian side - mostly civilians, according to Palestinian figures vigorously disputed by Israel - while Israel lost 13 people in total, most of them soldiers in friendly-fire incidents.
The view in Israel is that this NGO approach produces a deeply distorted picture. The Israeli concern, furthermore, is that the aim of all these groups is to create deterrence against a future use of force by the IDF in Gaza and Lebanon.
It is no coincidence that Hizbullah is building a huge offensive array inside populated villages in southern Lebanon and that Syria has been beefing up its defenses inside its villages along the Golan Heights.
Away from the battlefields, there are hundreds of petitions, cases, legal opinions and pending actions against Israel cropping up in courts across the world. The phenomenon is wide and growing. It is driven by a lot of money and support from countries and people not friendly to Israel.
While Israel has been slow to array its forces on this battlefield, lately, there are signs that authorities here have now realized the scope of the problem and are starting to fight back.
Just as Israel invests in good weaponry, research and development, it is starting to invest in the tools to fight on this legal front and in the right people for the job. It is gearing up to ensure that military commanders can call on real-time dynamic legal advice on the ground.
And, just as important, every complaint and accusation leveled at the IDF from both inside and outside of Israel is increasingly recognized and must be thoroughly investigated. There is no need to be afraid of the truth, the army argues. Indeed, there is a strong belief within the military that every operation and attack during Cast Lead was limited to what is allowed. Millions of fliers were dropped, thousands of phone calls were made warning people to flee, and dozens of attacks were stopped because there was a chance civilians would be harmed.
If a soldier did commit a crime, he will pay for it, and it is best he pays for it here in Israel rather than abroad, runs the thinking, where he could be at the mercy of legal systems hijacked by political activists.
Mandelblit's role has become crucial in this intensifying war. The world needs to see that the IDF is seriously investigating itself; this counters the detractors' argument that the army cannot objectively investigate itself and, without outside oversight, would allow itself to get away with murder. As the cliché goes, justice needs not only to be done but also to be seen to be done.
For the people who draw up the battle plans in the IDF's operations and planning branch, the moral imperative is sacrosanct. If this was not the case, it is argued, the army's wars would last a few minutes at most. It is deemed crucial for the IDF to fight and win its wars within the boundaries of international law. For this reason, the Military Prosecutor's unit has steadily increased its involvement across all levels of the army in an attempt to give commanders the tools they need to get the job done within the bounds of international humanitarian law.
Legal officers have been attached to commanders from the brigade levels and up since the end of the Second Lebanon War in 2006. There are more of them and they are getting much more involved. Legal officers are present when target banks are drawn up and when questions are asked about whether the target is purely military or dual purpose.
There are almost no top officers who are not now deeply aware of the legal implications of their actions. If this awareness has not yet filtered down through all units, as the near-100 allegations would suggest, then the IDF is determined to rectify this immediately. For while it is recognized that nobody outside will tolerate the army operating beyond the bounds of international humanitarian law, the IDF is insistent that nobody inside will tolerate any such breaches either.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277926831&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Jewish, Not Arab, Roots in Judea and Samaria
Hillel Fendel
A7 News
US Pres. Obama’s demand that Israel not settle Jews in the Biblical areas of Judea and Samaria ignores thoroughly-documented Jewish roots in the Land of Israel, and in Judea/Samaria in particular. Yoram Ettinger, a former liaison for Congressional affairs in Israel's Washington embassy, lists in the latest of his periodic position papers some of the evidence showing that Judea and Samaria has Jewish, not Arab, roots.
Area Always Known as "Judea and Samaria"
Ettinger negates Obama's claim – enunciated during his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University – that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in" the Holocaust. For one thing, Ettinger notes, many world-renowned travelers, historians and archeologists of earlier centuries refer to "Judea and Samaria," while the term "West Bank" was coined only 60 years ago. Jordan gave the region this name when it occupied it after Israel’s War of Independence. No nation on earth other than Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan’s claim to Judea and Samaria.
Among the travelers, historians and archeologists who referred to Judea and Samaria are H. B. Tristram (The Land of Israel, 1865); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); R.A. MacAlister and Masterman ("Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly"); A.P. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, 1887); E. Robinson and E. Smith (Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1841); C.W. Van de Velde (Peise durch Syrien und Paletsinea, 1861); and Felix Bovet (Voyage en Taire Sainte, 1864). Even the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as official British and Ottoman records until 1950, used the term Judea and Samaria, and not the West Bank.
Land Was Named "Palestine" in Order to Erase Jewish Presence
Ettinger goes even further back, and says that the name "Palestine" was given to the Holy Land for the sole purpose of erasing the previous name of the country – Judea – from human memory. The Romans, whose plan this was, similarly sought to extinguish Jewish presence in Jerusalem by renaming it Aelia Capitolina.
Arabs Came in the Last 150 Years
When speaking of “Palestinian national rights,” it must be similarly kept in mind, Ettinger notes, that most Arabs residing today in Israel – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - have their origin in a massive 19th-20th century migration from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Moslem countries.
Town Names Betray Their True History
Finally, Ettinger says that almost all Arab localities in Judea and Samaria have retained Biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming their Jewish roots. Examples include the following: Anata is Biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah. Batir is Biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire, which was suppressed in 135CE. Beit-Hur is the biblical (and contemporary) Beit Horon, site of Judah the Maccabee's victory over the Assyrians. Beitin is biblical (and contemporary) Beit El, a site of the Holy Ark and Prophet Samuel's court. Bethlehem is mentioned 44 times in the Bible and is the birth place of King David. Beit Jalla is biblical (and contemporary) Gilo, in southern Jerusalem, where Sennacherib set his camp, while besieging Jerusalem. El-Jib is biblical (and contemporary) Gibeon, Joshua's battleground known for his command to stop the sun and moon (Joshua 10:12). Jaba' is the biblical (and contemporary) Geva, site of King Saul’s son Jonathan’s victory over the Philistines. Jenin is the biblical (and contemporary) Ein Ganim, a Levite town within the tribe of Issachar. Mukhmas is biblical (and contemporary) Mikhmash, residence of Jonathan the Maccabee and site of King Saul's fortress. Seilun is biblical (and contemporary) Shilo, a site of Joshua's tabernacle and the Holy Ark and Samuel's youth. Tequa is biblical (and contemporary) Tekoa, hometown of the Prophet Amos.
Arabs Never Wanted Palestinian State
In another of his posts, Ettinger has negated the US government position that a Palestinian state is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that its formation would resolve the situation. He cites proofs from recent history showing that Arab antipathy to Israel not only predates Palestinian concerns, but often sidesteps such interests.
Israel's war for its independence in 1948-9, for instance, was conducted by the Arab countries at the expense of Palestinian aspirations. Though Egypt conquered Gaza, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, and Syria claimed the Golan, in none of these areas was a Palestinian government allowed.
When Egypt conquered the Gaza Strip, it proceeded to prohibit Palestinian national activities and expel Palestinian leadership. Not only did Jordan not grant Palestinian independence to Judea and Samaria, it actually annexed these areas to its own country. When Syria occupied and annexed the Hama area in the Golan Heights, the Arab League outlawed a provisional Palestinian government there.
In short, it can be concluded that Arab "rights" to a state in Judea and Samaria are historically weak and were long ignored by other Arab countries.
Obama’s ‘Hit Man’ Emanuel Splitting US American Jewry
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has denied calling White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior Obama advisor David Axelrod “self-hating Jews." The alleged use of that term is particularly timely as Jews mourn on Thursday the destruction of the First and Second Holy Temples; Judaism teaches that “causeless hatred” among Jews was the reason for the fall of the Second Temple.
Whether or not the Prime Minister used the term, increasing criticism by American Jews of U.S. President Barack Obama signals a split in the American Jewish community.
The trigger for the growing crisis between Israel and the U.S., and among American Jews, is the issue of “settlements,” which President Obama labeled as “illegitimate” in his speech in Cairo nearly two months ago. He later included Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem as part of the “settlement” label.
President Obama revealed this week that his White House advisor Rahm Emanuel, whose father was an Israeli and part of the underground resistance movement under the British Mandate, tells him everything he needs to know about Israel.
Emanuel also is the man who choreographed the handshake between former President Bill Clinton, former Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn.
He has pushed the president into a head-on collision with the Netanyahu government, but there is a growing opinion that he has also left the president out on a limb. Emanuel’s strategy was to demonstrate that the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) no longer speaks for American Jewry.
Mondoweis Blogger Philip Weis, who continually attacks a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, wrote last month, “Obama's game is to defeat the Israel lobby from within. He could not defeat the lobby from outside it…. But now he is cracking it like a nut, and counting on Jews to do the cracking.”
That strategy has turned into a wall of opposition, both in Israel, where the president’s popularity rating is near-zero, in the U.S. where Emanuel has simply ignored opposing views of major Jewish organizations, and in the normally anti-settlement American press.
Washington Post vs. Obama
The liberal and highly influential Washington Post has criticized President Obama on his policy towards Israel, and an editorial on Thursday went even further. Under the title “Tough on Israel - Why: President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating,” the newspaper’s editors wrote:
“One of the more striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank.”
The editorial criticized the president for his “absolutist demand” for a freeze on all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. “Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the ‘confidence-building’ concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu.”
The newspaper warned that any compromise by President Obama may leave him “diminished among both Israelis and Arabs.”
The turning point against President Obama may have been the meeting in the White House earlier this month with American Jewish leaders. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations requested a discussion with President Obama, but Emanuel decided who would attend.
He used the opportunity to attempt to create an impression of solid support for President Obama and show off the relative new J Street lobby. Unlike AIPAC, it is active politically and endorsed and campaigned for Congressional candidates who fit their agenda, which includes Israel’s surrendering all of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem that were restored to the Jewish State in the 1967 Six-Day War.
At the same time, he excluded National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), both of which support a Jewish presence in all of Israel.
The latest confrontation on a new project for Jews in eastern Jerusalem prompted Alan Solow, chairman of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to state this week, "Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents to live wherever they choose in Jerusalem. No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of the capital."
In response, five leftist groups, including Americans for Peace Now and J Street, criticized supporters of Jews’ rights to build in the area. It added, “Unilateral actions that inflame tensions, impair negotiations and make the ultimate resolution of issues surrounding Jerusalem more difficult are unhelpful and should be avoided at this particularly sensitive moment."
While Emanuel is trying to strengthen his position, he faces another challenge on the Obama administration’s health plan. Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is Obama’s “health czar,” and the plan is being widely panned in American media, leaving the White House Chief of Staff with two potential failures for the President.
Comment: This blog warned weeks ago of Obama's strategy to divide and conquer the Jewish vote-the process continues. The question becomes to what degree do american Jews realize what is happening and what are they willing to do.
We've Figured Him Out
Ben Stein
7.24.09 @ 9:45AM
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill — a great idea in theory — was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be — a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.
There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.
Israel, Lebanon: Hezbollah Prepares for an Israeli Assault
Summary
STRATFOR has received information in recent weeks indicating that Hezbollah is making serious preparations for a possible Israeli attack. The inevitability of such a conflict is uncertain, but if Israel attacks Hezbollah, it would likely foreshadow a bigger confrontation with Iran.
Analysis
In recent weeks, STRATFOR has noticed an unusual uptick in Hezbollah’s anxiety levels over a potential Israeli attack. A number of sources tightly linked into the Shiite militant group have revealed that discussions are taking place amongst the senior military command over additional measures the group should take to prepare for an Israeli attack, which to them appears nearly inevitable. Many Hezbollah troops are reportedly suffering from mission fatigue in maintaining a constant vigil over the southern Lebanese border.
Further down the ranks, many of Hezbollah’s younger, student activists have taken the summer off from school and are spending the bulk of their time in Hezbollah’s stronghold in the western Bekaa Valley, north of the Litani River. Several of these younger Hezbollah cadres are reportedly being trained to employ anti-tank guided missiles and man portable air defense systems — light surface-to-air missiles — to defend against a potential attack.
Hezbollah appears to have been particularly shaken by a July 14 explosion at a Hezbollah weapons depot in the village of Khirbit Silim in southern Lebanon. Israel immediately accused Hezbollah of violating U.N. Resolution 1701 that calls for the total disarmament of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon by actively maintaining a large arms cache just 11 miles from the Israeli border. According to a STRATFOR source in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Israel provided UNIFIL with the intelligence on this Hezbollah weapons site and demanded that they destroy it. The source claims that after a considerable time lag, the French UNIFIL contingent took the matter into its own hands and blew up the weapons depot as Hezbollah commandos were loading munitions. Since that explosion, Israel has provided UNIFIL with information on some 100 other Hezbollah weapons depots that it expects to be destroyed, or else Israel has threatened to take action.
It is no secret that Hezbollah has been re-entrenching itself in southern Lebanon since its 2006 confrontation with Israel. Hezbollah has little interest in provoking a rematch, but it can clearly discern how tensions have skyrocketed in the region in the wake of the post-election crisis in Iran. Since then, STRATFOR has tracked a number of indicators that hint at preparations by the United States and Israel for a potential military strike against Iran. Though this is by no means an inevitable outcome, shifts in Hezbollah’s operations and anxiety levels bear close watching as these tensions continue to build.
Any Israeli attack plan against Iran would have to factor in Hezbollah, as any Iranian retaliatory plan would naturally utilize Iran’s strongest militant asset in the Middle East. The Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) directly runs major Hezbollah operations from their safe-houses in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Since the 2006 conflict, these IRGC commanders in Lebanon have been preparing Hezbollah for a potential war scenario with the Israelis, and have made the appropriate adjustments in Hezbollah’s command structure to ensure that the group’s leadership remains loyal to Tehran.
In anticipating the blowback from Hezbollah, Israel would have a strong interest in degrading Hezbollah’s military capabilities prior to attacking Iran. The Israelis are not interested in getting bogged down in a ground war in Lebanon, where Hezbollah could quickly gain the upper hand in a protracted war of attrition. Instead, Israel’s primary focus would be on eliminating the IRGC positions in Lebanon that control Hezbollah’s operations. By undermining Iran’s direct influence over the organization, Hezbollah would be far more likely to put their own interests ahead of Tehran’s when a split already exists within the group, with a faction arguing that Hezbollah should avoid cornering itself as a proxy of the Iranians and instead focus on entrenching itself more firmly in the Lebanese political system.
The Israelis would also attempt to decimate Hezbollah’s artillery rocket arsenal as well as its stocks of more advanced anti-tank, anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. Such arsenals can be replenished with time, but given the recent progress in Syria’s negotiations with the Americans and the Saudis, the Israelis (theoretically) could obtain better intelligence on Hezbollah positions to set the group back considerably and compromise their communications network.
As the indications of war have been building and as Syria’s negotiations with the West have progressed, Syria’s ties with Hezbollah and Iran have come under increasing strain. The Syrians have been isolating Hezbollah, albeit gradually, and Hezbollah no longer feels that it can fully trust its long-time ally, particularly in a time of war. Still, the Syrians are not ready, nor willing to completely sacrifice their relations with Iran and Hezbollah at this stage. After all, these relationships are what give Damascus leverage in its negotiations with the West. So, at the same time Syria is sharing intelligence with the Americans and the Saudis to further its negotiations, it is also providing limited assistance to Iran and Hezbollah as they prepare for an Israeli attack.
According to a STRATFOR source, the Iranian embassy in Damascus is overseeing the construction of heavily fortified residences in undisclosed locations on the slopes of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains near the Zabadani mountain resort. Iranian construction engineers are reportedly working with local Syrian laborers on this project, which is designed to provide refuge for Hezbollah (and IRGC commanders, most likely) should they need to flee Lebanon. Iran and Hezbollah are anticipating that Israeli would likely drop commandos in the northern Bekaa area to pursue these ranking officers. Since most of the targets live in the hilly northern Bekaa area, it would be relatively easy for them to make their way across the Anti-Lebanon Mountains into these Syrian safe houses. The residences, according to the source, are allegedly connected to the Lebanese side by a landline communications network to allow Hezbollah and IRGC to maintain command and control in communicating with their military units in the field. Though these contingency plans appear to be in the works with Syrian approval, the potential for Syria to compromise these Iranian and IRGC positions remains a serious question for Iran and Hezbollah.
Hezbollah senses that something is afoot in the region and is preparing for a conflict ahead. The inevitability of such a conflict is far from certain, but should Israel make a move against Hezbollah, it would very likely be the precursor to a larger confrontation with the Iranians. STRATFOR will continue to monitor this situation closely.
Jewish Occupation or Roots in Judea and Samaria?
Straight from the Jerusalem Cloakroom #226, July 31, 2009
Yoram Ettinger, Jerusalem
1. President Obama's claim – enunciated during his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University – that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history [The Holocaust] that cannot be denied," ignores thoroughly-documented Jewish roots in the Land of Israel in general and in Judea & Samaria in particular.
2. World renowned travelers, historians and archeologists of earlier centuries, such as H. B. Tristram (The Land of Israel, 1865), Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867), R.A. MacAlister and Masterman ("Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly"), A.P. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, 1887), E. Robinson and E. Smith (Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1841)), C.W. Van de Velde (Peise durch Syrien und Paletsinea, 1861), Felix Bovet (Voyage en Taire Sainte, 1864) – as well as Encyclopedia Britannica and official British and Ottoman records (until 1950) refer to "Judea and Samaria" and not to the "West Bank." The latter term was coined by the Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria following the 1948/9 War.
3. The term "Palestine" was established by Greek Historian Herodotus, and adopted by the Roman Empire, in an attempt to erase "Judea" from human memory. "Palestine" was a derivative of the biblical Philistines, arch rivals of the Jewish nation, non-Semites who migrated to the area from the Greek islands and from Phoenicia in the 12th century BCE ("Plishtim" – the invaders - is the Hebrew word for "Philistines").
4. Most Arabs (Semites from the Arabian Peninsula), who reside between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, have their origin in a massive 19th-20th century migration from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Moslem countries.
5. Almost all Arab towns and villages in Judea and Samaria have retained biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming Jewish roots there. For example:
*A-Dura is biblical (and contemporary) Adora'yim, site of King Rehoboam's and a Maccabees' fortress.
*A-Ram is biblical Haramah, Prophet Samuel's birth and burial site.
*Anata is biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah.
*Batir is biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire, which was crashed in 135CE.
*Beit-hur is the biblical (and contemporary) Beit Horon, site of Judah the Maccabee's victory over the Assyrians.
*Beitin is biblical (and contemporary) Bethel, a site of the Holy Ark and Prophet Samuel's court.
*Bethlehem is mentioned 44 times in the Bible and is the birth place of King David.
*Beit Jalla is biblical (and contemporary) Gilo, where Sennacherib set his camp, while besieging Jerusalem.
*El-Jib is biblical (and contemporary) Gibeon, Joshua's battleground known for "Sun, stop thou in Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ayalon," Joshua 10:12.
*Hebron - named after Hevron, Moses' uncle and Levy's grandson – was King David's first capital for 7 years, the burial site of the 3 Jewish Patriarchs and 3 Jewish Matriarchs.
*Jaba' is the biblical (and contemporary Geva, site of Jonathan's (son of King Saul) victory over the Philistines.
*Jenin is the biblical (and contemporary) Ein Ganim, a Levite town within the tribe of Issachar.
*Mukhmas is biblical (and contemporary) Mikhmash, residence of Jonathan the Maccabee and site of King Saul's fortress.
*Seilun is biblical (and contemporary) Shilo, a site of Joshua's tabernacle and the Holy Ark and Samuel's youth.
*Tequa' is biblical (and contemporary) Teqoah, hometown of the Prophet Amos and currently known for its home grown Ginger.
*Etc.
Are these sites "occupied" by the Jewish State or are they the epitome of Jewish moral high-ground and Statehood?
.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Some specific details of Obamacare-did you know...?
There has been much discussion about the health care bill that Obama seeks to have passed, again in "cirsis" mode. Below are some of the provisions incorporated into the 1,000 page legislation. Most importantly, none of this will apply to members of Congress or to other branches of our government (as Obama has publicly stated--"This won't affect me") who have their own plan--the best available. Buried among the provisions is a plan for retirees and their families in Unions & Community Orgs (ACORN). YOU pay for their retirement and benefits. If you don't like any of these provisions, that is too bad, because No company can sue GOVERNMENT on price fixing and there is no "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.
In addtion to the below sections, p. 16, Sec 102, entitled " 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE." However, when you read the conditions on the next pp, you quickly see that the option is made impossible, if you (1) change any terms of your coverage, (2) after 5 yrs, the insurer does not the same requirement as govt plans, (3) if they exclude pre-exisitng conditions . You can find the entire bill here, if you have the time or interest: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf. Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman's)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some the provisions that Obama and the Democrat Leadership are enacting for you, your family, your employer, and your doctor:
Provisions that affect Me, my Family, and aging Parents:
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - MY HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!
Pg 58HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Health Card will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer of amounts that they decide are appropriate
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Government will ration your Healthcare!
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of benefit Levels for Plans. #AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of income
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial/personal records
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (sic) Yes, it says that
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
PG 268 Sec 1141 Federal Government regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Committee. Can you say “HC by phone”?
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy…which means they will insert Government into your marriage
Pg 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health services including defining, creating, rationing those services
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultants. Think Senior Citizens’ end-of-life
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you toward death
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end-of-life. The Government has a say in how your life ends
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "advance care planning consultant" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. AN ORDER from Government
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end-of-life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life
Provisions that affect me indirectly, because I pay for it:
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer of amounts that they decide are appropriate
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & Community Orgs (ACORN). YOU pay for their retirement and benefits.
Provisions that affect my employer:
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure!!
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families.
pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between $251k & $400k who don’t provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll $400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll
Provisions that ensure that private plans will stop:
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVERNMENT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly
Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between $251k & $400k who don’t provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll $400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of income
Provisions that affect my doctor:
Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Government will tell Doctors what they can earn.
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Administration (Government) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial/personal records
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors: it doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Government will penalize hospitals for what Government deems preventable readmissions.
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctor’s treatment of a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission -- Government will penalize you.
Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end-of-life order
Provisions that affect Hospitals and Clinics:
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Government is mandating hospitals cannot expand
Pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. (Can you say ACORN?!!)
Provisions that affect Insurance Industry:
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, PPOs etc. Forcing patients into Government plan
Provisions for the Government Committee or that Increase Bureaucracy:
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Administration (Government) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial/personal records
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVERNMENT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Committee. Can you say, “HC by phone”?
Provisions that affect Illegal Aliens:
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Government mandates appropriate linguistic services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens
Provisions that affect Other Aliens:
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Provisions that affect Acorn:
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Government HC plan
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. Monthly payments to a community-based org. Like ACORN?
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Government is mandating hospitals cannot expand, however, Pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception, BUT community input required. (Can you say ACORN?!!)
Pg 469 – Community-Based Home Medical Services=Non profit organizations. “Hello, ACORN Medical services here!” ?
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (ACORN).
Provisions that suggest Population Control / Euthanasia :
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special-needs people! (Peter Fleckstein’s sister and Sarah Palin’s daughter have Down Syndrome!!)
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultants. Think Senior Citizens end-of-life
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end-of-life. The Government has a say in how your life ends
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "Advance Care Planning Consultant" will be used more frequently as patients health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12 " Advance Care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. AN ORDER from Government
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end-of-life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life
Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services = Non-profit orgs. “Hello, ACORN Medical services here!” ?
Provisions that are a mystery:
Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Government mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want it. Rationing. Remember “Outcome-Based Education?”
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Government into your marriage
Pg 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health services including defining, creating, rationing those services
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html
Riot police clashed with mourners
Riot police clashed with mourners gathering at Tehran's Behesht-e Zanra cemetery to honor the protesters killed by Revolutionary Guards and Basijj thugs when they rose up against the fraudulent June 12 presidential election, DEBKAfile's Iranian sources report. Breaking up the crowds gathered in the graveyard, Thursday, July 30, police forced opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi to leave as he approached the grave Neda Agha Soltan, the student who died of wounds inflicted by the Basijj at a protest rally. They then pushed him into his car which drove off at speed. Witnesses report several injured in the clashes. DEBKAfile's Iranian sources reported earlier:
Popular anger against the regime has been further stoked by the official claim that only 20 people died in the street rallies and by the abuses suffered by the hundreds of jailed detainees, one of whom Sohran Aarabi has died under torture in prison. He was the son of one of the presidential candidates Mohsen Rezai, a former Revolutionary Guards commander.
Ceremonies marking the 40th day of a death are an Islamic tradition, but opposition leaders have been encouraged by the declining power of the election winner, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to push harder in the hope of bringing him down. The founder of the Islamic revolution Aytollah Khomeini used the Fortieth Day mourning ceremonies as a tactic to inflame mobs against the ruling shah. The incumbent rulers, well aware of the political power of these rallies to shake their regime, have banned all assemblies - even for religious purposes.
Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi received no answer to their application from the interior ministry for a permit to call a special prayer meeting at the Great Mossalla Mosque in Tehran, although they promised it there would be no shouted slogans.
DEBKAfile's sources report that when the opposition leaders saw security forces preparing to thwart mass ingress to the Great Mosque, they withdrew their request so as to avoid further bloodshed and instead called for a National Day of Mourning around the graves of the protest victims at the main Tehran cemetery.
The regime will put 20 suspected rioters on trial from Saturday after a first batch of detainees was released Tuesday and a "considerable number" would be freed Friday, the Iranian News Agency reported.
Comment: This is an evolving story-we should al stay tuned-rapidly morphing into a new direction.
Iran? Israel? Palestinians? Don't Understand the Middle East? Blame the Media
RubinReports
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/07/iran-israel-palestinians-dont.html
Barry Rubin
Even in the smallest news items frequently reflect the media bias against both Israel and accurate explanations of Middle East realities. For example, consider this one-paragraph AP item of July 25:
“U.S. gives $200M to Palestinians: The United States has transferred $200 million to the Palestinian government to help ease a growing budget deficit, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has been struggling in recent months to keep his government afloat, borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars from commercial banks just to cover the public payroll. The reasons for the shortfall include Israel's restrictions on the Palestinian economy, the border blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, and the failure of some donor countries to make good on their aid pledges, Fayyad said during a video news conference with Clinton. – AP”Three reasons are given for the Palestinian economy doing poorly. None—repeat none—of them related to the Palestinians themselves, and two of the three are blamed on Israel.
So what’s left out? Things that everyone knows about on the scene:
--The administrative incompetence of the Palestinian Authority (PA).
--The PA’s rejection of peace with Israel in the past and present.
--The waste of money on ridiculously high numbers of people in security forces. That is why the "public payroll" is so expensive, a fact that has nothing to do with Israel. Moreover, the PA does not tax its people, getting all its money from foreign handouts. Such actions might build its popularity but also ensure a deficit.
--Past waves of violence by the PA’s Fatah ruling group and current talk of returning to armed struggle in the future.
--The extremist policies of Hamas—including maintaining a state of war with Israel--which could easily behave in a way that would make a blockade unnecessary.
--High levels of corruption in both regimes.
--The overall international economic downturn.
The reader is being directed to conclude: If only those mean Israelis and unreliable donors were nicer to the poor Palestinians everything would be fine. And indeed this seems almost like an unwritten rule for the Inquirer, AP, Reuters, and large sectors of the media: The Palestinians can never be blamed for anything.
But if all those points aren't made, how can anything ever be fixed? Even assuming there was no sanctions against a regime in Gaza which is terrorist, radical Islamist, openly antisemitic, and genocidal-intended--yes these are very strong words but they are completely accurate ones--the Gaza economy wouldn't be doing well.
As for the West Bank, the current Israeli government has explicitly made helping the economy there prosper and recent reports is that it is doing relatively well.
But here is the only choice much of the media allows us: It’s all Israel’s fault. Hamas and the PA aren’t to blame for anything, merely being eternal victims of Israel and the West. Therefore, the PA doesn't have to change any of its policies, does it?
If you want another example of how this basic concept works, consider an article of July 28, "Israel refuses limits on halting Iran nukes," by Anne Gearan, Associated Press. You see those Israelis are just trouble for the United States, as the headline to put it, “Top U.S. officials urge restraint as they seek to conduct broader peace talks in the Mideast.”
Like many articles on the Middle East, this is so biased and misleading as to be almost comical. The lead signals to the reader who is the bad guy here:
“Israel hardened its insistence yesterday that it would do anything it felt necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, just the ultimatum the United States hoped not to hear as it tried to nudge Iran to the bargaining table.”
Israel's hardline messing up U.S. efforts for peace, the article tells readers. Actually, however, Israeli press reports on the same meeting said that Israel’s leaders told the United States they would cooperate with U.S. efforts, precisely the opposite of this article. Indeed, the article itself presents no evidence for its thesis.
What is the proof offered of such a “hardening” position? Here it, allegedly, is.
“Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak used a brief news conference with Gates to insist three times that Israel would not rule out any response, an implied warning that it would consider a preemptive strike to thwart Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
"`We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table,'" Barak said. "`This is our policy. We mean it.'"
Obviously what Barak said is not some “hardening” but the traditional Israeli position. And by the way, even President Obama has said that he isn’t taking any option off the table. Clearly, the Israeli position is: we will give you every chance to try the engagement and sanctions' route.
So the entire thesis of the article is simply wrong, ridiculously wrong. This is what is presented as serious coverage of Israel in American newspapers.
But that’s not all. The article continues:
“Iran says it is merely trying to develop nuclear reactors for domestic power generation. Israeli leaders fear that the U.S. prizes its outreach to Iran over its historic ties to Israel and that the United States appears resigned to the idea that Iran will soon be able to build a nuclear weapon.”
What’s missing here, though it is implied, is that the United States agrees with Israel. Gearan, by the way, also misstates the U.S. position. (On this point, see here)
None of the rest of the article contains any evidence that Israel has either hardened its line or is causing problems for U.S. diplomacy on the Iran issue.
At the end of the article, in all contrast to supposed journalistic guidelines, the author interjects her opinions unsupported by facts:
“All this comes at a time when Washington's policy of dialogue with Iran itself has hit an impasse because of that country's election turmoil after the disputed vote June 12. A more cooperative Iran is important for the Mideast peace drive. With its links to Hamas and Hezbollah extremists, Iran is capable of heightening tensions in Israel and the Palestinian territories.”
First of all, is the only problem for dialogue due to “election turmoil” or rather the hardline—here’s a place where it’s appropriate—nature of Iran’s regime? Moreover, why do we have any reason to believe Iran would be more cooperative? The article presents the issue purely in terms of the United States having to be nice to Iran or else.
Iran isn’t just “capable” of heightening tensions, it works to do so every day. To show there are good articles also, see a much better piece on this point from the Washington Post.
And the author concludes with this bit of wisdom:
“At the same time, an Israeli strike on Iran would probably push Arab nations away from any peace gestures toward Israel, despite their own rivalries with Tehran.”
This is pure opinion and is quite debatable. But journalists sticking in their ideological-based opinions is now par for the course in the American media. It shouldn’t be.
Betting on Dennis Ross
Daniel Mandel
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35754
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Is Obama's "Special Assistant" really a friend of Israel?
One of the small, but interesting, indeed significant, things to have emerged from the Alan Dershowitz – Melanie Phillips FrontPage Magazine debate over the Obama Administration’s policies towards Israel is the manner in which Dershowitz seeks a security blanket in the existence of individual Obama Administration figures deemed pro-Israeli. Yet, his is a curious argument: it tacitly concedes that the President’s background and the record of at least some of his relevant advisers and appointees – and thus the auguries regarding the likely direction of policy under his stewardship – have indeed given reason for worry.
Consider some of these advisers and appointees: Zbigniew Brzezinski, who lauded the 2006 Mearsheimer-Walt demonization of the pro-Israel lobby – a demonization Dershowitz himself felt impelled to rebut; General Merrill ‘Tony’ McPeak, who thinks American Jewish voters prevent the U.S. playing a constructive role in bringing about peace; Robert Malley, who has urged an imposed settlement on Israel and advocated negotiations with Hamas; Samantha Power, now on the National Security Council, who has also advocated external imposition of a settlement on Israel; George Mitchell, now Special Envoy to the Middle East, whose response to the outbreak of the Palestinian terror wave in 2000 was to call for more Israeli concessions before demanding Palestinians fulfill their already existing, unfulfilled obligations under Oslo; and Daniel Kurtzer, who largely blames Israel for the 2000 Camp David negotiations failure.
Yet pro-Obama Israel supporters frequently ignore these officials’ records and point to other officials, or even the same ones, in the conviction that they are Israel’s friends or that their mere presence foreshadows cordial American-Israeli relations:
· Marc R. Stanley, chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, has pointed to several advisers and appointees – Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, George Mitchell, Peter Orszag, Dennis Ross, Kathleen Sebelius and Lawrence Summers – with “long-standing close relationships with us” among reasons for Jews to feel at ease with the Obama Administration.
· The Washington Jewish Week, in an October 2008 editorial supporting Obama’s candidacy, asserted blithely, “On Israel, there is no doubt that McCain is a stalwart supporter, but Obama, too, is a strong friend. Need proof? Look at his closest Israel advisers, people like Dennis Ross, Robert Wexler and Daniel Kurtzer, who wouldn’t work so hard as his surrogates if they didn’t believe his concern for and commitment to the Jewish state were genuine and unshakable.”
Now, in FrontPage, Dershowitz has done the same thing. Scolded by Phillips for ignoring as formative influences on Barack Obama his own radical past associates deeply hostile to Israel, Dershowitz caviled, “No one who fits that characterture [sic] would have appointed Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, Dennis Ross (who she also attacks) as an adviser on Iran and Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.”
The case for skepticism regarding Clinton and Emanuel has been made by others. However, when it comes to Dennis Ross, liberal, pro-Obama Israel supporters speak as though they are on a sure thing. Before Obama’s election, the New Republic’s Marty Peretz, another liberal champion of Israel, said any misgivings he had were allayed by the presence on Obama’s team of the “clear-headed” Ross. Ross was to be found last year seeking to reassure Jews that it was kosher – indeed meritorious – to vote for Obama.
But is Ross’ own record of judgment and deeds reassuring?
In an interview with me eight years ago, Ross was candid about the mistakes President Clinton and he committed in working for an Arab-Israeli peace. He was explicit about their having fatally ignored Palestinian terror and incitement to hatred and murder:
[I] believe that we … became so preoccupied with this process that the process took on a life of its own. It had self-sustaining justification. Every time there was a [Palestinian] behavior, or an incident or an event that was inconsistent with the process … the impulse was to rationalize it, finesse it, find a way around it and not allow it to break the process.
Holding the Palestinian leadership responsible for the failure of the Oslo process, Ross concluded, “I don’t believe that one can focus now on the solution. You have to focus on management and defusing of the conflict.”
However, last year, campaigning for Obama, Ross could be found declaring that “the Bush administration walked away from peace-making for more than six years.” Apparently, what Ross told me in 2001 to be impossible he now believes should have been tried ceaselessly since about that date.
What made Ross change his mind? Apparently, the notion that, while Arafat could not make peace, Mahmoud Abbas (“whose intentions, I think, are for peace”) and his cohorts can – and will – with U.S. support. The trouble is, precisely such supportive efforts were the sum total of the Bush Administration’s approach – and it proved a failure.
The Bush Administration accepted (over strenuous Israeli objections) the Roadmap peace plan in April 2003, which ordained immediate Israeli concessions and redeployments in response to untested Palestinian reforms. It pressured Israel into concessions – like the perilous abandonment of the Gaza/Egypt border. It engaged ceaselessly with a reshuffled pack of veteran Arafat loyalists — Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Erekat, Nabil Shaath, Ahmed Qurei, with Salaam Fayyad later added to the deck — claiming these amounted to new Palestinian leadership.
This embrace of Arafat loyalists was not the result – Ross’ confidence in Abbas’ moderation notwithstanding – of the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s dismantling the apparatus of terror or the ending of the incitement to hatred and murder that feeds it. Terrorists are not jailed – in fact, Mahmoud Abbas explicitly ruled out doing that already in 2005, contrary to Oslo and the Roadmap. Glorification of terror within the PA remains the norm and Abbas himself has described wanted terrorists as “heroes,” publicly mourned dead terrorists (George Habash) and congratulated the families of living ones (Samir Kuntar) on their release by Israel.
In short, the logic of dealing with Arafat loyalists involves feigning ignorance of all this. Thus, George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice liberally showered Abbas and the PA with praise, money ($600 million of U.S. taxpayer’s money in Bush’s last year) and arms for undetectable moderation. Under Obama, all that has changed is the magnitude of the taxpayer funds remitted to the PA (some $900 million in 2009) and the volume of pressure applied to Israel to make concessions to it.
Ross served throughout the two Clinton Administrations as Middle East envoy. Where is he now? As of last month, he carries the unwieldy title of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the “Central Region,” having been quickly shifted from the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia brief he took up only months ago within Clinton’s State Department team. Whether this move presages increased or reduced influence for Ross remains to be seen.
But even assuming that Ross occupies a position of influence and authority, the question is: will he serve as a bridle on the Obama Administration’s heavy-handed tendencies to bully Israel, as in the present fracas over Israel building homes for Jews in Jerusalem or the West Bank? His own record affords little reason to think so.
On his conduct during the Oslo years, as he conceded in 2001, Ross did not call a halt to a policy of pressure on Israel and indulgence of the PA. But his record is longer than the Oslo years.
In 1992, for example, Ross and his State Department colleagues, wishing to prevent Arafat from boycotting upcoming peace talks, persuaded the George H. W. Bush Administration to strongly condemn Israel in the U.N. for expelling a dozen Palestinian ringleaders after a series of lethal terror attacks on Israelis. Then, as later, Palestinian terrorism was insufficient grounds for upsetting diplomacy that we now know led no-where but to bloodshed. And when last year Marty Peretz took Robert Malley to task for hostility to Israel, Ross joined Sandy Berger, Dan Kurtzer, Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller and other Clinton era advisers in indignantly repudiating Peretz’s critique.
In short, Ross’ is not the record of someone who will readily oppose pressure on Israel from within the inner sanctum of an Obama Administration if these get in the way of the latest ‘peace process.’ Liberal supporters of Israel like Alan Dershowitz who bank on Dennis Ross to provide a countervailing influence within the Obama Administration should take note.
Daniel Mandel is a fellow in history at Melbourne University, director of the Zionist Organization of America’s Center for Middle East Policy, and author of H.V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist (Routledge, 2004).
The Operation in Gaza
27 December 2008 – 18 January 2009
Factual and Legal Aspects
July 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This detailed Paper discusses a range of factual and international legal issues relating to the military operation undertaken by the Israel Defence Forces (“IDF”) in Gaza in December 2008 - January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”).
2. The Paper has been prepared at this time in order to place the Gaza Operation in its proper factual and legal context. On a number of issues the Paper offers only a provisional analysis as the IDF is still conducting comprehensive field and criminal investigations into allegations regarding the conduct of its forces during the Operation. Such investigations will be reviewed by the Military Advocate General and are subject to further review by the Attorney General. In addition, petitions may be filed for judicial review by the Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as the High Court of Justice).3. The Paper addresses the context of the Gaza Operation and notes that Israel had both a right and an obligation to take military action against Hamas in Gaza to stop Hamas’ almost incessant rocket and mortar attacks upon thousands of Israeli civilians and its other acts of terrorism. Israel was bombarded by some 12,000 rockets and mortar shells between 2000 and 2008, including nearly 3,000 rockets and mortar shells in 2008 alone. Hamas specifically timed many of its attacks to terrorise schoolchildren in the mornings and the afternoons. These deliberate attacks caused deaths, injuries, and extensive property damage; forced businesses to close; and terrorised tens of thousands of residents into abandoning their homes.
4. The Paper notes that Hamas constantly worked to increase the range of its weapons and that, by late 2008, its rocket fire was capable of reaching some of Israel’s largest cities and strategic infrastructure, threatening one million Israeli civilians, including nearly 250,000 schoolchildren. Hamas also orchestrated numerous suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and amassed an extensive armed force of more than 20,000 armed operatives in Gaza.
5. The Paper also describes the numerous non-military approaches Israel pursued to try to stop the attacks before commencing the Gaza Operation, including urgent appeals to the U.N. Secretary General and successive Presidents of the Security Council to take determined action, and diplomatic overtures, directly and through intermediaries, to stop the violence. Hamas nonetheless continued, and in fact escalated, its cross border attacks. These attacks included a raid into Israeli territory from Gaza in June 2006 and the abduction of an IDF soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, who, more than three years later, remains in captivity, having been held incommunicado without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (“ICRC”) or any other international body.
6. In a detailed legal analysis, including a survey of the relevant legal principles and State practice, the Paper notes that Israel’s resort to force in the Gaza Operation was both a necessary and a proportionate response to Hamas’ attacks. While the IDF continues to investigate specific incidents during the Operation, the Paper demonstrates that Israeli commanders and soldiers were guided by International Humanitarian Law, including the principles of distinction and proportionality. These principles, enshrined in IDF training, Code of Ethics and rules of engagement, required IDF forces to direct their attacks solely against military objectives and to try to ensure that civilians and civilian objects would not be harmed. Where incidental damage to civilians or civilian property could not be avoided, the IDF made extraordinary efforts to ensure that it would not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage in each instance and as a whole. Both before and during the Gaza Operation, the IDF went to great lengths, as documented in the Paper, to ensure that humanitarian aid reached the Palestinian population, including by facilitating the delivery of 1,511 trucks carrying 37,162 tons.
7. By contrast, both before and during the Gaza Operation, Hamas committed clear grave violations of international law. The Paper documents Hamas’ deliberate rocket and mortar attacks against Israel’s civilian population, which violated the international law prohibition on deliberate attacks against civilians and civilian objects. It also documents deliberate Hamas tactics that put Gaza’s civilian population in grave danger. These included the launching of rocket attacks from within densely populated areas near schools and protected U.N. facilities, the commandeering of hospitals as bases of operations and ambulances for transport, the storage of weapons in mosques, and the booby-trapping of entire civilian neighbourhoods so that an attack on one structure would devastate many others. These actions, which are clearly shown in photographic and video evidence throughout the Paper, violated international law. Many of the civilian deaths and injuries, and a significant amount of the damage to property during the Gaza Operation, was attributable to Hamas’ tactic of blending in with the civilian population and its use of, or operations near, protected facilities and civilian property. The Paper also notes the direct injury and damage caused to Palestinians by the explosion of Hamas’ weapons factories and the falling of rockets short of their targets on Palestinians in Gaza.
8. The Paper addresses the acute dilemmas faced by Israel in confronting an adversary using its own civilian population as a shield. It details the extensive precautions taken by the IDF to avoid or limit harm to civilians in Gaza, while still having to achieve the necessary objective of stopping Hamas’ constant rocket and mortar fire on Israeli civilians and property. The IDF not only checked and cross-checked targets and used the least destructive munitions possible to achieve legitimate military objectives; it also implemented an elaborate system of warnings, including general warnings to civilians (through media broadcasts and leaflets) to avoid or minimise the presence of civilians in areas and facilities used by Hamas, regional warnings to alert civilians to leave specific areas before IDF operations commenced, and specific warnings (through telephone calls and warning shots to rooftops) to warn civilians to evacuate specific buildings targeted for attack. The IDF dropped more than 2.5 million leaflets and made more than 165,000 phone calls warning civilians to distance themselves from military targets.
9. In this Paper, Israel acknowledges that, despite the precautions taken, the Gaza Operation resulted in many civilian deaths and injuries and significant damage to public and private property in Gaza. Israel makes no attempt to minimise the human costs incurred. As former Prime Minister Olmert stated at the close of the conflict: “On behalf of the Government of Israel, I wish to convey my regret for the harming of uninvolved civilians, for the pain we caused them, for the suffering they and their families suffered as result of the intolerable situation created by Hamas.”
10. In analysing the legal aspects of the conflict, the Paper notes that civilian deaths and damage to property, even when considerable, do not necessarily mean that violations of international law as such have occurred. In particular, the principles of distinction and proportionality are only violated when there is an intention to target civilians or to target military objectives with the knowledge that it would cause harm to civilians that is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Hamas’ deliberate attacks against Israel’s civilian population violated such standards and thus constituted a violation of international law. The IDF’s attacks directed against Hamas military targets, despite their unfortunate effects on Gaza’s civilian population, did not.
11. The Paper also gives a detailed account of Israel's efforts to coordinate and facilitate humanitarian relief and assistance to the Palestinians in Gaza. It also documents repeated Hamas abuses of these arrangements, including Hamas’ launching of attacks during humanitarian pauses and directed at crossing points, and Hamas’ hijacking and theft of humanitarian supplies intended for those in need.
12. The Paper also gives previously unpublished details of the multiple IDF investigations into allegations made by various groups that violations of the law were committed. IDF investigative teams are currently examining approximately 100 complaints, including 13 criminal investigations opened so far, and will examine more complaints if and when filed. The Paper sets forth the preliminary findings of some of the IDF field investigations, including investigations relating to allegations concerning 1) incidents where U.N. and international facilities were fired upon or damaged; 2) incidents involving shooting at medical facilities, buildings, vehicles, and crews; 3) certain incidents in which many civilians were harmed; 4) the use of munitions containing white phosphorous; and 5) destruction of private property and infrastructure by ground forces. It provides as much information as can be released with regard to the investigations currently underway without comprising the integrity and independence of these investigations.
13. The field investigations constitute only the preliminary stage of an extensive legal process. They are subject to independent review by the Military Advocate General, who may order the opening of a criminal investigation. The decisions of the Military Advocate General are subject to review by the Attorney General and may also be reviewed by the Israeli Supreme Court (sitting as the High Court of Justice). Israel’s system for investigating alleged violations, including its judicial review process, is internationally recognised as thorough and independent; its procedures and institutions are similar to those in other Western countries.
14. Israel deeply regrets the civilian losses that occurred during the Gaza Operation. But Israel has both the responsibility and the right under international law, as does every State, to defend its civilians from intentional rocket attacks. It believes that it discharged that responsibility in a manner consistent with the rules of international law. Israel is committed to a thorough investigation of all allegations to the contrary and to making the results of these investigations and subsequent reviews public when they are completed.
More Details on ObamaCare: The Horrifying Proof is in the Bill – If Only More Lawmakers Would Read It!
FamilySecurityMatters
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3872/pub_detail.asp
• Page 16: Private insurance will become ILLEGAL - Can't write NEW policies, and lose existing policies if you change jobs, coverage or prices!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!Editor’s note: The following was received via e-mail. Based on the popularity of the last “what’s in the healthcare bill” article we ran, we decided to run this as well, as it contains even more detail as to what’s in the bill that Rep. John Conyers complained he doesn’t have enough time to read before he votes on it. An informed electorate may be all that stands between America as we have known it and a nation that heads down a non-reversible socialist path.
Peter Fleckenstein, a blogger and former Marine from Phoenix, Arizona, is going through the ObamaCare bill page by page and highlighting the provisions he finds there. Here, clearly, Fleckenstein has struck a nerve. His list, originally published as a series of Twitter posts, has gone viral via email. Within days, the liberal fascists published his personal information on Twitter as a means to silence him. Fleckenstein promises legal action.
It’s easy to see why the liberals are tripping over themselves to suppress the information Fleckenstein unearthed. At its best, the information Fleckenstein culled from the bowels of the ObamaCare bill are absurd. When you really understand what the ObamaCare bill is and what Congress and Obama are trying to do with it, however, it turns from absurd to nearly terrifying.
Information has been taken from different sources for formatting purposes but verified back to Fleckenstein’s original work. Fleckenstein’s blog is here: http://blog.flecksoflife.com.
• Page 16: Private insurance will become ILLEGAL - Can't write NEW policies, and lose existing policies if you change jobs, coverage or prices!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t’ have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include a GOVERNMENT ORDER for end-of-life plans.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments
to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
* PG 502 Line 5-18 Government builds the “Center” to conduct, support, & synthesize research to define our HealthCare Services.
* PG 502 Section 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. – Hello Big Brother – Literally.
* PG 503 Line 13-19 Government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records.
* PG 503 Line 21-25 Government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the US including your data.
* PG 504 Line 6-10 The “Center” will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info)
* PG 506 Line 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data
* PG 518 Line 21-25 The Commission will have input from HealthCare consumer reps – Can you say unions & ACORN?
* PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.
* PGs 525-620 deals with the Govt basically taking over nursing homes,long-term care facilities (think assisted living) through regulations of the facilities, the owners of sd facilities, the employees of sd facilities and even the land owners of that sd facilities reside on. Additionally as you read these 90+ pages you can come to the conclusion that any Health related svcs will be determined and rationed by the Govt for our senior citizens and others in nursing homes. This one post should do enough to raise awareness of the control the Govt is exerting over the older population of American citizens.
* PG 620 Line 1-9 The Government will define, prioritize, and nationalize your Health Care Services.
* PG 621 Lines 20-25 Government will define what Quality means in HealthCare. Since when does Government know about quality?
* PG 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the quality Standards Government will transfer $$ from to other Government Trust Funds. More Taxes.
* PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes & functional status of patients.
* PG 628 Section 1443 Government will give “Multi-Stake Holders” Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of “Quality” Measures.
* PG 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those Multi-stake holder groups including Unions & groups like ACORN deciding HealthCare quality.
* PG 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any “Quality measure” of HealthCare Services as they see fit.
* PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed “Quality Measures” for Physician Services & Dialysis Services.
* PG 635 – 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision – Government wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Government.
* PG 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections – Looks okay.
* PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency – Government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.
* PG 676-686 Government will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, including teaching hospitals.
* PG 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean the Government with an $18 mil website?
* PGs 701-704 Section 1619 If your part of HealthCare plan that isn’t in Government HealthCare Exchange but you qualify for Federal aid, no payment.
* PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secretary gets complaints (ACORN) on HealthCare provider or supplier, Government can do background check.
* PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HealthCare providers/suppliers admittance into HealthCare Exchange.
* Pg 719-720 Section 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.
* PG 722 Section 1639 Government Mandates Doctors must have face-to-face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Services.
* PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same Government certifications will apply to medicaid & CHIP (your kids) Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforcement purposes, the Secretary of Health & Human Services will give Attorney General access to ALL data.
* PG 724 Lines 16-22 Government reserves right to apply face-to-face certification for patient to ANY other HealthCare service.
* PG 740-757 Government sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (That’s your tax dollars peeps) Pg 757-762 Fed Government will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)
* PG 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin Pg 765 Section 1711 Government will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)
* Pg 768 Section 1713 Government – Nurse Home Visitation Services (Hello union paybacks)
* Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Services include-economic self-sufficiency, employment advancement, school-readiness.
* Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services – “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Government Abortions anyone?
* Pg 770 SEC 1714 Federal Government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Say abortion & State Sovereign.
* Pg 789-797 Government will set & mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs will brought to market. Bye innovation
* Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for grad medical education. The government will now control Drs education. PG 801 Sec 1751 The Government will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!
* Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc. required to register. Government takes over private payment system.
* PG 820-824 Sec 1801 Government will identify individuals ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal finances
.
* Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Government Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.
* PG 829-833 Government will impose a fee on ALL private health insurance plans including self insured to pay for Trust Fund!
* PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Government for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.
* Pg 838-840 Government will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expecting kids.
* PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Program includes Government coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!
* Pg 859 Government will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes thats Billion.
* PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HealthCare for 2 years for part loan repayment.
* PG 876-892 The Government takes over the education of our Medical students and Drs.
* PG 898 The Government will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps. to ensure supply of public health professionals.
* PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.
* PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.
* PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.
* PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HealthCare Draft?
* PG 910 The Government will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.
* PG 913-914 Government starts a HealthCare affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.
* PG 915 SEC. 2251. Government MANDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HealthCare professionals.
* Pg 932 The Government will establish Preventative & Wellness Trust fund – intial cost of $30,800,000,000-Billion.
* PG 935 21-22 Government will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control You!!
* PG 936 Government will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards” Tell me what to eat?
* PG 942 Lines 22-25 More Government? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Services, Minority Health, Women’s Health
* PG 950- 980 BIG Government core public health infrastructure includes workforce capacity, lab systems; health information systems
, etc
* PG 993 Government will establish school based health clinics. Your kids wont have a chance.
* PG 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment. Say Government Brainwash!
* PG 1001 The Government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?
* PG 1003 9-11 National Medical Dev Reg ‘‘(iii) other postmarket device surveillance activities” you WILL be tracked.
* PG 1018 States give up some of their State Sovereignty.
Are you concerned about what socialized medicine will mean for you and your family? Tell your elected officials what you think.
Contact the White House
Comments: 202.456.111
Switchboard: 202.456.1414
FAX: 202.456.2461
Webmail: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
How to Make Health-Care Reform Bipartisan
BOBBY JINDAL
In Washington, it seems history always repeats itself. That’s what’s happening now with health-care reform. This is an unfortunate turn of events for Americans who are legitimately concerned about the skyrocketing cost of a basic human need.
In 1993 and 1994, Hillary Clinton’s health-care reform proposal failed because it was concocted in secret without the guiding hand of public consensus-building, and because it was a philosophical over-reach. Today President Barack Obama is repeating these mistakes.
The reason is plain: The left in Washington has concluded that honesty will not yield its desired policy result. So it resorts to a fundamentally dishonest approach to reform. I say this because the marketing of the Democrats’ plans as presented in the House of Representatives and endorsed heartily by President Obama rests on three falsehoods. 1. Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan.
If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care.
2. The Democrats disingenuously argue their reforms will not diminish the quality of our health care even as government involvement in the delivery of that health care increases massively. For all of us who have seen the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to hurricanes, this contention is laughable on its face. When government bureaucracies drive the delivery of services—in this case inserting themselves between health-care providers and their patients—quality degradation will surely come. House Democrats seem willing to accept that problem to achieve their philosophical aim—the long-term removal of for-profit entities from the health-care landscape.
3. Mr. Obama’s rhetoric paints a picture of a massive new benefit that will actually cost average Americans less than what they pay today. The Democrats want middle-class taxpayers to believe they won’t feel the pinch of this initiative, even as their employers are assessed massive new taxes. They might as well try to argue that up is down. The analysis of the Democrats’ proposal by the Congressional Budget Office shows that it will not reduce government spending on health care, and that it will substantially increase the federal deficit—and this despite all the tax increases.
I served in the U.S. House with a majority of the current 435 representatives, and I am confident that if given the proper amount of legislative review, they will not accept the flawed Pelosi plan that is currently stuck in committee. Yet there is general agreement among Republicans and Democrats that we need health-care reform to bring costs down. This agreement can be the basis of a genuine, bipartisan reform, once the current over-reach by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi fails. Leaders of both parties can then come together behind health-care reform that stresses these seven principles:
¨ Consumer choice guided by transparency. We need a system where individuals choose an integrated plan that adopts the best disease-management practices, as opposed to fragmented care. Pricing and outcomes data for all tests, treatments and procedures should be posted on the Internet. Portable electronic health-care records can reduce paperwork, duplication and errors, while also empowering consumers to seek the provider that best meets their needs.
¨ Aligned consumer interests. Consumers should be financially invested in better health decisions through health-savings accounts, lower premiums and reduced cost sharing. If they seek care in cost-effective settings, comply with medical regimens, preventative care, and lifestyles that reduce the likelihood of chronic disease, they should share in the savings.
¨ Medical lawsuit reform. The practice of defensive medicine costs an estimated $100 billion-plus each year, according to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, which used a study by economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. No health reform is serious about reducing costs unless it reduces the costs of frivolous lawsuits.
¨ Insurance reform. Congress should establish simple guidelines to make policies more portable, with more coverage for pre-existing conditions. Reinsurance, high-risk pools, and other mechanisms can reduce the dangers of adverse risk selection and the incentive to avoid covering the sick. Individuals should also be able to keep insurance as they change jobs or states.
¨ Pooling for small businesses, the self-employed, and others. All consumers should have equal opportunity to buy the lowest-cost, highest-quality insurance available. Individuals should benefit from the economies of scale currently available to those working for large employers. They should be free to purchase their health coverage without tax penalty through their employer, church, union, etc.
¨ Pay for performance, not activity. Roughly 75% of health-care spending is for the care of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes—and there is little coordination of this care. We can save money and improve outcomes by using integrated networks of care with rigorous, transparent outcome measures emphasizing prevention and disease management.
¨ Refundable tax credits. Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.
These steps would bring down health-care costs. They would not bankrupt our nation or increase taxes in the midst of a recession. They are achievable reforms with bipartisan consensus and public support. All they require is a willingness by the president to slow down and have an honest discussion with Americans about the real downstream consequences of his ideas. Let’s start there.
Mr. Jindal is governor of Louisiana.
Contact the Blue Dogs
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Contact%20Page.html
Blue Dog Leadership
Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration: Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL)
Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy: Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09)
Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications: Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03)
Blue Dog Whip: Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Contact the Blue Dogs:
Kristen Hawn
Communications Director
BlueDog@mail.house.gov
A Talk With Obama: You Can't Make This Stuff Up
Ross Mackenzie
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Ever wish you could rap with the president? Here's your chance - an imaginary conversation in an occasional series. Quotation marks indicate actual words Barack Obama has used.
Mr. President, thanks for the opportunity.
Happy to do it. What's on your mind?
Could we start with health care? You've said you want a plan providing improved care for reduced cost, and extending health insurance coverage to perhaps 50 million more Americans. You also want a taxpayer-financed public option to private insurance. I set an August deadline that obviously will be missed. But it will happen, as Madame Pelosi has said it will. We simply must have a public competitor to keep the private sector honest. We also need a remedy for the current system allowing doctors to limit care and rip off patients.
Do you truly believe most doctors are the enemy?
Look. "You come in and you've got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats. The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out.'" Stuff like that. It's sick. Doctors take out too many tonsils. They push too many pills.
By limiting tonsillectomies and the number of pills doctors prescribe, wouldn't you be building in to your new structure precisely the rationing you deny it would contain?
As my Budget Director, Peter Orszag, has recommended, we would have a panel of doctors and bureaucrats determining who would receive what level of care. These are difficult decisions, so it would be a distinguished panel.
Rationing by whomever, by whatever entity, no matter how distinguished, is still rationing. And how do you improve care by limiting the options available to doctors and telling them what they can charge? And with a trillion-dollar deficit already, which worries at least the Chinese, how are you proposing to finance your plan?
Through cost-savings. Look. "If there's a blue pill and a red pill and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?...Part of what we want to do is make sure that those decisions are being made by doctors and medical experts based on evidence, based on what works - because that's not how it's working now."
You want to substitute the decision-making of doctors on site with decision-making by "medical experts" rationing care from El Paso and Dubuque? And sock the taxpayers bigtime? It's hard to make this stuff up.
What's your next topic?
The minimum wage has just gone up 11 percent - to $7.25 an hour. An endless parade of studies shows that when the cost of labor rises, companies become more cautious in hiring and unemployment increases. Unemployment currently stands at 9.5 percent - a 26-year high. Given its upward pressure on unemployment, is this the proper time to raise the minimum wage?
Well, of course, that is something Congress mandated. I had little to do with it.
Yet you voted for the increase as a senator. Are you now saying you regret that vote?
No, no. We need more people employed, but the people who are employed need more money. Every employee believes that. Just ask him.
Meaning no disrespect, sir, is it then wrong to conclude you think it's better for some to be unemployed at $7.25 an hour than to be employed at $5 or $6.50?
Let's move on.
Two foreign items. First, Honduras. Regarding the coup there, you and your administration are siding with Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Fidelista (Hugo Chavez), and every other whack-left dictator in Latin America.
My friend, my administration believes in the institution of democracy. The coup leaders installing a former president violated the principles of that revered institution. Their actions were intolerable.
Deposed president Manuel Zelaya, a Chavez acolyte, was moving to destroy democracy in Honduras and install himself as president for life there - as Chavez has done in Venezuela. There's solid logic arguing the coup was an act to preserve democracy, not destroy it.
Your other foreign question?
Afghanistan. Given the inability of any foreign power to dominate in Afghanistan - witness most recently the failed enterprises by the British and the Soviets - what are the realistic prospects for U.S. victory in the war there now?
First of all, we are not at war. Let me recall for you that four months ago, as Commander-in-Chief, I instructed the Pentagon via memorandum no longer to use such phrases as the long war or the global war on terror. I redefined what we are doing in Afghanistan as an "overseas contingency operation."
Second, as I told one of the networks, "I'm always worried about using the word victory, because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."
So if we're not seeking victory in the Afghan contingency operation, what are we doing there?
I still have my team working on that. I expect to have some answers soon. Let's save that one for next time.
Thanks for playing. And have a nice day.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Spain: Muslim stabs his daughter 20 times in attempted honor killing
Jihad Watch
A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In accord with this, in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."
Why does it matter that the practice of honor killing has Islamic sanction? Because if the roots of honor killing are never discussed and always ignored, the practice will never stop. Until the Islamic roots of the practice are discussed openly and human rights groups begin calling for reform, honor killings will continue in the Islamic world -- and in Muslim communities in the West.
"Spain: Moroccan tries an Honor Killing, stabs 20 times his daughter," from Tea and Politics, July 29:
Público.es - Detenido tras asestar 20 navajazos a una de sus hijas
The Basque Autonomous Police (Ertzaintza) detained on Sunday night in Portugalete (Vizcaya) a 43-year-old man of Maghrebi origin, accused of stabbing his 20-year-old daughter 20 times and of hurting another two sons, according to the Basque Interior Department.
The attack began inside the family’s home, in Ruperto Medina’s st, when the man stabbed his older daughter. Her teenage brothers, another girl and a boy, tried to end the quarrel and got hurt. She has a cut in one hand. He fell off the stairs.
Both of them suceeded [sic] in fleeing the house asking for help, while the stabbed girl got in one neighbour’s house. But the father followed the first ones and had a hard discussion with his son in the street. According to another neighbour, who was woken up by the “shouts”, everything happened very quickly. Several minutes afterwards, the Police arrived at the scene and arrested the man. “He was shouting like a mad man and was very difficult to handle”, the witness say. (…).
(…) According to the police, the dispute was caused by the cultural clash between the two generations of this family of Maghrebi origin. While the two sisters were very well known and appreciated in their Portugalete district, no one know the father.
EC: It Is Time for Responsible Health Care Reform
Heritage Foundation
Another day, another round of polls showing the American people do not want Obamacare. National Public Radio found that likely voters disapprove of Obamacare 47%-42% with 39% strongly opposed compared to 25% strongly in favor. Wall Street Journal and NBC News found that 42% of Americans called Obama care a “bad idea” while only 36% said it was a “good idea.” Finally, the New York Times/CBS News poll found: “Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatments and tests.” In a follow up interview, Democrat Mary Bevering of Fort Madison Iowa, told the NYT: “We need to fix health care but if the government creates the system, I’m afraid the quality of care will go down and costs will go up: We will pay more taxes.” Bevering is dead on. Reforming health care is an immense task that should be taken on gradually through experimentation, not top down government planning. Heritage VP for domestic policy Stuart Butler writes in today’s Washington Times:
If the U.S. health care sector were a separate national economy, it would be the sixth largest in the world - bigger that Britain’s entire economy. Imagine five bickering congressional committees trying to redesign the British economy successfully in just a few weeks. No wonder people are getting nervous. … [and] the congressional majority wants to revamp the huge health care economy using the doctrine of central planning. So we have thousands of pages of legislation, with potentially hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and dozens of boards and “czars.” These will regulate prices, reorganize hospitals and doctors, and decide what health care each of us should and should not have.
Conservatives have a different vision for health care reform that builds off the great American traditions of individualism and federalism:
Expand coverage by reforming Medicaid: Millions of uninsured Americans are eligible for programs such as Medicaid, yet they don’t sign up. Policymakers should focus on approaches that are patient-centered instead of system-centered. The current Medicaid structure is based on a system that reimburses providers for the services that they supply to beneficiaries. A patient-centered approach would direct Medicaid funds to the patient and reflect the individual needs of that patient.
Incentivize Americans to make their own health care decisions: Rather than micromanage the health system via central planning, we need to get the system’s basic incentives right. Under the current system, with tax-subsidized, third-party insurance, everyone has the incentive to spend more of someone else’s money. No wonder costs are exploding. Getting incentives right means things like pushing employers to show their employees how much of their compensation comes as health insurance. That would encourage all of us to look harder to see if our insurance is good value for money and to opt for fatter paychecks and less costly fringe benefits.
Make it easier for Americans to shop for health insurance: But even if Americans were incentivized to make their own insurance decisions, it is still currently very difficult for them to find the right bargains for them under the current system. “Health Insurance Exchange” is the generic name some have given such administrative mechanisms; Utah recently enacted health reform that creates a “Portal” for this purpose. This is exactly the kind of state level experimentation that the federal government should be encouraging.
The progressive wing of Congress is now threatening to kill health care reform unless their desire for a public plan is included. Nothing is preventing reform more than this Trojan Horse for government-run health care. We must and can get health reform. But it will never be achieved if Americans are pressured to agree to Big Bang change on a ridiculously short timetable - and based on central planning, rather than on better incentives for American creativity and federalism.
QUICK HITS
The No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department ultimately approved a decision to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November’s election.
The Democratic-controlled House is poised to pass a “Pork-Padded Defense Bill” including dozens of new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the military does not need.
According to the New York Times, most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy.
According to Wall Street Journal/NBC News, only 34% of Americans are in favor of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus, while 43% say it was a bad idea.
Has San Francisco become Paris? Four more cars were set ablaze overnight in San Francisco, bringing the number of arson attacks since this weekend to a dozen.
Tough on Israel
Why President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating
Washington Post
Thursday, July 30, 2009
ONE OF THE MORE striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel.The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank. To a less visible extent, the two governments also have differed over policy toward Iran.
This week a parade of senior U.S. officials has been visiting Jerusalem to tackle the issues: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Middle East envoy George J. Mitchell, national security adviser James L. Jones and senior aide Dennis Ross. But the tensions persist, and public opinion is following: The Pew Global Attitudes Project reported last week that Israel was the only country among 25 surveyed where the public's image of the United States was getting worse rather than better.
In part the trouble was unavoidable: Taking office with a commitment to pursuing Middle East peace, Mr. Obama faced a new, right-wing Israeli government whose prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to accept the goal of Palestinian statehood. In part it was tactical: By making plain his disagreements with Mr. Netanyahu on statehood and Jewish settlements, Mr. Obama hoped to force an Israeli retreat while building credibility with Arab governments -- two advances that he arguably needs to set the stage for a serious peace process.
But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu's initial concessions -- he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations -- Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement "freeze." Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the "confidence-building" concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume.
ad_icon
U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world -- a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him -- and he must be tough on more than one country.
Death of a Doctrine
Obama Discovers Engagement's Limits
By Michael Gerson
WashingtonPost
The Obama administration lacks a foreign policy ideology as a matter of ideology. Speaking recently at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted, "Rigid ideologies and old formulas don't apply." The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- tempered by pragmatism, proud of its ad hockery and willing to consider everything on a case-by-case basis. But even lacking an ideology, the administration does have a doctrine. The defining principle of President Obama's foreign policy is engagement with America's adversaries. Much of the president's public diplomacy has been designed to clear a path for such talks -- expressing respect for legitimate grievances, apologizing for past wrongs and offering dialogue without preconditions.
Six months on, how fares the Obama doctrine? Concerning North Korea and Iran, the doctrine is on its deathbed.
North Korea responded to administration outreach by testing a nuclear weapon, firing missiles toward U.S. allies, resuming plutonium reprocessing and threatening the United States with a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation." During congressional testimony, Clinton admitted, "At this point [it] seems implausible, if not impossible, the North Koreans will return to the six-party talks and begin to disable their nuclear capacity again."
ad_icon
The Iranian regime's reaction to engagement was to cut the ribbon on a nuclear enrichment facility, add centrifuges, conduct a fraudulent election, and kill and imprison a variety of political opponents. Regarding administration overtures, Clinton recently told the BBC, "We haven't had any response. We've certainly reached out and made it clear that's what we'd be willing to do . . . but I don't think they have any capacity to make that kind of decision right now."
The problem is not engagement itself -- which was, after all, attempted in various forms by the previous administration. The difficulty is that the Obama foreign policy team has often argued that the reason for tension and conflict with nations such as North Korea and Iran is a lack of adequate American engagement -- which is absurd, and which has raised absurdly high expectations.
During the 2008 campaign, for example, Obama adviser P.J. Crowley (now State Department spokesman) argued, "Hard-liners on both sides have dominated that relationship and made it very difficult for the United States and Iran to come together and have a serious conversation." But can the lack of a serious conversation with Iran -- or with North Korea -- now credibly be blamed on the previous administration? Obama's diplomatic hand has been extended for a while now. Fists remain clenched. This is not because some magical diplomatic words remain unspoken. It is because of the nature of oppressive regimes themselves.
Such regimes are often internally preoccupied. Precisely because they lack genuine legitimacy, they spend large amounts of time and effort maintaining their fragile authority, consolidating power and managing undemocratic transitions. North Korea confronts a succession crisis. Iran deals with growing dissent and clerical division. Both tend to make calculations based on internal power struggles, not some rational calculation of their external image and interests. They are so inwardly focused that they do not have, as Clinton said, "any capacity" to respond to engagement. It is questionable in these cases whether we currently have any serious negotiating partners at all.
And the inherent instability of oppressive regimes also leads them to tighten control by invoking threats from abroad -- particularly from the United States. Because anti-Americanism is a central commitment of North Korean and Iranian ideologies, any softening of this resentment requires a kind of voluntary regime change. Pyongyang and Tehran would need to find a new source of legitimacy -- a new prop for their power -- other than hatred for America. Not easy or likely.
The Obama administration's public campaign of engaging enemies is headed toward an entirely unintended consequence. Eventually it will raise expectations for action. As the extended hand is slapped again and again, the goals of North Korea and Iran will be fully revealed and the cost to American credibility will rise. Already the administration has given Iran a September deadline to respond to the offer of talks and has threatened "crippling action" if Iran achieves nuclear capabilities. Congress is preparing sanctions on Iranian refined petroleum, which would escalate tensions significantly.
This is the paradox of the Obama doctrine. By attempting to engage North Korea and Iran so visibly, Obama is dramatically exposing the limits of engagement -- and building the case for confrontation.
mgerson@globalengage.org
Building Freeze in Jerusalem - PM Breaks His Promise?
Maayana Miskin
A7 News
Despite his stated support for permanent Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently froze a major construction project in the capital city as a diplomatic gesture to the United States. So reported Channel 10 news correspondent Raviv Drucker, citing testimony from Jerusalem city officials.
Netanyahu has denied the report. According to Drucker, Netanyahu ordered a halt to a construction project in Pisgat Zeev, a major Jewish neighborhood that is home to more than 40,000 Israelis. The project was to provide another 900 housing units in the area.
Netanyahu's order was given shortly after American officials asked Israel to freeze building in Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and all parts of Jerusalem demanded by the Palestinian Authority. The PA has laid claim to all Jerusalem neighborhoods that were occupied by Jordan between the years of 1948 and 1967, including Pisgat Zeev.
Several senior officials in the Olmert administration indicated that they would be willing to give the PA some Jerusalem neighborhoods, but all insisted on maintaining Israeli sovereignty over majority-Jewish areas such as the French Hill – Pisgat Zeev – Neve Yaakov bloc of neighborhoods in the northern part of the city.
Recently, Netanyahu expressed support for Israeli sovereignty not only in majority-Jewish parts of the capital, but in all of Jerusalem, when he rejected an American demand to cease construction of a Jewish-owned structure in the majority-Muslim neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Netanyahu reportedly said at the time, “What is [Oba thinking? After I built 20,000 housing units in Har Homa despite all the pressure, I'll freeze construction of 20 housing units?”
"Despite Netanyahu's statement to his cabinet, according to which he refuses to negotiate over Jerusalem, he has decided to freeze building in Pisgat Zeev – a neighborhood in east Jerusalem, but one that has always been considered a part of the city,” Drucker said.
Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, are willing to go along with America's demand for a building freeze for a limited period of time only, Drucker added. The two have agreed to give in to a construction freeze in Jewish areas for six months while negotiations take place.
Russia: The Chechen Cease-fire
Stratfor
Summary
Under a new peace treaty that will take effect in Chechnya on Aug. 1, fighters loyal to exiled militant leader Akhmed Zakayev will lay down their arms and recognize the authority of Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, a Kremlin favorite. While Russia has fought long and hard to end the insurgency in Chechnya, the cease-fire could create a whole new set of problems for the Kremlin, including the possibility of an independent Kadyrov.Analysis
A new peace treaty will take effect in Chechnya on Aug. 1 requiring fighters faithful to exiled militant leader Akhmed Zakayev to lay down their arms against Chechen authorities and recognize Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov’s legitimacy. The move comes after more than a week of negotiations between Zakayev and Kadyrov’s representative parliamentarian, Dukuvakha Abdurakhmanov, in Oslo. Zakayev and Kadyrov’s factions have held such negotiations for years, but this round of talks came as the very last of Kadyrov’s enemies are being eliminated at home and abroad, leaving very little room for the president’s opponents to hide.
Chechnya’s Militant Groups
Zakayev and Kadyrov were a part of a broader militant movement at the start of the Chechen wars, which lasted from 1994-1996 and from 1999-2009. At the beginning of the first war, the Soviet Union had just fallen, and Chechnya collapsed into a civil war among its various clans. But from that struggle emerged the Chechens’ fight for independence from Russia, which united many of the Chechen groups against a common Russian foe. There were still competing forces among the Chechen militant groups, especially between those that considered themselves Chechen nationalists and those with an Islamist/jihadist ideology tied to a trans-Caucasian agenda. The confrontation with Russia however, necessitated the pragmatic formation of alliances between clans with their various nationalist and Islamist agendas and the subordination of those differences for the common cause of independence.
The strained harmony among the groups during the first war was shattered during the second war, when Moscow split the factions, leading them to fight each other again. This Kremlin tactic of taking advantage of the differences between the clans was masterminded by then-Russian President Vladimir Putin’s right-hand man, Vladislav Surkov — who is half Chechen.
The fracturing became more obvious as the second war continued. Various Islamists — like
Shamil Basayev, Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev and Dzhokhar Dudayev — adopted more extremist methods of guerrilla warfare. The nationalists split into two factions — one that, like Aslan Maskhadov, still fought for the nationalist cause, and one that surrendered the cause to work for the Russian side — such as Kadyrov, his father, and other clans like the Yamadayev brothers.
The tactic seemed to be working by 2004, when many of the Islamist leaders began to be picked off after staging a series of high-profile attacks such as the Beslan school massacre and the Moscow theater siege. The last of the true nationalists, like Maskhadov, also met their end. But those nationalist groups that survived tied their loyalty to Moscow and were rewarded. The Yamadayevs took over security in Chechnya, and the Kadyrovs took the Chechen political helm. Of course, since then, Kadyrov has consolidated all nationalist groups under him.
This left a hodgepodge of Islamists and a few nationalist groups without a leader since Basayev, Maskhadov, Yandarbiyev and Dudayev were all killed. However, there has been one remaining uniting force for these groups: Zakayev, Maskhadov’s former spokesman who lives in exile in the United Kingdom.
Shadow Islamists
Zakayev considers himself a nationalist and not an Islamist, though he has had to learn to work with the Islamist side since his former leader, Maskhadov, was killed. Now he calls himself a “spokesman” for all factions aligned against Kadyrov and Moscow. It is rumored that Maskhadov sent Zakayev to the United Kingdom in 2002, during the wave of killings of Islamist and nationalist militant leaders. London’s harboring of the Chechen has triggered years of spats with Moscow, which has requested Zakayev’s extradition. Moscow believes that Zakayev was sent to the United Kingdom to manipulate foreign connections to raise money, arms and support for the remaining Islamists in Chechnya.
Zakayev, one of the few non-Kadyrov loyalist leaders left, became the voice of Chechen militants against Kadyrov and the Kremlin while receiving political protection from British politicians and celebrities. Being outside the republic, Zakayev had more contact with Islamist Chechens than with nationalists, since the Islamists are the ones who fled (most nationalists eventually joined Kadyrov).
But the tide has been turning back in Chechnya. Kadyrov has eliminated any opposition within the pro-nationalist forces and organized a 40,000-strong Chechen military. He also has the Kremlin’s full support. Kadyrov feels so secure in his power that he has even on occasion deployed his forces outside Chechnya to the restive neighboring region of Ingushetia and to the Georgian separatist region of South Ossetia.
Chechnya is far from quiet; attacks occur daily in the republic, but these attacks are nothing that can rival the ruling power in the country. The cease-fire can change the overall threat in the republic, since Zakayev’s pacification will cut the flow of money and arms from abroad. Zakayev has been closely watching Kadyrov’s consolidation of power — though he is against it — and has seen Kadyrov start to eliminate the remainder of his enemies hiding in foreign lands. Zakayev knows that his days could be numbered. It is also becoming increasingly dangerous for foreign groups to continue funding the Islamists or lingering anti-Kadyrov nationalists in Chechnya — something Moscow has accused the United States, United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia of doing in the past. Russia is not afraid to strike at locations important to those foreign groups continuing to fund Chechen Islamists.
Kadyrov has also reportedly extended an invitation to Zakayev to return to Chechnya, meaning the Chechen president plans on making him a symbol of transformation from Islamism toward pro-nationalism — and make it easier to clamp down on Zakayev. This will be one of the last major accomplishments for the pro-Kremlin Kadyrov in his quest to eliminate or pacify Islamist militant leaders and their foreign connections.
The Future of the Russian Caucasus
The next step for the Caucasus will involve pan-regional power consolidation and then balance — heavy tasks for the Kremlin.
Kadyrov has proven that he has Chechnya nearly under control. But there are still quite a few other neighboring regions, like Ingushetia and Dagestan, which are still dealing with Islamists and foreign influence. Kadyrov is willing to expand his totalitarian control by deploying forces to these regions and has even proposed merging one of more of these regions with Chechnya for him to oversee. With Russian forces pulling further back due to the end of the Chechen wars, it will be up to Chechnya’s Kremlin-backed forces to ensure the old ways and conflicts do not seep back into the region.
But this is where things get tricky.
Many within Moscow fear that once Kadyrov is left to his own devices and has no Chechen enemies to fight, he will cease depending on and listening to the Kremlin. Moscow also fears that Kadyrov has designs to create eventually an even more consolidated and dangerous anti-Russian Caucasus movement than has been seen before — one that depends not on Islamist fundamentalism, but on the age-old independent streak in the Caucasus, for consolidation.
Previously, Russia fought a fractured, unorganized and mostly untrained group of guerrilla fighters. Then, the Russians helped to organize, train and arm the Chechen forces and gave incredible monetary support to Kadyrov. As the Chechen president expands his influence across the Caucasus, the possibility of backlash from other regions is expected — but the potential for Kadyrov to create a pan-Caucasus movement in Russia is what really worries the Kremlin.
Don’t just stand there, do something
Ted Belman
The talk of the town, Jerusalem that is, is that Mitchell, Gates, Ross and a whole US team are in discussions for the sought-after freeze among other things.
One Israeli diplomat commented on Israel’s position,
“The Americans now understand that if they get anything from us on the settlement issue, it will only be in the broader context of some kind of Arab return,”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to confirm this in a policy speech two days after Obama’s White House meeting with the Jewish representatives.
“Progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States - or Israel - alone,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations. “Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region.” The Arabs are being asked to allow overflights by Israeli planes and to open trade missions and the like. I personally don’t like where this is going.
Sharon chose to withdraw from Gaza unilaterally but did negotiate with the Bush administrations for two commitments namely that settlement blocks would remain part of Israel and that Arab refugees would not be returned to Israel. Obama shredded these understandings.
Since the bain of Israel’s existence is the constant pressure by the US on Israel to make concessions, at a minimum, Israel should require the US to commit in writing in the form of a treaty to what settlements will remain in Israel. Only then, and providing that the US allows Israel’s retention of all the settlement blocks including Maaleh Adumin and Ariel, should Israel agree to a freeze in the rest. Thus there would be no reason to freeze settlements in the parts being retained. That is the only acceptable quid pro quo for the freeze.
Many would argue, particularly the Arabs, that the US has no right to commit on their behalf. True enough but she does have the right to commit on her own behalf. And while we are at it, she should get the EU, if not the whole Quartet, to agree to the deal. Who cares what the Arabs think. The Arabs are nothing without the US support.
The gestures being asked of the Arabs are of little value. Better to get them to amend the Saudi Plan in a meaningful way for the gestures to have any meaning. It could be amended to exclude the right of return and to commit to normalization of relations during the peace process. As it is, they will only work toward normalization, whatever that is, after Israel withdraws. Perhaps a Roadmap is required for the normalization process to proceed along with the peace process. This isn’t about to happen.
While I am on it, I would remind readers that Israel never agreed to the Saudi Plan. When Powell added it to the Roadmap in a surprise move, Sharon objected to its inclusion and Powell rejected the rejection arguing the Roadmap was only a process.
Nevertheless the Res 242 was over-ridden as the basis of a settlement with this wording in the preamble,
A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations on the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah - endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit - calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement. This initiative is a vital element of international efforts to promote a comprehensive peace on all tracks, including the Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli tracks.
Prior to that time Israel had not agreed to the inclusion of the Saudi Plan nor to the creation of a Palestinian state, and certainly not to the idea that it must be viable or contiguous.
As for the settlements, it provided
* GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
* Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
Three months ago I asked What settlement freeze commitment? and pointed out that the freeze to be consistent with the Mitchell report required have required as a pre-condition
1) (PA) should immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.
2) that negotiations “must, in our view, manifest a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and partnership,”
I concluded that “Since the Arabs did not end the violence and incitement, there is no imperative for Israel to freeze settlement activity.”
In 2003 I wrote Reject the Road Map:Its worse than a Trojan horse, its a time bomb.
The Road Map will prove Israel’s undoing. There is nothing good in it for Israel. No basis for hope.
I could write another couple of pages to illustrate how bad it is for Israel. Suffice it so say that it castrates Israel. They are to be forced to accept a multilateral process at the expense of its own sovereignty. The Quartet will decide if the Palestinians are doing enough to end terror, on the right of return, on the rights of a Palestinian State, on where the borders are and what is to become of Jerusalem. I say this even when the Road Map provides that all issues are to be negotiated.
It is an unmitigated disaster for Israel. It is worse than a Trojan horse, it is a time bomb. Israel should stand its ground now and fight diplomatically before they are burdened with the implications of having accepted it. At the moment Israel has accepted the Bush vision of two states with all the preconditions. They should never accept any other guiding principle as presently in the Road Map, such as the Saudi Peace Plan, or that Israel must cooperate to make the state “viable”, or that the Quartet will decide anything. It is bad enough that they have accepted the vision of a two state solution. I would have preferred that only when borders are agreed upon, to Israel’s liking, would they agree to a state.
All this is ignored.
For that matter, neither is the US going to commit to such a deal as I have suggested.
Netanyahu’s position, backed by a national consensus is that the Arabs must agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, to be unmilitarized, and to accept Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. He made no mention of settlements or borders specifically but I believe that the settlements blocks in the land previously annexed by Israel would remain in Israel along with the rest of Jerusalem as part of his consensus.
To believe that the Arabs will accept this deal is as delusional as the left’s belief in the inevitability of peace.
So why is everyone going through the motions. Better to appear to be doing something rather than nothing.
Don’t just stand there, do something.
Ted Belman
Jerusalem
Mousavi prevented from attending memorial for victims
Jul. 30, 2009
jpost.com staff and ap , THE JERUSALEM POST
Iranian police prevented hundreds of people who gathered at a Teheran cemetery Thursday from holding an event to commemorate those killed in the violent clashes with the regime last month.
Witnesses said officers dispersed the crowds, and opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi was prevented from approaching the graveside of Neda Agha Soltan, who has become a symbol of the protests against the country's election results. Hundreds of police surrounded Mousavi and forced him to leave Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, they said.
Some of those gathered reportedly chanted Mousavi's name and "Death to the dictator."
The event was held in defiance of a government ban, and it was believed that the opposition may also try to stage rallies along major roundabouts and squares in the capital at the same time as the memorial.
Mousavi's Web site said the gathering would be held at the graveside of Soltan, shot to death during protests on June 20. Thursday is the end of the 40-day mourning period for the young woman, whose dying moments were caught on video that became one of the iconic images of the upheaval.
Authorities say some 20 protesters have been killed in the crackdown, although rights groups say the number is probably far higher. The opposition says Iranian authorities have pressured families of slain protesters not to mourn publicly out of fear the gatherings could spark the kind of demonstrations that followed the disputed vote.
Massive protests and deadly clashes erupted in the days and weeks after electoral authorities declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of last month's vote by a landslide. But Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard and its allied Basij militia have adopted a zero-tolerance policy that has largely thwarted protests over the past month. Nevertheless, demonstrators have still turned out on the streets.
Mousavi and fellow pro-reform leader Mahdi Karroubi decided to hold the ceremony in Behesht-e Zahra - the large cemetery on Teheran's southern outskirts where some slain protesters have been buried - after authorities rejected their request to hold it at Teheran's main Mosalla mosque.
The two leaders sent a request Sunday to the Interior Ministry asking permission for the ceremony. They said the gathering would "be held without any speeches and will be limited to the reciting of the Quran and moments of silence" to mark the 40-day period since 10 people died, including Soltan, during the June 20 protests.
Interior Ministry official Mahmoud Abbaszadeh Meshkini was quoted by the state IRNA news agency as saying Wednesday the ministry had not issued "any permission for any gathering."
"So far, it's unprecedented that someone asks permission for a memorial service from the Interior Ministry," Meshkini said, adding sarcastically: "Unless the applicant has other particular political intentions."
The deaths of protesters during the 1979 Islamic Revolution fueled a 40-day cycle of mourning marches, and shootings of mourners, that contributed to the overthrow of the US-backed dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The election unrest has given rise to rare criticism of Iran's leadership from the country's top clerics and even conservative supporters who have complained about prison abuses, including reports of detainee deaths and the brutal beatings of protesters.
The government announced that first trials of detained opposition supporters will begin Saturday, with the prosecution of around 20 protesters. They also include some accused of sending images of the unrest to the media while top pro-reform politicians will be tried later for allegedly ordering riots.
The opposition has said detainees were tortured to extract false confessions for the courts.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277934278&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
'US misstepped regarding settlements'
Jul. 30, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
The current tensions between Israel and the United States, most recently demonstrated by a poll which showed America's public image on the decline in the Jewish state, might have been avoided had US President Barack Obama not taken such a harsh stance against settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, the Washington Post's Thursday editorial stated. While acknowledging that confrontation over steps needed to achieve peace was inevitable between the US administration and the various regional players in the Middle East, the editorial maintained that Obama should have accepted initial Israeli concessions, and should have avoided the demand for a total settlement freeze.
"Rather than pocketing [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu's initial concessions - he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous US administrations - Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement 'freeze,'" the editorial stated. "Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the 'confidence-building' concessions to Israel that the administration seeks."
In addition, the paper maintained that Netanyahu's government earned critical public support due to what Israelis perceived as unfair treatment from Washington.
"Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu," the editorial said. "And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume."
The piece went on to predict that an eventual compromise between the US and Israel over settlements, which would see some building projects completed with others temporarily halted, would inevitably draw more criticism from Arab states than it would have had the issue not been escalated in the first place.
"If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him," the paper stated, adding that he must also "be tough on more than one country."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277930352&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Iran: Ahmadinejad's Hard-line Opposition
July 29, 2009 | 1946 GMT
Stratfor
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei named Hojatoleslam Mohammad Sadegh Larijani to become Iran’s new judiciary chief effective Aug. 16, Mehr news agency reported July 28, citing a senior judiciary official. Larijani is the younger brother of Iran’s powerful parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani. The younger Larijani has served as one of the 12 members of the powerful Guardians Council, and replaces Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, who held the position for a decade. A key senior ayatollah within the Iranian leadership, Shahroudi could well succeed Khamenei as supreme leader in the event of the latter’s death.
The judiciary chief shuffle stands out as typically such a senior position within the system would go to an ayatollah, not lesser cleric like a hojatoleslam. It also stands out as the Larijani brothers now control the legislative and judicial branches of the tripart Iranian government, posing a major challenge for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And the move represents part of Khamenei’s efforts to rein in the Iranian president, an intriguing change given that Khamenei came out in full support of the president during the election fiasco just weeks ago.
Ahmadinejad now faces opposition not just from former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s pragmatic conservative and reformist camp, but from within his own hard-line faction. The hard-line opposition emerged after Ahmadinejad made Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie an adviser and head of the presidential office. Mashaie, the Iranian president’s friend and the father-in-law of his son, had been serving as first vice president, but Khamenei wrote Ahmadinejad urging the president to remove the vice president. Ahmadinejad eventually did remove Mashaie, but only after seven days had passed since Khamenei’s letter.
Ahmadinejad has stirred up more trouble by firing his intelligence chief, Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, another key hard-liner. The termination occurred after the president and the then-intelligence chief had a shouting match during a July 22 Cabinet meeting regarding the vice presidency controversy; Iran’s culture minister resigned in the wake of this conflict. Both a powerful hard-line cleric and Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami warned Ahmadinejad against disobeying the supreme leader after the spat with the intelligence chief. And 210 out of 290 members of parliament issued a statement supporting Mohseni-Ejei.
With Iran’s political balance, and Ahmadinejad’s own faction, facing increasing disarray, the possibility of sudden and stark changes in Iranian policy looms large. And between the United States trying to alter its deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan on one hand and Russia searching for a way to unbalance U.S. posture on the other, Iran faces an extremely rough ride.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Iraq: The Raid on the MeK
Stratfor
July 29, 2009 | 1630 GMT
Summary
Fighting continued July 29 in Iraq’s eastern Diyala province at Camp Ashraf, the home of 3,360 members of the Iranian exile group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK). Reportedly, six people have been killed and hundreds of others have been injured, although these claims have not been confirmed.Analysis
Clashes continued July 29 at Camp Ashraf in Iraq’s eastern province of Diyala after hundreds of Iraqi police and soldiers raided the army base that houses some 3,360 members of an exiled Iranian opposition group. The opposition group, a Marxist-based Islamist group called the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK), claims that six people have been killed and hundreds injured, though these claims have not been verified.
The reasons for the raid remain unclear, but it is likely that Iran may have directly prompted the raid or that the United States gently prodded the Iraqis to conduct the raid to affect domestic Iranian developments.
Members of the MeK have been holed up in Camp Ashraf since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The MeK has long been a thorn in Iran’s side; the group began an armed campaign against the clerical regime in 1965 and has since awaited an opportunity to bring down the mullahs. The MeK found a natural ally next door in Iraq, where then-leader Saddam Hussein welcomed the chance to pressure its Persian neighbor during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. When Hussein became an American target in 2003, the MeK had a plan to launch a major offensive against Iran — an operation called “The Black Phase.” At the time, however, the United States decided it needed Iran’s support in conducting the invasion of Iraq, and, in back-channel negotiations, agreed to disarm the MeK and keep them contained at Camp Ashraf under the watch of U.S. soldiers and private security contractors. As Iran’s tumultuous negotiations with the United States continued on and off over the past six years, the MeK card developed into a useful bargaining chip for Washington. As far as Iran was concerned, the United States had a hardcore anti-Iranian militant asset that could be used in covert action schemes against Iran should Washington think it necessary to rattle the clerical regime.
In a confidence-building measure, however, the United States and Iran reached a behind-the-scenes deal around September 2008 in which Washington agreed it would hand over the camp to Iraqi authorities within six months. From there, it would be mostly up to Baghdad to decide the MeK’s fate. Extraditing the MeK members to Iran would be tantamount to sentencing them to death, but staying in Iraq is not much of an option either. Iraq’s Shiite and Kurdish populations have deeply resented the MeK for its participation in crackdowns during the Hussein era. Moreover, Iraq’s now Shite-dominated Interior Ministry — which is flooded with allies of Iran — has an obligation to Tehran to ensure the MeK is stamped out for good.
When the United States finally handed over control of Camp Ashraf to Iraqi authorities three months ago, it was bracing for such a conflagration. The process to extradite the MeK members to Europe has been slow, and tensions have been building in Diyala over the MeK’s continued presence. However, this latest raid is unlikely to have been a completely spontaneous event.
Iraqi security authorities claim that according to the Status of Forces Agreement signed between Washington and Baghdad, it was fully within their rights to storm the camp. An unlikely coincidence, the raid occurred the same day U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates paid a visit to Iraq to discuss the next steps in the U.S. withdrawal and to highlight the endurance of the United States’ defense relationship with the Iraqis. Soon thereafter, Iranian Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani — a powerful figure within the Iranian ruling elite — said July 29 that Iran welcomed the move by Iraqi authorities to clear Iraqi territory of “terrorists,” even if the move came late.
We see two possible paths that could have led to this event, and they are not mutually exclusive.
First, the Iranians could very well have had a direct hand in prompting the raid. Larijani’s statement appears to have been a calibrated move to remind Washington of the leverage Tehran holds in Baghdad to neutralize threats across its border. U.S. and Israeli saber-rattling against Iran has increased since the June Iranian election crisis, and Tehran is under increasing pressure to demonstrate to the United States that it has the levers in place to seriously complicate the U.S. position in Iraq if sufficiently provoked. At the same time, the United States has a pressing need to take a step back from Iraq and focus on competing threats farther east in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Gates even announced July 29 that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could be accelerated this year to leave 11 instead of 12 brigades in place ahead of the January 2010 parliamentary elections. Iran can clearly see the U.S. urgency to reduce its commitment to Iraq, but in looking out for its own security, the Iranians appear to be signaling through the MeK clashes that Washington’s timetable for the withdrawal is still contingent on Iranian cooperation.
But despite Iran’s very real influence in Iraq, it is a stretch to think that the Americans could not have stopped the raid if desired. Statements from the State Department were pointedly calm, with spokesman Ian Kelly saying little more than that Washington was “watching” and “monitoring” events. This brings us to the second possibility: that the United States actually nudged the Iraqis to launch the raid in an effort to influence internal Iranian developments.
Larijani is part of the Iranian faction led by Expediency Council chief Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the most powerful clerics in Iran. Rafsanjani has emerged as the primary counterweight to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the two are locked in a struggle over the leadership of the country. Ahmadinejad appears to be moving toward aligning with Russia, and a Russian-Iranian alliance would be one that poses a much more serious threat to U.S. interests than anything that Iran could muster by itself. Rafsanjani is attempting to convince fence-sitters in Iran that the United States cannot tolerate such an alignment as it would force the Americans to take steps to neutralize Iran (i.e. war), and that a different path needs to be followed. In this light, the Americans’ allowing the drubbing of the MeK could simply be the granting of a card to Rafsanjani’s faction to be used in Iran’s internal debates: proof that the United States is willing to offer carrots (in this case, partial liquidation of the MeK) as well as sticks.
Obama Administration, meet Middle East Reality; Middle East Reality, meet Obama administration
RubinReports
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-administration-meet-middle-east.html
Barry Rubin
Hints have been dropped in the media and by U.S. officials visiting Israel that President Barack Obama's Middle East policy has altered somewhat. Now the spin is that Israel isn't just being asked to make a unilateral concession to stop construction on settlements (about 4000 to 5000 apartment units a year) but that such a concession would coincide with some Arab confidence-building measures. In principle, this is a good thing. But let's begin by recognizing that it is a shift. Administrations like to deny they ever make a mistake or that they ever alter course. Journalists, academics, and analysts have the job of pointing out: they were wrong, now they see that--in part at least--and are making a change.
At the same time, the slightly revised strategy is just as foolish from a U.S. policy standpoint. Let's review:
Scene One: Without prior consultation with Israel, the U.S. government demands in an insulting and public manner that it make a big concession. It throws out old commitments, insists that Israel will get nothing in exchange, and makes no demand on the other side that it needs to do anything.
Underlying U.S Strategy: Israel makes a big concession and then the United States goes to the Arabs, asks them to do something. Meanwhile, these Arab countries will supposedly be so pleased by American success on the construction freeze that they will give the United States more help in constraining Iran and in other policy goals.
This concept has nothing to do with the Middle East as it actually exists.
At least, thank goodness, the United States has not actually done anything to pressure Israel: no aid cutbacks, no denunciations at the UN, and no sanctions on weapons' deliveries. This point is widely misunderstood. So far the U.S. "offensive" has all been words.
Moreover, the problem is not that Obama hates Israel or wants to destroy it. His administration has simply put forth a very silly, unworkable strategy based on a profound misunderstanding of Israel, Arab regimes, the Palestinian movement, Iran, and the proper American role in the region.
Scene Two, the new development: Recognizing at least in part that it has dug a big hole for itself and jumped into it, the administration now modifies the policy. Presumably this is supposed to make Israel more attracted to the idea of making a big concession. More emphasis is put on getting Arab states to make some gesture toward Israel at the same time. Instead of unilateral concession it would be mutual, simultaneous concession.
Now what the administration should be doing instead is to push for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to stop incitement to murder Israelis in its media, schools and mosques and stop telling its people that the goal is to wipe Israel off the map. That would really impress Israelis. And since the United States has just given the PA another $200 million it might have some real leverage there.
But no, instead the administration is going to Saudi Arabia, other Gulf Arab countries, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and perhaps others saying: Do something.
And of course they won't do anything. So the policy still fails but now it fails on two fronts instead of one.
Special mention here should be devoted to the meaning of the word "pressure." Some administration officials in background interviews and also reporters are now saying that the administration is putting "pressure" on Arab states to do something. This is not true. It is all letter-writing and "please" and "wouldn't it be nice if you...."
That's not pressure, that's begging.
Of course, something similar could be said about what the administration is doing to Israel, but at least there has been public criticism and very vague hints of punishment. Let's call this "verbal pressure" at most. One might say, however: That's not pressure, that's nagging.
Now, a minor course adjustment is being made. But the basic strategy is still wrong. Either more adjustments must be made or bigger failures will follow.
What is most important, however, is that the administration's basic concept of how the Middle East works--what its issues are; what it means if Iran gets nuclear weapons; how Syria's regime will inevitably oppose U.S. interests and stay allied with Tehran; how a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is decades off; the need to bring down the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip; the necessity of backing moderate forces in Lebanon in a serious manner; and similar such things--come into line with reality.
In other words, we are now in Act 1, Scene 2, but what we really need is for the U.S. government to move into Act 2.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Click here: To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles or to order books.
Speech by PM Benjamin Netanyahu at Knesset Special Session
"Regarding the area of security, prior to the elections I said and continue to say now, and not only in this forum, that our main problem is the threat which Iran presents for us, for the region and for peace. During the government's tenure, something happened here which in my opinion has long-term significance, and that is the exposure of the Iranian regime's true colors. This is a brutal regime which oppresses the Iranian people. We have no struggle or conflict with the Iranian people, with whom we had deep ties of friendship. I believe that this nation wants to be liberated from the yoke of tyranny, and if it were to be liberated, in turn this would also liberate many forces for development, progress and peace in our region."I want to sum up, in a succinct and decisive manner, the government's lines of activity, policy and deeds in the areas of security, the economy and policy.
Regarding the area of security, prior to the elections I said and continue to say now, and not only in this forum, that our main problem is the threat which Iran presents for us, for the region and for peace. During the government's tenure, something happened here which in my opinion has long-term significance, and that is the exposure of the Iranian regime's true colors. This is a brutal regime which oppresses the Iranian people. We have no struggle or conflict with the Iranian people, with whom we had deep ties of friendship. I believe that this nation wants to be liberated from the yoke of tyranny, and if it were to be liberated, in turn this would also liberate many forces for development, progress and peace in our region.
Have no doubt: I am aware of who supported this regime. Hardly anyone among the international community supported this regime, but there were exceptions. Incidentally, not in the Arab world - with the exception of one country called Syria and two movements: Hamas and Hizbullah. They sent praise, encouragement and support. One day, I will be able to tell you what else they sent there during the oppression.
This is definitely part of the same method, part of the same tyranny, this is part of the same hypocrisy, which in an instant, unmasked its true nature, and this is a matter of importance.
It is our policy to enlist an international front against Iran in order to increase the sanctions against it, and preserve the State of Israel's uppermost security interests. I sense that there is a certain toughening in the international position, including that of the Americans, against this regime. I think that we need to recognize that they have not changed their intention, their purpose or their plans. I have discussed this topic, and we are in touch with President Obama's Administration and also with the heads of the European states.
During the first few days of this government's tenure, we ratified, or more precisely, America and its President, ratified important strategic understandings which we reached in the area of strategy.
We know that we are not only facing a distant threat, the Iranians, but also face a much closer threat. The policy which we implemented against the firing of missiles, Kassams and any other type of rocket, is that we are not prepared to hold back in such instances. We are not prepared to hold back against a trickle of rockets and missiles. In the past, they didn't react in order not to allow things to deteriorate, so they continued to increase, until you reach a situation where you have no choice but to carry out acts of a much wider scope. This is not the policy of my government.
My government has instituted a different policy, and this different policy states that we are not prepared to tolerate rockets and missiles being fired into Israel's territory. Mr. Speaker, we are not adopting a trickle policy, restraint, an increased trickle, firing upon our communities, and then a response. This is not the policy of my government. We will respond to every firing without fail. Before the elections, there were several without a response, but not since the elections.
Every result has a reaction. From the moment that I became Prime Minister, there has been a reaction to every shooting, which has been and will continue to be our policy. The public can precisely judge the results of the three months or the month prior to the elections and the months which have since passed. I think that this is the correct policy. We cannot take it for granted - I have never thought that we should take the firing of missiles on Israeli cities for granted. I have now outlined the second component.
What has changed is that it is now possible to go to Sderot, Ashkelon and Beersheva, where our Government meeting took place a week ago, and it is possible to see what has changed. I am not taking credit away from anyone. I clarify, everyone here is fighting for credit. Take the credit. I am talking about security. Leave the security as that is what is important. The credit is not interesting. What is interesting is the security. Our policy is that we are not prepared to accept the firing of missiles upon our citizens.
I have visited many countries and many statesmen have visited here and told us that they don't understand how a situation like this could arise, whereby missiles are fired on your cities. The same statesman said: I know what we would have done, and that is what we are doing. If you fire one missile on Israeli communities, there will be a reaction. I am not saying that this is a simple thing - I am not saying that there won't be disagreements. I am simply stating to the Knesset what my government's policy is.
The third component: I heard statements about the security fence. I supported the construction of the fence. As Minister of Finance, I said to the Prime Minister at that time, Ariel Sharon, even though we were in a very difficult financial crisis, I told him: “Arik, there won't be any problems with the budget for the fence, the budget will always precede the construction”. And this is how I acted, I promised and came through.
I also clarified that this is a security partition, it always has been and remains so, but the main thing is that it is of vital importance for maintaining our security. I hear today that there are those who say that because it is quiet, we can remove the fence. My friends, the opposite is true, because there is a fence, there is quiet. This, and of course, the activities of the IDF and other security forces operating on the other side of the fence. I must add, and I say this cautiously and objectively, that there is also an improvement. There is also a certain improvement in the functioning of the Palestinian security forces and we welcome and support this. But the fence is important - the fence is a central component of our security, in our defense against a certain type of terror, and therefore the fence is here to stay, and will not be dismantled.
Still on the topic of security, a clear policy which also has results in the field, which was also instituted by my government, is that of where possible easing the movement of Palestinians. We have removed a large number of roadblocks, check points and dirt barriers. I have instructed to expand or lengthen the crossing hours for goods at the Allenby Bridge. We are doing this in consultation with the security forces, with the aim of easing them, where possible, without taking too great a risk.
I was asked whether this was done as part of a government policy, and the answer is yes. There are always those who will disagree with this. Within the IDF, there are different ranks of command, but gentlemen, we decide on policy. This is the policy of the government - where possible, to ease the movement of people and goods, and this has left its mark, and I think that it is welcomed. It has also made its mark in a fairly impressive economic growth. In my opinion, it has not reached its potential, even though there are international bodies who estimate that growth in the Palestinian Authority in the coming year will be close to 7%, although in my opinion, it could be a lot higher.
I head a committee whose activities are prepared by Minister Silvan Shalom, and we are going through project by project, and removing a lot of obstacles. The project in Bethlehem, the project next to Jenin, the project in Jericho.
So this is our government's policy - clear and immediate security assertiveness in response to missile fire. Activities relating to Iran on which I don't see any point in going into more detail, but I think that we have a certain change in the international climate relating to Iran. Leaving the fence in place and filling up the breaches is of course important, but so is easing the security restrictions or easing movement for the Palestinians where possible, removing blocks in both senses of the word, and this is something that is already having an effect.
I spoke about this with Tony Blair on several occasions before the elections, and I said that people are having a hard time understanding the speed with which the economy responds to the removal of obstacles. This is true in general, and within the Palestinian economy, even more so. The per capita income is not high, and therefore the growth can be very, very impressive. I won't quote him, but I think that he is different from many in that he saw and continues to see the potential, and we are discussing additional topics. We will continue in this direction.
I now wish to relate to the government's policy in the economic field.
Removing obstacles is also our objective in the area of the economy. First of all, I wish to thank the Members of Knesset, even those who voted against, but certainly those who voted for passing the budget. We needed a guiding hand for the budget. We did not have a budget for a long time, which has also left its mark on the economy.
Today, we don't just have any old budget, but a biennial budget, and I must tell you, people are interested in it. Some have suggested that we make this a permanent thing, but I was not pulled into it, or carried away, but only for a year and a half. If we hadn't passed this, Members of Knesset, we would have started in the summer. Member of Knesset Bar-On knows this - he is nodding his head in agreement, we would have started immediately on the budget for 2010.
I think that it is important to know that there is a biennial budget. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing and passing this budget, which is of course, based on agreement within the economy, which is something that we have not had for 25 years. This package deal prevents strikes and also enables us to make progress in the reforms. I know that there are differing opinions on reforms, which I would like to present, because we have already started to make progress in them, within the range of 3-4 months as we said. It takes time. Today, we will decide on one of them.
I want to clearly outline what we are doing and what we are going to do:
The first thing that we are going to do is pass a reform in the Israel Land Administration. First of all, this reform will transfer the ownership of hundreds of thousands of apartments to the citizens of Israel. How can it be that people lease their apartments and need to deal with the Israel Land Administration bureaucracy? We are getting rid of a third of the Israel Land Administration's bureaucracy.
We are going to continue. Firstly, I hope that we will pass this reform today, but within the next two weeks, we are going to assemble the same committee which prepared this reform in order to simplify and reduce the processes of the Planning and Building Committees. We live in one of the last places in the world where it takes years to plan a house, to construct a factory, to pave a road. Too many years. I expect that the Members of Knesset, instead of objecting to these changes that will release the lands, simplify and reduce the planning process, I expect them to support this, as the vast majority will indeed do.
The third component, in addition to reforming the Israel Land Administration and Planning and Building Committees, is of course the paving of transportation routes. The day before yesterday, the Minister of Transportation and I attended the opening of a new interchange, the new section of Highway 6. I have been following this project since the first time I was Prime Minister. I inaugurated the first interchange at the Ben Shemen Junction, and two years later, the interchange at the Kessem Junction. Of course, as Minister of Finance, I allocated funds for this.
Other people have also been involved with this - prime ministers, ministers of finance and transportation, all of whom deserve credit. I must just say that my involvement in this, and I am sure all of your involvement as well, stems from the recognition that we cannot continue living in the State of Hadera - Gadera. We need to break into the transportation routes, both trains and the fast roads to the Galilee and the Negev.
We made the decision to pave the “Fork of the North”, which is two new highways exiting from Yokneam. Highway No. 6 will go up to Nahariya and we will build interchanges on the north-east route at the Golani Junction, at the Amihud Junction, and at upper and lower passages in order to actually enable an express road to Kiryat Shmonah. As soon as the Galilee has these two roads, and one is able to travel north directly to Nahariya, or north-east to Rosh Pinah, and of course to Tiberias and then on to Safed and Kiryat Shmonah, we will change the face of the country.
We are connecting the periphery, and to a large degree abolishing it. I call this the “Connect Israel” road, which is exactly what it will be. However, this will not be the only project. We must “take Israel out of the traffic-jam” which will be carried out with greater vigor during the period of this government, out of a deep commitment to land reforms, to making the building processes more efficient, to paving roads, as this is something which really provides news, provides places to live, reduces the prices of apartments for young couples and soldiers, and simply enables them to live.
I wish to conclude with an outline of the government's policy on the diplomatic front:
In the first 100 days of this government, we formulated national agreement for the foundations of peace. In the speech which I gave at Bar-Ilan University, I outlined the 5 principles which, in my opinion, unite the vast majority of the public in Israel, and I believe, also the vast majority of international organizations who want real peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors.
1. The first one is something which should obvious, but which isn't: that the Palestinians who ask us to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
2. A derivative of this simple principle is that the refugee problem won't be resolved within the borders of the Jewish state.
3. The third thing derived from this is that when we sign a peace agreement, there will be no further claims against the State of Israel, not regarding the entrance of refugees, nor regarding territory or geographic regions in the State of Israel. An end to the conflict is an end to claims. If these things are so simple and obvious, why do they arouse such opposition, and who can really oppose such a thing. If we truly want peace, we must state these demands, which anchor the State of Israel's permanent legitimacy, in the clearest way possible, and this is exactly what we have done.
4. The fourth and fifth principles relate to security. We don't want to repeat the mistakes and tragedies of Gaza. We don't want another Hamastan and we don't want another Hizbullahstan. The main thing, in addition to questions of legitimacy and recognition, is demilitarization.
The demilitarization which we are seeking is an effective demilitarization: not demilitarization on paper, not a demilitarization which doesn't withstand the test of reality, not demilitarization arrangements which we see collapsing in Lebanon and in Gaza. We want effective demilitarization arrangements, which guarantee that there won't be a foreign army west of the Jordan. The airspace won't be transferred into enemy hands. Rockets and missiles, tanks or any other types of weapon won't penetrate this territory. These are basic tenets which I assume that not everyone, but the vast majority of MKs, almost all the MKs will agree with.
5. Demilitarization consists of two components: one component is effective security arrangements on the ground, and the second component is international recognition for these arrangements. I want to clarify that we are not asking international organizations to carry out these demilitarization arrangements, but we are seeking international recognition for these arrangements because we are being asked to take steps, to make concessions. We want to ensure that the State of Israel will be secure, and such security requires that there will be international recognition for effective demilitarization arrangements. Therefore, in response to the question of what will happen in case of a violation, it will be totally clear who has violated these arrangements, and who has honored them.
I think that it is possible to reach such understandings, or such arrangements if we insist on them. In general, all the things I said are not things which have not been said before. They have been said! But we assembled them and placed them at the front of the stage not as an excuse or trick, but because this is the most fundamental thing to do. Without this, there really can be no peace. I speak differently - I say things as they are.
I wish to reiterate the five principles: recognition of a Jewish state, refugees outside the State of Israel, an end to the conflict, effective demilitarization arrangements, and international recognition of these arrangements. These are the foundations for the national agreement for peace. I welcome the support which I have received from many, many, many citizens of Israel, because they know that this is just, and apart from the momentary polemics, you also know that this is just and necessary.
Mr. Speaker, Members of Knesset,
I thank you for this opportunity to present the principles of our actions and our policies in the first 100 days. Adhering to these principles is important, even if sometimes it is unpleasant to hear.
Certainly, the Palestinians oppose them, but I think that if someone were to objectively examine the principles I raised here, and not only here, if someone were to examine the actions we took to stabilize the economy, to pass the budget, to pass fundamental reforms - if someone were to objectively examine the policies we have adopted in the fields of national security and the State of Israel's continuous security - they can say that this government operates in a clear, vigorous and definite manner to ensure the future of the State of Israel.
Thank you.
עד כאן.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
29 יולי 2009
The Ninth Day of Av (Tisha' Be'Av) 2009
Yoram Ettinger
Tomorrow (July 30, 2009) commemorates the most calamitous day in Jewish history – Tisha' Be'Av (9th day of the Jewish month of Av) - which highlights the critical need to nurture national memory/history, as a prerequisite for survival and growth. It is also a prerequisite to avoid another day of national calamity!
Enclosed you'll find my version of Guide for the Perplexed on Tisha' Be'Av.The Ninth Day of Av (Tisha' Be'Av) 2009
1. Napoleon was walking at night in the streets of Paris, hearing sad voices emanating from a synagogue. When told that the wailing/lamenting commemorated a 586 BCE catastrophe, he stated: “Any People which solemnizes its ancient history is destined for a glorious future!”
Memory is deliverance; Forgetfulness is oblivion.
2. The Ninth Day of Av – the most calamitous day in Jewish history - is the 9th day in the 11th Jewish month: 9/11! Fasting on Tisha' Be'Av commemorates catastrophic national destructions, as well as the moral causes for the destruction. It was first mentioned in the book of Zechariah 7:3.
3. Major national calamities in Jewish history occurred on the Ninth Day of Av (July 30, 2009):
*The failed "Ten Spies/tribal presidents" (VS. Joshua & Caleb) – who slandered the Land of Israel, preferring immediate convenience and conventional "wisdom" over faith and long term vision - which prolonged the wandering in the desert for 40 years.
*The destruction of the First Temple and Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (586BC) – 100,000 killed and a national exile.
*The destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem by Titus of Rome (70AD) – 1MN killed and a national exile.
*Bar Kochba (Great) Rebellion crashed (135AD) with the fall of Beitar (in Gush Etzion, Judea & Samaria) and the plowing of Jerusalem by Quintus Tinius Rofus, the Roman Governor – 580,000 killed.
*First Crusade Pogroms (1096) – scores of thousands slaughtered.
*Expulsion from Britain (1290).
*Expulsion from Spain (1492).
*WW1 erupted (1914).
*Warsaw Ghetto Uprising crashed by the Nazis (May 1943) – 50,000 slaughtered.
3. The Ninth Day of Av is the central of the Four Days of Fast, which commemorate the destruction of the First Temple: 10th Day of Tevet (the onset of the siege that Nebuchadnezzar laid to Jerusalem), 17th day of Tamuz (the walls of Jerusalem were breached), 9th day of Av (destruction of both Temples) and 3rd day of Tishrey (The murder of Governor Gedalyah, who maintained a level of post-destruction Jewish autonomy, which led to a savage Babylonian murder and exile).
5. The Ninth Day of Av culminates the Three Weeks of Predicament ("Yemey Beyn Hameitzareem" in Hebrew), starting with the 17th day of Tamuz, when the walls of Jerusalem were breached by Nebuchadnezzar (1st Temple) and by Titus (2nd Temple).
5. The month of Av represents Faith in G-D (in spite of calamities) and a transformation from Curse to Blessing & Consolation, which is also represented by the two Hebrew letters of AV ("Aroor" = cursed and "Barookh"=blessed). The Hebrew letters of AV constitute the letters of Father (a synonym to G-D) and the first two letters of "EVEL" (mourning). The transformation from Curse to Blessing could forge one's character, as suggested by the numerical value of AV (Aleph=1 and Bet=2), which is Three, the combination of the basic even and odd numbers (King Solomon: "A triangular string/knot cannot be broken"). The zodiac sign of Av is a lion, which represents the Lion of Judah, rising in the aftermath of destruction. Aharon – the embodiment of human kindness - died on the 1st day of Av.
7. The Ninth Day of Av concludes a series of three Torah readings (Haphtarah) of Jewish calamities (two by the Prophet Jeremiah and one by the Prophet Yeshaayahu, and launches a series of seven Torah readings (Haphtarah) of consolations (by the Prophet Yeshaayahu).
8. The Book of (5) Lamentations (The Scroll of Eikhah – by Jeremiah the Prophet, who prophesized the destruction, the exile and the deliverance) is read on the Ninth Day of Av and since the first day of Av. The numerical value of Eikhah is 36, which is equal to the traditional number of righteous Jewish persons. The Hebrew meaning of Eikhah could be construed as "A reproaching How Come?!", as well as "Where are you?" (Why have you strayed away?). The first three Hebrew letters of Eikhah mean "How" and the fourth/last letter stands of G-D.
Yoram (http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il)
North Carolina Jihad
Robert Spencer
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
U.S. citizens conspire to advance the cause of America’s enemies.
Six American citizens and one U.S. permanent resident were charged in North Carolina with, according to the Justice Department, “conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and conspiring to murder, kidnap, maim and injure persons abroad.”The indictment centers around the activities of an American convert to Islam, 39-year-old Daniel “Saifullah” Boyd (a drywall contractor who was apparently the ringleader of this group). It reveals yet again the international scope of jihadist activity – giving the lie to the common Leftist assertion that various jihads around the globe are isolated nationalist insurgencies with no connection to one another.
Above all, in the words of U.S. Attorney George E.B. Holding, “these charges hammer home the point that terrorists and their supporters are not confined to the remote regions of some far away land but can grow and fester right here at home.” How did seven American citizens, with their leader a convert to Islam, get the idea that supporting terrorists and participating in terrorist training was consonant with their religion – and was, indeed, a religious obligation? Holding didn’t say. But that is the question that must ultimately be answered, and policy formulated accordingly, if homegrown jihad activity of this type is to be prevented in the future.
It all started in 1989, when, according to the indictment, Boyd went to Pakistan and Afghanistan, attended jihad training camps, and fought alongside jihadists in Afghanistan. He didn’t leave Central Asia until 1992. His wife Sabrina Boyd has pointed out indignantly that in Afghanistan in the late Eighties, Boyd was battling the Soviet invaders “with the full backing of the United States government.” Indeed. But at that time the U.S. was aiding the Afghan mujahedin against the Soviets – and once they drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, those same mujahedin quickly dashed hopes that the U.S. had won over their hearts and minds, hewing closely to the jihadist perspective that both the Soviet Union and the United States represented Satanic superpowers at war with Islam. If Boyd was fighting alongside the Afghan mujahedin in the late Eighties and early Nineties, that hardly constitutes evidence that his commitment to America was strong, or that his commitment to jihad was weak.
Besides Pakistan and Afghanistan, Boyd also visited another jihadist hotspot, Gaza, in March 2006. According to the DOJ, he went there with one of his sons (two of whom are among the seven suspected North Carolina jihadists), in order to introduce the young man to “individuals who also believed that violent jihad was a personal religious obligation.”
Then a year later, Boyd and some of the others who have just been indicted went to Israel “in an effort to engage in violent jihad, but ultimately returned to the United States after failing in their efforts.” But Boyd didn’t give up: in February 2008, he “allegedly solicited money to fund the travel of additional individuals overseas to engage in violent jihad” and plotted with two others among the seven who were indicted, Anes Subasic and Hysen Sherifi, to send mujahedin to prime areas of jihad activity around the world, and to fund their activities. Sherifi traveled in July 2008 to yet another hotbed of contemporary jihad, Kosovo. Meanwhile, Boyd and the others were allegedly conspiring, according to the DOJ, “to provide material support and resources to terrorists, including currency, training, transportation and personnel. The defendants also conspired to murder, kidnap, maim and injure persons abroad during this period. The object of the conspiracy, according to the indictment, was to advance violent jihad, including supporting and participating in terrorist activities abroad and committing acts of murder, kidnapping or maiming persons abroad.”
Sabrina Boyd, however, maintains her husband’s innocence: “We’re an ordinary family. We have the right to justice, and we believe that justice will prevail. We are decent people who care about other human beings.” However, that is not in dispute. The question is whether Boyd, his sons, and the other accused plotters cared about other human beings enough to wish to impose their vision of divine law – Islamic Sharia – upon them by violence, in accord with traditional tenets of the Islamic faith. Appearing to militate against this idea was the Boyd family’s unremarkable normality. A neighbor reported that “they were great neighbors. We never had any trouble with them. Their kids played with our kids.” Another added: “We never saw anything to give any clues that something like that could be going on in their family.” But from the looks of the indictment, the group never had any plans to wage jihad in suburban North Carolina. However, the fact that they were there at all should give law enforcement officials pause.
Owen D. Harris, Special Agent in Charge of the Charlotte Division of the FBI, declared: “The threat that extremists and radicals pose to America and our allies has not dulled or gone away. These arrests today show there are people living among us, in our communities in North Carolina and around the US, that are honing their skills to carry out acts of murder and mayhem.” Yet Harris and other law enforcement officials have shown little public interest in the question of exactly how converts to Islam and other Muslims in the U.S. come to believe that violence and hate are integral requirements of their religious observance. Until that changes, as time goes by Americans will be introduced to many, many more people like Daniel “Saifullah” Boyd.
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of eight books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, is available now from Regnery Publishing.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35739
The Unforgettable Friday Prayer
Ataollah Mohajerani
Asharq Alawsat
I believe that the Friday prayer of July 17 in Iran was an unforgettable event. Everybody waited for the raw fruit to ripen and then they wanted to harvest the fruit. It was the most widely attended Friday prayer since the revolution. With over one million people cramming the streets, it was impossible to verify who was taking part in the protests. Cell phone coverage near the University of Tehran had apparently been disrupted. Before Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s Friday sermon, Hojatol-Islam Taqavi, the head of the organisation that oversees Friday’s prayers, delivered a speech. He set a strategy for Friday sermons, and defined the role and the position of the Friday Imams.
In his speech Taqavi’s said:
“He (the Friday Imam) should give a speech within the regime’s political frame. The Imam of the Friday prayers should be a follower of the Supreme Leader in his speech.”
Taqavi’s unpredictable presence at the Friday prayers was a clear message from Khamenei to Hashemi Rafsanjani that Rafsanjani must be supportive of the famous speech Khamenei delivered at Friday prayer on June 19.
As a result of this very complicated situation, a crucial question arises: why was that Friday prayer so important?
Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president and the current speaker of the Assembly of Experts, frankly stated that Iran is in a crisis.
I would like to concentrate on this very important political event in present-day Iran.
Firstly: Hashemi Rafsanjani has played a significant role in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran; one could say that his role is undisputable. In the last three decades of the Islamic Republic of Iran, he was at the centre of government. He played an effective role in controlling various crises and disasters (for example the Iran-Iraq war and the American hostage crisis).
It was the first time that Iran had faced an election crisis, which is still ongoing, but Rafsanjani was absent. There was a 50-day gap between the last Friday sermon he delivered and his most recent sermon.
Secondly: Rafsanjani divided his sermon into three parts; first, he talked about people’s rights based on Islamic beliefs and ideology. He mentioned a brilliant anecdote that was narrated by Sayyed Ibn Tavous – one of the most respected and trusted Shia sources. The anecdote states: one day, the Prophet of Islam told Imam Ali: “If people will be satisfied with your governance, you can accept to be their governor, but if they denied accepting you, you must respect them and let them do as they wish.” He referred to the Prophet’s government, which was based on people’s satisfaction. He said that the legitimacy of the government comes from its people’s consent.
Thirdly: In the second part of his sermon he recalled that the Islamic Revolution of Iran had been established based on the trust and satisfaction of the people. He emphasised that the unity of the nation, and their trust in Imam Khomeini was the main reason behind the victory of the revolution. Back then, a large number of Iranians were gathering in streets and squares, shouting down with the Shah and that they did not want the Shah. As a result of the presence of the nation, the Shah’s regime collapsed.
Fourthly: “Today is a bitter day. People have lost their faith in the regime and their trust is damaged. It is necessary that we regain people’s consent and their trust in the regime,” Rafsanjani said. This was the main line in Rafsanjani’s sermon. When we read between the lines, and think about what he did not say, it is very obvious that Rafsanjani played a significant role in his political life with his latest sermon. He did not concentrate on Wilayet al Faqih. He did not mention Khamenei’s speech. On the contrary, the role of the nation was the key part of Hashemi’s speech. “We need to regain people’s trust, we need to have an open society in which people can say what they want to say, we should not imprison people, let them rejoin their families.
We need sympathy for the people who are in mourning or have been injured. Don’t let our enemies laugh at us by putting people in prison,” Rafsanjani said.
What was the government’s reaction to Rafsanjani?
We saw two strong reactions. The first one was from the editor-in-chief of Kayhan newspaper – Hossein Shariatmadari, who is Khamenei’s representative, and also one of the hardliners in Iran.
The second reaction came from the security minister, Mohsenei Ejehei. He criticised Hashemi, Khatami, Mousavi, Karrubi, and added that Ataollah Mohajerani (the person writing this article!) was Karrubi’s advisor, and that Karrubi did what Mohajerani advised him to do.
The brilliant Hafez Shirazi’s divan begins with this verse:
O beautiful wine-bearer, bring forth the cup and put it to my lips
Path of love seemed easy at first, what came was many hardships
In the second hemistich, Hafez expressed that in the beginning love seems so easy, but then many problems emerge.
The unbelieveable case of electoral fraud in Iran has divided the country into two. Hashemi Rafsanjani has made his historical decision. He stands by the nation.
Will his advice be heard? I don’t think so. When the government uses force to silence, arrest, and kill the protestors, then it surely has stuffed its ears with cotton!
Why public health care is philosophically wrong
Michael Prell
American Thinker
Forget all the scare stories about waiting lines and denied services. I live in Canada, and I have a million such stories to tell. Like my mother wanting to commit suicide due to her excruciating pain -- even though she wore a morphine patch the size of her back -- all because she had to wait three long years for a simple disc operation.
These horror stories are everywhere. But they are not the most horrific consequences of a public health care system. If you focus on scare stories of public health care systems gone wrong (and they all go wrong), you will fall into the leftists' trap of arguing over the most effective way to publicly manage health.
No.
You should manage your health. You should have the power to choose whichever option serves you best. The power over your health -- your very self -- should be in your hands.
If you allow yourself to be dragged into discussions about effectiveness, or the lack thereof, of various public options -- you have fallen into the trap of having a discussion about how best to "fix" the "system."
No.
You do not want a health care "system." If the "system" is broken, you do not want to fix it or tinker with it. You do not want to give away the argument to your opponents that a system -- albeit a better-operating system -- is what we all desire.
No.
What we desire is liberty. The freedom to choose. Domain over our own bodies. Our selves.
That is what America stands for. That is what the first Americans fought and died for. It is the very essence of the American character. And it is what these people will destroy if they bring in public health care.
Look no further than the north. A few years ago, Canada's national broadcaster (yes, they have a national broadcaster to go with their national health care system) held a contest to determine "The Greatest Canadian." More than 1 in 3 Canadians cast their vote for the greatest Canadian who ever lived. Was it John A. Macdonald, Canada's George Washington? No. Was it Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone? No. Was it even Wayne Gretzky, "the great one," in a hockey-obsessed country? No.
"The Greatest Canadian," according to Canadians themselves, was Tommy Douglas: the socialist who created socialized health care. Canadians from coast to coast regularly wait up to 36 weeks for an MRI. The average emergency room visit is 6 hours -- just to be seen. Stretchers pile up in hospital hallways. People wait years to get family doctors. And my mother's three year ordeal with pain was so dehumanizing she almost killed herself.
These are the people who voted for their slavemaster as The Greatest to ever walk among them. That is what public health care will do to you. It won't just make you a prisoner of the system. It won't just destroy the great American spirit of self-reliance. It will weaken you to the point where you look upon those who enslave you as your heroes.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/why_public_health_care_is_phil.html at July 29, 2009 - 10:53:00 AM EDT
Iraqi Forces Storm Iranian Dissidents in Iraq
Tehran Seeks to Divert Attention from its Oppression in Iran
As Injuries and Deaths Mount in Iraq, the Obama Administration
Could be Implicated in Human Rights Violations
Washington, DC—On Tuesday, 28 July 2009, Iraqi Security Forces stormed the residents of an enclave in Iraq where unarmed Iranian dissidents have been living under the protection of U.S. military forces until such protection for their security transferred to the Government of Iraq at the end of 200 According to IPC President and former member of the National Security Council Staff at the White House, Professor Raymond Tanter, “As the continuation of demonstrations and resultant suppression by the Iranian regime divide the clerical leadership and show its weaknesses, the ruling clerics have persuaded their proxies in the Iraqi Security Forces to attack unarmed Iranian civilians in Iraq. But the schisms that divide the clerics will not close by shifting the arena from Iran to Iraq.”
Prof. Tanter continued, “After all the American blood spilled and U.S. treasure spent on the transformation of Iraq into a moderate American ally in the Middle East, it would be the height of irony if the Obama administration remained silent in face of the humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding in Iraq with the assault of Iraqi Security Forces on unarmed Iranian dissidents.”
According to General Thomas McInerney (Lt Gen, US Air Force Ret, Chair of the IPC Advisory Council), “When armies attack unarmed noncombatants, those who conduct the operation, those who gave the order, and those who transferred responsibility may be subject to being prosecuted for committing war crimes.”
Gen. McInerney continued, “The Obama administration may be ultimately prosecutable for dereliction of its responsibility to make sure the Iraqi Security Forces treat those formerly under U.S. protection in a humane fashion. As the Iraqis attack Iranian dissidents, it opens the door to prosecutable offenses on the part of the Obama administration.”
According to MG Paul Vallely (US Army Ret, IPC Advisory Council), “Now that Iraqi Security Forces have responsibility for protecting Iranian opposition Camp Ashraf and some 3,000 plus Iranian residents, the Iranian regime’s modus operandi clearly suggests that there will be increased assaults on the unarmed civilians by uniformed soldiers on orders from Tehran.”
Gen. Vallely continued, “At the time that Tehran is attacking its own citizens on the streets of Iran and promoting violence by its proxy Hamas in Gaza, it is also continuing to fill a political vacuum in Iraq as the United States forces are gradually drawing down. As well, Iran is moving closer to having deployable nuclear weapons and now is not the time for the United States to make concessions to the Iranian regime and its Iraqi proxies by turning a blind eye to assassinations of innocent Iranian civilians in Iraq.”
According to R. Bruce McColm, President of the Institute for Democratic Strategies, IPC Board of Directors, “The Fourth Geneva Convention protections of the people in Camp Ashraf and declarations of Amnesty International dictate that unarmed Ashraf inhabitants should not be attacked by the uniformed military of Iraq.”
McColm states, “The residents of Ashraf, Iraq were awarded protected persons status by the United States in 2004. In this respect, such attacks are incompatible with the Fourth Geneva Convention, international humanitarian regulations, and other international laws.”
McColm concluded that, “Because the United States military has played a monitoring role over the Iranian dissidents to ensure their security as ‘protected persons,’ Washington could be implicated in any war crimes human rights violations that befall them as they are assaulted in their homes.”
Thanks to General Vallely
Contact: Prof. Raymond Tanter
202-249-1142
rtanter@iranpolicy.org
Sanctions against Iran will never work
FARS News Agency
http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8805071324
Iran, China Sign Agreement on Drilling Rigs
TEHRAN (FNA)- A Chinese consortium inked a multi-billion dollars deal with Tehran to supply offshore and onshore engineering products, including drilling rigs and platforms, for Iran. Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry (ZPMC), the world's largest manufacturer of heavy-duty equipment, and Spanish marine oil and gas explorer ADHK have inked a deal worth $2.2 billion with Iranian Offshore Engineering and Construction Company on the supply of offshore facilities and engineering products.
The transaction concluded on Monday in Shanghai includes building of 10 offshore jack-up drilling platforms, seven land drilling rigs, and two float cranes.
The products should be delivered to the Iranian company by July 2010.
This would be the first large-scale contract of the Chinese company after it entered upstream sector.
Last month Iran signed a $4.7bln contract with China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) for development of the upstream sector of phase 11 in the offshore South Pars gas field due to repeated delays by France's Total.
The South Pars gas field has reserves of about 14 trillion cubic meters of gas - or about eight percent of the world's reserves
Comment: This is but one of a dozen headlines today demonstrating the business that Iran is able to do outside its borders. time and again this blog has indicated that as long as Iran has countries willing to engage in business and provide products and services there is no motivation to change its course regarding nuclear bomb development. The US government knows this and is lying to the public-something else is afoot!
Oral drugs that can pack more of a punch
Karin Kloosterman
Israel 21c
July 23, 2009
It may be the latest scientific trend, but Professor Simon Benita of the Hebrew University's School of Pharmacy has been working with nanotechnology since long before it had a name. His 25 years of research in nanotech has culminated in a new vehicle for oral drug delivery based on the microencapsulated double-coated nanocapsules that he developed.
Normally, our bodies' defenses would stop and break down orally administered drugs, so that we only benefit from about three-quarters of their potential effectiveness. Now, thanks to P-gpBypass, Benita's invention, important cancer and HIV drugs as well as a range of immunosupressants should be able to slip through those defenses to treat disease more effectively.
The oral route is preferred, but only 40 percent of all drugs are water-soluble. This means that many drugs are administered intravenously, which is less effective and may lead to unpleasant side effects, or, they are delivered orally, in which case they have limited bioavailability.
Slipping through our defenses
When delivered orally, Benita explains to ISRAEL21c, drugs activate an intestinal pump barrier, the P-gp efflux pump, and are broken down in the intestine and the liver, losing about a quarter of their potency in the process.
"We took advantage of nanotechnology to design a Trojan horse similar to Taxol [a cancer drug]," says Benita. "It's in a nanocapsule embedded in a micro-sphere, and not releasing into the intestine. . . it's not activating the P-gp efflux pump. . . it is so small, it slips through."
At 100 nm, Benita's drug-laden nanocapsules are a new drug delivery system that could make painful injections and intravenous lipophilic drugs a thing of the past.
Creating a new drug delivery mechanism, "is not as simple as it looks," says Benita stressing that there are "many, many companies" in the industry. "We are targeting one of the most challenging pharmaceutical issues with regard to formulation. More than 50 percent of drugs existing, or as new chemical entities . . . are not water soluble," he tells ISRAEL21c.
Encouraging results from animal testing
Benita's solution means that pharmaceutical developers can work around the intestinal pump, bypassing the gut enzyme metabolism, delivering maximum drug power without the side effects.
Benita and his team of four at the School of Pharmacy tested his platform recently on the immunosuppressant tacrolimus which is given to transplant patients to help prevent rejection of their new organs. Their tests showed that they could deliver the drug and unlock 2.4 times its bioavailability, or active ingredients, since their size provides protection from the GI enzymes in the intestines.
These encouraging results in animal studies led the Hebrew University's tech transfer arm, the Yissum Research Development Company, to enter into a deal with Israel-based Aurum Ventures MKI, which will test the platform with the aim of refining it for commercial success.
Aurum Ventures MKI is the technology investment arm of Morris Kahn, a prominent Israeli businessman, philanthropist and entrepreneur.
Israel excels in drug delivery
"The ability to deliver lipophilic drugs orally while bypassing specific potent barriers in the intestine and the liver carries tremendous potential," says Yehuda Yarmut, the deputy CEO of Yissum. "Benita, a seasoned inventor and entrepreneur and co-founder of Novagali SA, one of Yissum's most promising spin-offs, has once again demonstrated his ingenuity in developing a novel mechanism addressing many unmet medical needs."
In Israel, a relatively small country, there appears to be a disproportionately large number of drug delivery companies. Much of this has to do with the fact that Israelis like to be entrepreneurs, but also, says Benita, because at the Hebrew University's School of Pharmacy there is a large number of researchers who are very skilled in drug delivery technologies. "We are considered worldwide very strong in drug delivery," he says.
The researchers both influence their students, and work themselves to create drug delivery companies and spin-offs. Some 25% of the patents at Yissum are in drug delivery, "because of the strong expertise in our department," says Benita.
Benita founded the nanotech company Novagali in France 10 years ago for ocular delivery of drugs using nanoemulsions. The company currently has major products at various stages of development to tackle dry eye, allergy, glaucoma, retinopathies and more. Its formulations are based on the technology platforms of Novasorb and Eyeject, which optimize bioavailability of drugs as well as safety and comfort for the patient.
The United States as an Honest Broker
Michael Singh
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
"In deliberating over whether President Barack Obama is an "honest broker" between Israel and the Arabs, it is worth considering what this role entails." Economist.com, July 28, 2009
Economist.com has been hosting an ongoing debate about whether the Obama administration is an honest broker between Israel and the Arabs. The following is the contribution by Michael Singh, the Ira Weiner fellow at The Washington Institute and former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council (NSC).
In deliberating over whether President Barack Obama is an "honest broker" between Israel and the Arabs, it is worth considering what this role entails. Historically, the term "honest broker" was applied to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (by Bismarck himself) in connection with the 1878 Congress of Berlin. The Congress aimed in part at resolving tensions between Russia and Austria-Hungary -- Germany's partners in the "Dreikaiserbund" or Three-Emperors League -- over the Balkans.
Bismarck's status as an "honest broker" rested on two attributes. First, he claimed impartiality for Germany in the dispute, as his interest was in the conclusion of an amicable deal that preserved the tripartite alliance rather than in the substance of the dispute itself. This impartiality should not be confused with indifference or disinterest, as though Bismarck was a neutral third party; indeed, Germany in pursuit of its own national security had a significant stake in a resolution. Second, Bismarck's Germany was allied with both key parties -- Russia and Austria -- and Bismarck enjoyed a unique diplomatic profile in the region.
So is America suited to take up Bismarck's "honest broker" mantle with respect to the Arab-Israeli peace process? Like Germany, America can claim a good measure of impartiality in the dispute itself. With some significant exceptions, it has refrained from taking positions on the "core issues" -- borders, refugees, Jerusalem, and security arrangements -- and has instead pushed for a mutually acceptable agreement. The reason for this is clear: America believes that a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute would advance American interests.
Nevertheless, American impartiality only goes so far. America has insisted, out of concern both for the region's peace and stability and the welfare of the Palestinian people, that the future Palestinian state be democratic and peaceful, rather than ruled by a terrorist organisation such as Hamas. Furthermore, Israel is America's closest ally in the region, and indeed one of its closest in the world. Successive presidents, including Barack Obama, have declared their commitment to Israel's security, a commitment that reflects not only a hard-headed calculation of national security interests but also the deep social and cultural ties between the two states.
Far from tarnishing America's "honest broker" status, however, these positions are vital to it. Steadfast American opposition to Palestinian rejectionists and financial assistance to Palestinians (which in 2008 exceeded that of any other country) bolsters the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, who rely on international support for the domestic risks they take by negotiating with Israel. On the other side, Israelis -- fairly or not -- perceive America as their only reliable ally. These close relationships, together with its close ties with most of the other states of the region, put America in a unique position to serve as an honest broker.
Thus, as was the case with Bismarck, it is not indifference or equidistance that makes America an "honest broker" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; if seeking these attributes, the parties would more likely turn once again to a disinterested but friendly country like Norway. Rather, America's status rests upon the combination of impartiality with respect to the particulars of an agreement, strong relationships with and ability to provide assistance to both key parties to the dispute, and a unique diplomatic standing in the broader region. Thus we can dismiss two of the arguments often made in marshalling a case that America is not an honest broker -- that it is too close to Israel on the one hand, or not close enough to Hamas on the other. Maintaining the trust and confidence of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are critical to successfully convening and concluding negotiations, as any agreement will require both to stake much on the good faith and reliability of the United States and its assurances.
Being an honest broker is not a zero-sum game. Strong American relations with one party to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict need not detract from relations with the others. Indeed, insofar as they seek a resolution to the conflict, a close American relationship with Israel benefits the Palestinians, and vice versa. This is not to say that a "tough" approach to one party or another is inconsistent with being an honest broker, simply that such an approach should be carefully aimed at making progress toward a resolution and calibrated to preserve future co-operation.
In this respect, the Obama administration's decision to take a stand on the issue of "natural growth" in settlements was tactically unsound. Securing the agreement of hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition to the sort of settlement freeze (near-comprehensive but with an exception for "natural growth") that prevailed under Prime Ministers Sharon and Olmert would have been a significant accomplishment and served as a good basis for future progress. "Natural growth," on the other hand, is a peripheral issue, with little relevance either to Palestinians' quality of life or to the ultimate disposition of territory in the West Bank. As time has passed, the fracas over this issue has stalled the peace process and shifted its focus from Arab-Israeli to American-Israeli relations.
According to recent polling, the dispute has already taken a toll, having diminished Israelis' confidence in the United States. That confidence -- which former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert recently wrote was vital to Israel's decision to pull settlers out of Gaza and engage in the Annapolis peace process -- is a valuable asset indeed. Its diminution would not only put in question the United States' effectiveness as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but would be a setback for America, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Arab leaders, and others who face common threats across the region and for whom American-Israel cooperation is of mutual benefit. The test now for President Obama is to manoeuvre out of the present crisis with that co-operation intact, and with the stage set for progress on the peace process, Iran, and the rest of America's Middle East agenda.
Reports of Prison Abuse and Deaths Anger Iranians
ROBERT F. WORTH
NY Times
Published: July 28, 2009
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Some prisoners say they watched fellow detainees being beaten to death by guards in overcrowded, stinking holding pens. Others say they had their fingernails ripped off or were forced to lick filthy toilet bowls. The accounts of prison abuse in Iran’s postelection crackdown — relayed by relatives and on opposition Web sites — have set off growing outrage among Iranians, including some prominent conservatives. More bruised corpses have been returned to families in recent days, and some hospital officials have told human rights workers that they have seen evidence that well over 100 protesters have died since the vote.
On Tuesday, the government released 140 prisoners in one of several conciliatory gestures aimed at deflecting further criticism. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued a letter urging the head of the judiciary to show “Islamic mercy” to the detainees, and on Monday Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, personally intervened and closed an especially notorious detention center.
But there are signs that widespread public anger persists, and that it is not confined to those who took to the streets crying fraud after Mr. Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory last month. Several conservatives have said the abuse suggests a troubling lack of accountability, and they have hinted at a link with Mr. Ahmadinejad’s recent willingness to defy even the venerated Ayatollah Khamenei.
“Why did things have to go so far as to require the personal intervention of the supreme leader?” said Ali Mottahari, a conservative Parliament member. “If we are satisfied just to close one detention center, these people will continue to do what they have done elsewhere and nothing will change.”
Although the government has played down the scale of the prison abuses, some detainees’ relatives have come forward recently to confirm them, mostly to opposition-linked Web sites that have provided credible information in the past, including roozonline.com and gooya.com.
Some deaths have been further documented with photographs or videotapes. Hospital officials have described receiving bodies of those killed in protests, with the total far in excess of 20, the government’s initial figure. It is difficult to confirm such reports independently, given the restrictions on reporting in Iran.
The anger has spread from opposition supporters into Iran’s hard-line camp in part because of the case of Mohsen Ruholamini, the son of an adviser to the conservative presidential candidate Mohsen Rezai, who died in prison after a severe beating. A bitter political dispute among conservatives over Mr. Ahmadinejad’s cabinet decisions may also have helped fuel the issue.
The prison abuses have also galvanized the opposition movement, whose leaders asked for permission to hold a mass mourning ceremony on Thursday in honor of those killed since the election. The Interior Ministry on Tuesday refused permission for the gathering, but the main opposition leaders, Mir Hussein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi, said they would hold a public ceremony anyway, several Web sites reported.
Thursday is a day of unusual symbolic importance because it will be 40 days since the shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan, a young woman whose death during a demonstration was captured on video and ignited outrage across the globe. The 40th day marks an important Shiite mourning ritual; similar commemorations for dead protesters fueled the demonstrations that led to the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Questions about the prison abuse have gained more importance in recent days, not only because of the opposition’s public protests but also because the stories have multiplied. One young man posted an account on Tuesday of his ordeal at the Kahrizak camp, which was ordered closed on Monday by Ayatollah Khamenei.
“We were all standing so close to each other that no one could move,” he wrote in a narrative posted online. “The plainclothes guards came into the room and broke all the light bulbs, and in the pitch dark started beating us, whoever they could.” By morning, at least four detainees were dead, he added.
In another account posted online, a former detainee describes being made to lie facedown on the floor of a police station bathroom, where an officer would step on his neck and force him to lick the toilet bowl as the officer cursed reformist politicians.
A woman described having her hair pulled as interrogators demanded that she confess to having sex with political figures. When she was finally released, she was forced — like many others — to sign a paper saying she had never been mistreated.
Mr. Moussavi spoke out Monday in unusually strong and angry terms, accusing the government of brutality and irreligion, and warning that its conduct toward the detainees could set off a much greater reaction.
“They cannot turn this nation into a prison of 70 million people,” Mr. Moussavi said, adding later that “the more people they arrest, the more widespread the movement will become.”
The prisoner release on Tuesday appeared to be the act of a government desperate to defuse the issue, coming just one day after the head of Iran’s judiciary promised that the detainees’ cases would be expedited. Government officials say that of at least 2,500 people arrested in the postelection crackdown, about 150 remain in prison.
In announcing the release, Saeed Jalili, the secretary of the National Security Council of Iran, sounded a defensive note, saying that those still in jail “are people for whom there are documents stating they were in possession of firebombs and weapons, including firearms, and who had caused serious damage to public property.”
But Mr. Mottahari, the lawmaker, said Tuesday that those responsible for the deaths of detainees must also be identified and punished. Others have gone further, saying the prison abuses suggest a government lurching dangerously out of control.
“Those who have turned this society into a police state and have ordered the use of force have to be held accountable,” said Hamid-Reza Katouzian, a hard-line member of Parliament. “The police and the Ministry of Intelligence have told us that they are on the sidelines, and we do not know who is responsible or accountable.”
Mr. Katouzian is a close friend of Mr. Ruholamini’s family, and his comments appeared to reflect personal outrage over that case. But his remarks also echoed a broader, longstanding concern about the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia taking over law enforcement functions and acting beyond the knowledge of legislators.
Senior clerics have also weighed in, warning that tolerating such injustices could endanger Iran’s theocracy.
“The shameful recent events have distressed everyone and been a source of worry for all those who love their country and the Islamic republic,” said Grand Ayatollah Abdul-Karim Mousavi Ardebili, adding a plea for the government to release detainees.
The number of those killed since the election is impossible to determine, and it includes at least a few members of the Basij militia as well as protesters. One human rights group, International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, said it spoke to doctors in three Tehran hospitals who registered the bodies of 34 protesters on June 20 alone. Other doctors have provided similar accounts and have estimated a death toll of at least 150 based on corpses they saw.
Earlier this month, family members of missing demonstrators were taken to a morgue in southwest Tehran where they reported seeing “hundreds of corpses” and were not allowed to retrieve bodies unless they certified that the deaths were of natural causes, according to accounts relayed on Web sites and to human rights workers.
Robert F. Worth reported from Dubai, and Sharon Otterman from New York.
OC: The Obama Fiscal Responsibility Farce Continues
Heritage Foundation
The federal government is estimated to run a 2009 budget deficit of $1.845 trillion. While it is true that President George W. Bush handed President Barack Obama a $1,186 billion deficit for the year, Obama has only added to that total to the tune of $659 billion. Worse, President Obama’s budget shows average deficits of $855 billion over the next decade which would double the publicly held national debt by 2019. And that does not even count Obama’s budget busting health care spending. But don’t worry; the Obama Justice Department just figured out that paper has two sides: just think of the taxpayer savings from DOJ’s proposed double-sided photocopying!
Recent Entries
In the Green Room: Rep. Camp
Sex Change You Can Believe In
Video: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous Than Global Warming Itself
DC Voters Love School Choice
Pelosi Continues to Deny Vote on Taxpayer-Funded Abortion
The Justice Department’s announcement yesterday that it can save $573,000 through fiscal 2010 by setting up its printers and copiers to use both sides of the paper was part of the Obama administration’s roll out of $102 million in “spending cuts” they announced in April this year. Other Obama deficit savers include: The Forest Service will no longer repaint its new, white vehicles green immediately upon purchase; The Office of Thrift Supervision identified unused phone lines costing $320,000; and both Homeland Security and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will start getting their news free online, rather than renew their newspaper subscriptions. In total, Obama’s $102 million in spending cuts will help cut the deficit by .006%. Problem solved!
Unfortunately runaway government spending has proved to be a bi-partisan problem in Washington as The Heritage Foundation’s 2009 Federal Spending by the Numbers shows. Since 2001, Anti-poverty spending has surged by 57%, K–12 education spending by 169%, and Medicare, thanks largely to the expensive Medicare drug benefit, by 57%.
But finding himself in a $1.186 trillion hole, President Obama has refused to stop digging. Washington will spend $33,932 per household in 2009—$8,000 per household more than last year. While much of this spending is a temporary result of the recession and financial crisis, President Obama’s 2010 budget would replace this temporary spending with permanent new programs. Consequently, by 2019—a time of assumed peace and prosperity—Washington would still spend $33,000 per household (adjusted for inflation), essentially making permanent this year’s $8,000 per household spending hike. These numbers do not even include the cost of the President’s health plan. These deficits would not only raise interest rates, they would also nearly quintuple the net interest costs of the national debt over the next decade.
Americans want to go in another direction. Polling by Gallup, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and NBC News, all show that the American people do not approve of President’s Obama’s handling of the federal deficit. There is an alternative. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl explains:
In the 1980s and 1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household (adjusted for inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance the budget by 2012 without any tax hikes. Alternatively, returning to the $25,000 per household level (adjusted for inflation) that Washington spent before the current recession would likely balance the budget by 2019 without any tax hikes.
QUICK HITS
The Obama administration’s proposal for a federal health board is drawing opposition from the American Medical Association and the American College of Surgeons.
The Obama administration’s talks with China on committing to limits on greenhouse gas emissions ended in failure yesterday.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) has raised nearly $10 million in gift contributions from the interests - utilities, casino operators and health care organizations - that he oversees.
Accounts of prison abuse in Iran’s postelection crackdown have set off growing outrage among Iranians.
According to Gallup, only 26% of Americans believe Obamacare will improve their personal medical care, compared to 29% who think it won’t effect them and 34% who believe Obamacare will make their medical care worse.
Moral Outrage at Camp Ashraf
Clare M. Lopez
Human Events
07/29/2009
It’s a new era, alright: an era in which America’s moral compass is spinning aimlessly. While on an official visit to Baghdad Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and top U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, hailed a new era in Iraq and touted an improved security situation at the one-month mark since U.S. troops pulled back from Iraqi cities and towns at the end of June. But even as the two crowed (along with their Iraqi counterparts), Iraqi police forces were assaulting the civilian population of Ashraf City north of Baghdad, home to some 3900 unarmed members of the Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK). At day’s end, the MEK death count stood at four, while the injured numbered in the hundreds, and dozens more had been snatched and carried off by the Iraqi forces.
The Iraqi assault, captured in graphic videos posted to YouTube, advanced with armored vehicles, front-loaders, fire engines, police vehicles, and other equipment and unleashed boiling water, pepper gas, barrages from water cannons, clubs, and eventually live fire against the unarmed inhabitants. YouTube footage shows MEK members massed passively at an entrance gate to the camp as Iraqi police beat those in front furiously with clubs and then sprayed pepper gas and water cannon directly into the crowd. Other films show police opening fire with assault weapons while the group began to chant “Allahu Akbar,” echoing the recent calls of their demonstrating compatriots on the streets of Tehran and elsewhere.
The MEK has been fighting tyranny and despotism in Iran since the group arose in the 1960’s on Iran’s university campuses to oppose the autocratic rule of the Shah. From the 1980s until the U.S. launched Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in March 2003, they had waged a desperate battle against the mullahs’ despotic regime from Iraqi soil where they took refuge after the Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution turned on the allies that had helped him topple the monarchy.
In the early days of OIF, American forces bombarded MEK camps, despite not being attacked first or taking a single shot in return. A ceasefire and MEK disarmament agreement culminated in 2004 with U.S. extension of Fourth Geneva Convention protections to the group, which had been exhaustively and individually investigated in the interim by a U.S. interagency panel and found completely innocent of any criminal or terrorist wrongdoing.
In this 2004 action, the U.S. declared the MEK members in Ashraf “protected persons” under the Geneva Conventions. This makes us responsible -- morally and legally -- for their safety.
U.S. forces honored their protective commitment up until the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), approved by the Iraqi government in late 2008, began to enter into force. In recent weeks, however, as the Iraqi government moved closer to assuming independent security control across the country, the U.S. has stood by passively as Iraqis, almost certainly acting on behalf of the Tehran regime, repeatedly blocked shipments of food, water, and medicines to Ashraf. As yesterday’s brutal assault unfolded, Odierno, speaking in Baghdad, observed blandly that Iran was employing "soft power" in a bid to shape Iraqi politics.
Amnesty International, the U.S. Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents, Maryam Rajavi, head of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and supporters across the world issued calls to the international community, the U.S. government, and President Barack Obama personally to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Ashraf.
(The homepage of the Department of State, meanwhile, contained a selection of pieces about Hillary Clinton’s recent travels in Asia, an upcoming trip planned for Africa, and some commentary about North Korea and Russia -- but not a single word about the savage attack by the police forces of our Iraqi protégé against courageous and completely unarmed Iranian civilians who have dedicated their lives for the last 30 years to the cause of freedom and democracy in their homeland. From the U.S.’s new Ambassador to Baghdad, Christopher Hill, not a word. From the administration’s new Iran specialist on the National Security Council, Ambassador Dennis Ross, not a word.
The official U.S. government reaction -- in the face of massive street protests across Iran after June 2009 presidential elections widely seen as fraudulent -- was to stand by passively, issuing mild expressions of concern about “the violence” as regime thugs clubbed, gassed, knifed, and shot unarmed demonstrators on the streets. Now, again, this administration is showing itself to be an enemy of those who stand for their liberty against the forces of tyranny. Desperate to achieve some kind of negotiations with the mullahs’ regime about its nuclear weapons program, the Obama administration seems not only oblivious to repeated public snubs from Tehran, but blind to the reality that this regime is unraveling before our eyes and has lost all domestic and international legitimacy.
Earlier this month, in yet another demonstration of abasement to the ayatollahs, the U.S. released Qods Force commanders who’d been captured and held in Irbil, Iraq since January 2007, when they were caught red-handed planning, coordinating, and executing attacks with Iranian-trained Shi’ite “Special Groups” terror militias that have killed hundreds of U.S. forces.
This is an administration that simply has no moral compass. Let the world be on notice: the leader of the free world has abdicated and instead now seeks outreach with thugs, terrorists, and rogue regimes around the world.
North Korea lurches toward regime succession by setting off nuclear tests, proliferating nuclear expertise to Syria, and launching missiles in the direction of Japan and Hawaii -- but the Obama administration thinks more economic enticements should turn them right around.
Tiny, brave Honduras defends its constitution by removing a president in league with Venezuelan caudillo Chavez -- and the State Department is now busy revoking its diplomats’ visas.
Oppressed Iranian citizens at last turn against a regime that has tortured and terrorized them for three decades -- and the American president says he’s “appalled and outraged,” but can’t really be sure who actually won those elections. Besides, he still hopes the mullahs will accept his outstretched hand one of these days and sit down to a civilized discussion about why they should end development of nuclear weapons instead of continuing plans to wipe our erstwhile friend and ally Israel off the face of the map.
The United States disarmed the MEK in Camp Ashraf and then promised -- under the Geneva Conventions -- to protect them. Yet we stand by while they are being murdered. How can this be, America?
Ms. Lopez is the Vice President of the Intelligence Summit and a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies.
Thanks General Vallely
Gaza Expulsion 4 Years Later: Families Can't Afford Houses
Hillel Fendel
A7 News
The central ceremony marking the 4th anniversary of the expulsion from Gush Katif and northern Shomron is being held Tuesday evening, near the former main entrance to Gaza. Thousands of people, including many who never lived in any of the 25 destroyed Jewish communities, are expected to be in attendance.
Four years after the Disengagement/expulsion, nearly all of the deported families still do not have permanent housing. Just this very week, groundbreaking began for one of the new towns to be built for the expellees – Mirsham (Neta), between Kiryat Gat and southern Judea.
Similar earthmoving works began in recent months for the expellees from two or three other communities, while hundreds of other displaced residents are not even at that stage. Instead, they continue to live in the hated pre-fab homes known as “caravillas” –2-3 times smaller than the homes some of them built in Gush Katif.
40 Families: We Can No Longer Afford to Build
Ironically, some 40 families say they will not be able afford to move out of the caravillas when the time comes. They have asked to buy the structures from the government and have them moved to the site of their future homes.
The reason for their seemingly strange request is that the compensation money the government gave them has run out, and they now have no money to build a new home. The money was to have been used to fund the construction of their new homes, but unemployment and other expulsion-related expenses, as well as the protracted bureaucracy and uncertainty as to their future housing options led to the gradual erosion of the funds.
The families who have made this request belong to the Bnei Menashe community of Jews who made Aliyah from India some 20 years ago, and moved into N’vei Dekalim, Gush Katif’s largest town.
The caravillas, which were built to last for only ten years, were to have been used for government offices after the expellees moved out. Their cost is estimated at 200,000 shekels each, compared to the estimated three times that amount to build a new home.
“It’s not like we like these caravillas,” said one member of the community, “but just that our money has run out and we simply have no other choice.” The Disengagement Authority says it is looking into the matter.
About the Anniversary Ceremony
Tuesday's anniversary ceremony is not meant only for the expellees, says Rabbi Kobi Borenstein, of the Gush Katif Residents Committee. “We were emissaries and representatives of the entire country,” he told Arutz-7's Hebrew newsmagazine, “and the event is for everyone. Similarly, the responsibility to return to Gush Katif lies upon everyone – and especially during this period, when we see a spirit of weakness and blindness enveloping our political leadership. We must restore the spirit and values on which we were raised in this land.”
Rabbi Borenstein said that the site of the former entrance to Gush Katif is named Kisufim, after the nearby kibbutz with that name: “It is a fitting name, because it means ‘longing.’ We continue to long for every part of the Land of Israel. A flag will be raised at the event, symbolizing our dream for this site to become once again a passageway - and not a dead end.”
Russia-Iran Naval Maneuvers Begin in Caspian Sea
Hana Levi Julian Russia-Iran Naval Drill Starts
Russia is joining up with Iran for joint naval exercises for the first time ever, according to the Iranian Mehr News Agency.
The joint Russian-Iranian naval maneuvers, which were announced Wednesday, are taking place this week in the Caspian Sea. The report, which could not be independently confirmed, quoted a senior Iranian ports authority official who said the drill was aimed at preventing pollution and improving search and rescue operations coordination between the two nations.
However, the maneuver, involving some 30 vessels, is seen by some analysts as a way to join forces against the U.S., which the Asia Times referred to as "the intrusive Western superpower."
Entitled "Regional Collaboration for a Secure and Clean Caspian," the two-day drill quietly combines military objectives with environmental goals. A 1921 Iran-Russia friendship agreement was the legal foundation for the present naval cooperation between the two countries, according to political analyst Kaveh L. Afrasiabi.
Russia has been instrumental in protecting Iran from further sanctions by the United Nations Security Council due to its defiance of a U.N. mandate to end its nuclear development program.
Iran has continued to add uranium enrichment centrifuges and improve its ability to produce nuclear weapons-grade uranium, to the dismay of those hoping to persuade the Islamic Republic through diplomacy to abandon the effort.
Russia has been behind the construction of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, although Russian banks several months ago balked at funding any more of the project. Nevertheless, Russia has sent at least two shipments of nuclear fuel supplies to the facility, which is expected to come on line by the end of the year.
Israel has warned repeatedly that it will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often threatened to annihilate the Jewish State.
Comment: This cooperation does not lend itself to successful sanctions preventing Iran from "getting the bomb".
OC: Ezekiel Emanuel: Doctor Death
Bill Hennessy on July 28, 2009 in Socialized Medicine
Read this paragraph:
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity — those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberation — are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." Those are the words of Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel. Ezekiel is an MD who helped craft the House socialized medicine bill. He is a member of Obama’s inner circle who will likely be the triager-in-chief should the government take over medicine.
This guy is evil incarnate. Shun anything with his name on it. Give this enemy no quarter.
Waterloo Approaching
After Cap and Trade barely passed the House, it appeared Socialized Medicine would follow. It has not, and it looks increasingly like the August recess will come and go before a floor vote. Waterloo, anyone?
We need to make August the hottest month in the political lives of Claire McCaskill, Russ Carnahan, Lacy Clay, and the rest of the Missouri delegation. In our spare time, we need to help our friends across the river in Illinois. Dick Durbin is a lost cause, but our letters, emails, phone calls, and chants might at least give him a really bad complex.
Citizen Guide to Healthcare Bills
Click here for the link. Here are some highlights:
•Page 16: Eliminates the choice to purchase private health insurance!
•Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
•Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
•Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
•Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
•Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
•Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
•Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
•Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
•Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
•Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
•Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
•Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
•Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
•Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
•Page 167: Any individual who doesnt’ have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
•Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
•Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
•Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
•Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
•Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
•Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.
•Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
•Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
•Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
•Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
•Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
•Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
•Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
•Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
•Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
•Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
•Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
•Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
•Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
•Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
•Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death, with mandatory "end of life counselling".
•Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
•Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
•Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
•Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
•Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
•Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
•Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
-----------------------------------
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm
EC:A Minimum Wage Equals Minimum Jobs
John Stossel
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The media are never better at displaying their economic illiteracy than when they report on the minimum wage.
"Workers got a raise on Friday when the federal minimum wage was hiked 70 cents to $7.25 an hour," the Christian Science Monitor reported last week. "They'll be shouting, "Olé!" They assume that if politicians declare that workers should get a raise, they will actually get it. But the idea that government can increase wages by decree with only good consequences rests on a serious economic fallacy: that employers set wages arbitrarily. If wages are very low, it must be that employers are stingy.
Actually, employers are stingy; they want to pay workers as little as possible, just as workers want to be paid as much as possible. But in a market -- even a government-hampered market like ours -- employers' wishes are tempered by the reality of competition. So even if an employer wants to pay workers who produce, say, $4 worth of value an hour only $2 an hour, he won't be able to. Someone else will hire them away for $3 or more.
Some clueless politicians want to "help" workers further by requiring a "living" wage, a minimum well above the national minimum. After all, it's hard to live on $7.50 an hour.
Several years ago, the city council of Santa Monica, Calif., decided to make the town a workers' paradise by passing a union-backed law requiring everyone to be paid at least $12.25 an hour.
At the time, restaurant owner Jeff King complained to me that that law would "dry up the entry-level jobs for just the people they're trying to help."
He was right. It's why gas stations no longer hire teenagers to wash your windshield. Wage minimums tell employers: "Don't give a beginner a chance."
Such losses are hard to see, but they are widespread. One company closes because it can't afford to pay higher wages. Another decides to produce its product with fewer workers, and another never expands. Perhaps most importantly, there's the business that never opens. The people who were never hired don't complain -- they wouldn't know whom to blame -- they don't even know that they were harmed. They are the unseen victims.
The good news is that the people of Santa Monica woke up and overturned the "living wage."
The bad news is that more than a hundred other living-wage ordinances have passed.
In Washington, D.C., companies that get $100,000 or more in government contracts are required to pay employees at least $11.75 per hour. In Manchester, Conn., they must pay at least $14.
If minimum-wage advocates really believe wages are set arbitrarily, why do they favor only a $7.50 or $14 minimum? Why not $100?
At those levels, even a diehard interventionist knows that workers would be hurt. But the principle is the same at lower levels. If wages are a function of productivity, not whim, then it follows that if the minimum wage is set above workers' productivity, those workers -- the intended beneficiaries of the legislation -- will be harmed.
The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again. Well, let me correct that. For some minimum-wage advocates, the bad consequences are not quite unintended. Consider the support for the minimum wage from large companies like Wal-Mart and organized labor. Why do they want the minimum raised? Economist Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University answers, "[T]hese employers will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage because it will raise the costs of their rivals. This is why unions have typically been in favor of the minimum wage even when their own workers make much more than the minimum" ().
Where there's "humanitarian" government intervention, there are politically connected special interests reaping the benefits.
Politicians have tried to defy the market process with minimum-wage and living-wage laws for years. The consequences are never good for the people they claim to want to help. When will we learn what workers need is not meddling politicians but free and competitive markets?
Anyone who truly wants to help workers achieve higher living standards will work to remove all government barriers to peaceful, consensual economic activity.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Exploiting Public Ignorance
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
How can political commentators, politicians and academics get away with statements like "Reagan budget deficits," "Clinton budget surplus," "Bush budget deficits" or "Obama's tax increases"? The only answer is that they, or the people who believe such statements, are ignorant, conniving or just plain stupid. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." A president has no power to raise or lower taxes. He can propose tax measures or veto them but since Congress can ignore presidential proposals and override a presidential veto, it has the ultimate taxing power. The same principle applies to spending. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. As such, presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. That means that credit for a budget surplus or blame for budget deficits rests on the congressional majority at the time.
Thinking about today's massive deficits, we might ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy? Between 1787 and 1930, we have had both mild and severe economic downturns that have ranged from one to seven years. During that time there was no thought that Congress should enact New Deal legislation or stimulus packages along with massive corporate handouts. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively intervene in the economy. As a result, they turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into a 16-year depression that ended in 1946. How they accomplished that is covered very well in a book authored by Jim Powell titled "FDR's Folly." Here's my question: Were the presidents in office and congresses assembled from 1787 to 1930 ignorant of their constitutional authority to manage and save the economy?
If you asked President Obama or a congressman to cite the specific constitutional authority for the bailouts, handouts and corporate takeover, I'd bet the rent money that they would say that their authority lies in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that reads: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost, Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." They'd tell you that their authority comes from the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. James Madison, the father of our constitution, explained, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." He later added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." That means only those powers listed.
The Constitution provides, through Article V, a means by which the Constitution can be altered. My question to my fellow Americans whether they are liberal or conservative: Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to manage the economy? I'd also ask that question to members of the U.S. Supreme Court. I personally know of no such amendment. What we're witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery. Secure in the knowledge that the American people are compliant and willing to cast off the limitations imposed on Washington by the nation's founders, future administrations are probably going to be even more emboldened than Obama and the current Congress.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Make or Break
Iranian Diplomacy
http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/index.php?Lang=en&Page=21&TypeId=12&ArticleId=5250&BranchId=31&Action=ArticleBodyView
Recent weeks have become so replete with striking political episodes that newspapers can even design a new column to report on daily political events and forecast next day’s developments. At present, the two political camps are overstraining to overcome the other and amid their struggle, Hashemi Rafsanjani is under pressure more than any other figure.
Since Rafsanjani’s historic sermon in Friday prayers, the political fissure has moved into a new foggy phase which adds to concerns. Even Iranian intellectuals can not give a clear picture of the future that awaits the Iranian society. Continued schism among they Iranian society and statesmen defies any sort of prediction. The schism has impelled well-known, rational figures of the Islamic Republic to direct a great portion their efforts towards ridding of the current situation and regaining public trust in order to stand against foreign pressures.
After Rafsanjani’s speech, which received a flood of comments and analyses even continuing up to the present day, the opposite camp has come out with a new card to turn the tables and corner the powerful cleric. Releasing a meaningful letter, a group of Assembly of Experts members have tried to counter his efforts. Their letter has called Rafsanjani to accept the result of elections and abide by Supreme Leader’s ’final word’.
The letter, although not as weighty as Rafsanjani’s sermon in 17th of July, is another step in a project which intends to defame –or better say, oust- Rafsanjani from power circles. But this time his opponent clerics in the assembly have been nominated for the attack.
It seems that both the past and the future of Iran’s politics are in hands of the Assembly of Experts. The letter released by anti-Rafsanjani clerics showed that theoretical and practical schisms in Iran’s political stage have become so deep that even bending down and taking a look seems like a daring experience.
Now we can talk with confidence about the effect of Rafsanjani’s visits to Qom and Mashhad during the past weeks. Fierce criticisms pointed at Hashemi Rafsanjani by some pro-Ahmadinejad clerics, culminating in their latest letter as members of the Assembly of Experts, signifies the impact of Rafsanjani’s negotiations with influential clerics and religious leaders who are also worried about the future of the country and the Islamic establishment.
Up to his Friday prayers speech, the general belief was that with successive political beatings, Rafsanjani would show no overt reaction to the results of tenth presidential election. However, the course of events showed that even Ahmadinejad’s presidency is not the last wish for some power circles, and it was Rafsanjani’s mindset which should be obliterated from political structures. That was when the aged cleric decided to break his silence, come to the front line in support of people and lead their protests.
Of course, Rafsanjani knows better than anyone else that despite bringing relative balance to the political struggle, his appearance in the vanguard has brought him closer and closer to danger. Hashemi is now completely on target, even more than late 1990s during reformists’ anti-Rafsanjani campaigns. But this time his marginalization may be tantamount to the death of a political current, at least for long years.
For some years a group of political analysts believed that Hashemi Rafsanjani is planning a power transition to discharge the Supreme Leader from his powers. However, it seems that the scenario is enacted against no one but Hashemi himself and his position appears shakier than ever.
Joining the group who object election results, Hashemi has tied his future to the future of protestors and now, whatever their destiny, Hashemi has to wait for the same. And let’s not forget that the opposition of the ruling coterie to reformists such as Khatami, Musavi and Karrubi is in fact their opposition to Hashemi’s tradition.
Hashemi is a determining factor whose absence or presence will have significant impacts on Iran’s political structure. While he is under crushing pressure to retract his remarks, he knows well that a moment of compromise and withdrawal equals entering the land of no return.
Without wanting to give an apocalyptic interpretation of the recent developments, we have to say that Iran’s political stage has now turned into a chessboard. Both whites and blacks have valuable men but the result of the game is determined by their most powerful ones. A relative balance is now dominating the game, but game reading power and promptness can determine the ultimate winner.
Hashemi upped the ante with his July 17th speech and visit to Mashhad. His moves were responded with a letter, a check which may receive no response until the day of inauguration. But checkmate seems to be far from close.
Comment: Given my lack of faith in the USA government's strategy with Iran, I wonder what our tactics will be with Iran. Perhaps, this is why Clinton urged Israel to be patient when it comes to Iran.
Is it the health care system that is broken?
GS Don Morris,Ph.D.
What precisely is wrong with the USA healthcare system? I ask this question given the over stimulation by all media forms during the past several weeks. No doubt it is a complex issue and any attempt to ask some fundamental questions might be viewed as naïve. Setting this aside allow me to ask a few questions so the “experts” can provide the answers
First focus is upon the nature of the actual health care. Seems to me that the quality of the care is considered among the best in the world. OK then what about the availability of the care to Americans? Well, this depends upon with whom you speak-the numbers provided seem to vary depending upon one’s political party. Using US Census Department information I found the following most curious given the reports in our media today:
The number of uninsured children declined from 8.7 million (11.7 percent) in 2006 to 8.1 million (11.0 percent) in 2007.
I did not locate any more current data. This notion of insurance availability does shift given race, nativity, and geographic region in the USA and by states. Again, the Census data was interesting:
• Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased in 2007. The percentage without health insurance was 15.3 percent in 2007, down from 15.8 percent in 2006, and the number of uninsured was 45.7 million, down from 47.0 million. 1
• The number of people with health insurance increased to 253.4 million in 2007 (up from 249.8 million in 2006). The number of people covered by private health insurance (202.0 million) in 2007 was not statistically different from 2006, while the number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 83.0 million, up from 80.3 million in 2006.
• The percentage of people covered by private health insurance was 67.5 percent, down from 67.9 percent in 2006. The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 59.3 in 2007 from 59.7 percent in 2006. The number of people covered by employment-based health insurance, 177.4 million, was not statistically different from 2006.
• The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs increased to 27.8 percent in 2007, from 27.0 percent in 2006. The percentage and number of people covered by Medicaid increased to 13.2 percent and 39.6 million in 2007, up from 12.9 percent and 38.3 million in 2006.
• In 2007, the percentage and number of children under 18 years old without health insurance were 11.0 percent and 8.1 million, lower than they were in 2006—11.7 percent and 8.7 million. Although the uninsured rate for children in poverty decreased to 17.6 percent in 2007, from 19.3 percent in 2006, children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than all children.2
• The uninsured rate and number of uninsured for non-Hispanic Whites decreased in 2007 to 10.4 percent and 20.5 million (from 10.8 percent and 21.2 million in 2006). The uninsured rate for Blacks decreased to 19.5 percent in 2007 from 20.5 percent in 2006. The number of uninsured Blacks in 2007 was not statistically different from 2006, at 7.4 million.
• The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics were 32.1 percent and 14.8 million in 2007, lower than 34.1 percent and 15.3 million in 2006.
You are correct, so many numbers to digest-so what to make of these them? I suspect that since this census data the numbers might be different and those who want to dismiss this piece will gleefully point this out. What I do notice is the arguments against our current system began nearly 2 years ago-dire descriptions and predictions. We all remember the ads and the news stories. Thus the preceding numbers must have been the ones used-correct?
Appears that nearly 7 out of 10 Americans had health insurance that in turn enabled them to participate in our quality care system. I noticed also that in many segments of the population the trending toward more people having said insurance was occurring-not all but many populations. Also note that these data do not describe the numbers of Americans and non-American citizens able to tap into Medi-Care. I also know that it is State and Federal law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone who shows up in the emergency room, regardless of the patient's citizenship status or ability to pay. Regrettably I have been to my local Emergency Room on three different occasions in the past 2 years. My analysis: those without health insurance are served for even the simplest of ailments such as the common cold. Our ER’s have become “health clinics”.
It is incorrect and disingenuous for anyone to say peoples are unable to avail themselves of health treatments! You want to discuss location of those services-OK, for another piece. You want to discuss management of individual delivery systems-OK-for another piece. However, to use as the fundamental argument that Americans cannot and thus do not have access due to insurance availability or Federally required mandates is a misrepresentation of the facts, i.e., lie.
Given that those nearly 70% of Americans who still have health coverage indicated recently that they really do like their coverage what’s the pointing “fixing” a non-existent problem? The current approaches being developed do not represent the CHANGE most Americans voted for and any good leader listens to his people!
What to do? First, correctly identify the problems. Second, exhaust all of the possibilities to resolve the problem. Third, identify the support system(s) necessary to engage the solution(s). In other words, think outside the proverbial box, include individuals with expertise in said support systems (this means outside the beltway folks) all of which takes time. We arrived here after decades of neglect; to satisfy a political appetite by hastening bills through is similar to eating a huge meal in 5 minutes-the result is unbelievable heartburn and pain.
Let me examine one component of ”The System” that needs reconsideration-reduction of actual health costs. Aside from tort reform (we all know the reasons for this) provide incentives for doctors to perform more pro-bono work. For X amount of such service, their capital gains tax is reduced by 2%, 5%, up to 10% each year. A simple reporting system is easily developed modeled after other professions. This will increase the voluntary service delivery negating state and federal charge-back expenses incurred by hospitals and physicians alike. Put capitalism principles in play, humans are motivated to perform when they are used-this is a fact of life. Our society requires our population to work and to earn our way to success. Intuitively we know this to be true. Have you noticed what happens to a child’s and/or teenager’s motivation to perform if every thing is given and nothing is earned? Without a challenge these individuals emerge into an adult who is far less productive than counter parts who have earned their way in life. These individuals grow up to become the “entitled ones”. The path to positive self is through earned accomplishment. Rewarded challenge has produced the best health care services in the world, right here in America. Let’s get busy and do the correct thing-analyze and strategize beyond the beltway kind of thinking-our very future depends upon us doing the difficult things in life.
House Dems Carry Islamists' Water
Steven Emerson
IPT News
July 28, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1105/house-dems-carry-islamists-water
Seven House Democrats have written Attorney General Eric Holder invoking a list of grievances from radical Islamist groups and asking that Holder meet with representatives from those groups to hear their concerns, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned. The grievances include the use of convicted felons as informants in mosques, alleged religious profiling of Somali Muslims in Minnesota and elsewhere and allegations that the FBI is working with foreign governments to question American citizens who are terror suspects. In the letter, the representatives said:
"These concerns raise legitimate questions about due process, justice, and equal treatment under the law. We hope you will meet with American Muslim leaders to ensure that core American values are respected for all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, or faith. For your convenience, we have attached a contact list of American Muslim leaders."
These issues have been pushed by radical Islamist groups for months. The letter's close tracking of the interest groups' positions indicates that their officials dictated its terms for the members of Congress to sign. In fact, the nine entities all are listed in exactly the same sequence in this release from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The April 2009 release also cites two of the same issues as in the letter to Holder.
The letter was signed by California representatives Loretta Sanchez, Adam Schiff, Mike Honda and Lois Capps, along with Ohio representatives Mary Jo Kilroy and Dennis Kucinich. Northern Virginia Congressman James Moran joined the group. Moran serves on the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee on defense. Schiff and Honda serve on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. Kilroy sits on the House Homeland Security Committee.
Schiff also serves on the House Judiciary Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Many of the groups listed for Holder to meet have radical histories and agendas. For example, the Islamic Circle of North America adheres to similar ideology as the Jamaat-i-Islami, which calls for Islamic revolution and creating an Islamist state in Pakistan. In the U.S., ICNA aggressively proselytizes among non-Muslims. The Muslim Public Affairs Council argues that Hizballah should not be a designated terrorist organization.
Three other groups listed for contact have direct roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, an international movement based in Egypt which seeks the creation of a global Islamic state, or Caliphate. Those groups include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Students Association, the Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation, which is run by a convicted felon and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Prosecutors included CAIR on a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and development, considered the nation's largest terrorism-finance case. FBI case Agent Lara Burns labeled CAIR a front group for Hamas during sworn testimony last fall.
While CAIR claims to condemn terrorist attacks, it has not been able to specifically condemn Hamas suicide bombings or Hizballah bombings of civilian communities In a 2000 interview with Al Jazeera (translation here), CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad defiantly refused to criticize Hamas or Hizballah:
"We do not condemn nor will we condemn any liberation movement inside Palestine, or inside Lebanon. If they want us to condemn a liberation movement inside Palestine, or Lebanon, they must condemn Israel dozens of times at all levels at all times. We will not condemn any organization. We are not under anyone's hammer. We are in the country of freedom. Why should we renounce principles?"
This is the leadership Holder is asked to meet. As reporter Mary Jacoby recently noted (free registration required):
CAIR "has been working to stoke tensions in local Muslim communities over FBI investigative tactics. CAIR is angry at the FBI, because the bureau embarrassed it. How? By cutting off contacts with CAIR's national leadership last year. Why did the bureau do that? Because evidence in a major terrorism-support prosecution in Texas showed CAIR's origins as a propaganda arm of Hamas."
Indeed, a letter from an FBI congressional liaison states that the Bureau can't rule out an ongoing "connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS" and would cut off outreach communication with the group until it can.
Letters like the Democrats' letter to Holder representing constituents' concerns are not unusual and are "part of the propaganda war that goes on beneath the surface all the time and part of their efforts to undermine law enforcement," said Bob Blitzer, who led the FBI's domestic terrorism section in the 1990s. He said he encountered "a couple hundred" letters of this nature during his career. Each is handled seriously because members of Congress signed the letters.
Many of the representatives who signed this letter have a history of supporting CAIR. For example, Kucinich sent a video message praising the organization to the CAIR-Chicago 4th Annual Banquet on February 23, 2008:
"As the Council on American-Islamic Relations meets I want to pledge to you. I continue to pledge for your efforts to make sure that the powerful message of Islam, a message of peace and reconciliation reverberates. I want to make sure that you know that you have a friend in the United States Congress."
Sanchez has repeatedly attended annual CAIR banquets in Anaheim. Likewise, Honda spoke at CAIR's 2006 national banquet in Virginia, where called his hosts "the civil rights group that will speak on behalf of the community." Capps is included on a page of laudatory statements about CAIR, saying "I applaud CAIR for its important role in advocating for civil liberties, enhancing the understanding of Islam, and condemning acts of terrorism."
Moran is included on the same page, saying "It is through the activities of groups like CAIR that cooperation—rather than competition—between the various faiths can be achieved." Honda is quoted saying "CAIR's commitment to social justice and civil rights for all Americans will help our country to ensure that respect and tolerance exists for people of all religions and ethnicities."
In their letter, the representatives accept the claims of defendants in two criminal cases unqustioningly, despite sworn testimony to the contrary.
In Irvine, Cal., Ahmadullah Niazi, has been indicted on immigration charges. His brother-in-law has served as Osama bin Laden's security coordinator and Niazi is accused of lying about communication with him and a visit to Pakistan to see him. He also told an FBI informant that he considered bin Laden to be "an angel" and repeatedly discussed bombing buildings in California.
Niazi's supporters say he was entrapped by an agent provocateur and emphasize the informant's criminal record for forgery. They point out that Niazi even went to authorities in 2007 to report that the informant was discussing terrorist plots. In sworn testimony during Niazi's bond hearing in February, FBI agent Thomas Ropel III said Niazi went to authorities only after learning of a separate terror-indictment involving an informant and collaborated with CAIR official Hussam Ayloush to accuse the informant of being the terrorist.
Niazi then lied repeatedly about his conversations with the informant. For example, Niazi claimed that he and the informant had discussed jihad once or twice, when agents already possessed "at least 15 to 20 such conversations."
The following exchange took place between Ropel and Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato:
Agent Ropel: "We had discussed conducting terrorist attacks and blowing up buildings. We had discussed Mr. Niazi or anybody talking about sending money overseas and Mr. Niazi said none of those things were ever discussed between himself and this individual. And we had personally listened to recordings in which Mr. Niazi had instigated these conversations with that individual."
Judge: "He instigated the conversations?"
Agent Ropel: "Yes, Mr. Niazi did, specifically regarding these statements."
Another case involving informants four New York men were arrested after planting what the defendants thought were bombs outside New York synagogues. Their indictment alleges they also wanted to shoot down U.S. military planes.
The informant issue raised in the letter isn't expected to generate much excitement. It is "normal" to see informants in criminal investigations have felony records of their own, said Barry Sabin, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division.
There are guidelines and layers of supervision to ensure the sending informants into houses of worship are necessary investigative steps. That's a point FBI Director Robert Mueller made in testimony March 25 before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"I will say that we do not focus on institutions, we focus on individuals. And I will say generally if there is evidence or information as to individual or individuals undertaking illegal activities in religious institutions, with appropriate high-level approval, we would undertake investigative activities, regardless of the religion." [Emphasis added]
In Minneapolis, CAIR has complained of religious profiling in the investigation and urged people not to meet with the FBI without an attorney present. This has triggered a backlash from some members of the Minneapolis Somali community, who have repeatedly demonstrated against CAIR for, in their view, hindering law enforcement efforts to stop the recruitment of young men to return to the African nation to engage in jihad. At least 20 young men are believed to have traveled from Minneapolis to Somalia in the past year, with one killing himself in a suicide bombing attack. Three other young men from Minneapolis have been shot and killed in Somalia in the past two months.
Two men have been indicted in connection with facilitating travel for the young men to Somalia, where they were to join up with the al-Shabab terrorist group.
These are among the grievances for which Holder is being asked to devote his attention. That the representatives would accept at face value the claims of an organization the FBI has concluded is not "an appropriate liaison partner" is disturbing. CAIR has documented roots in a U.S-based Hamas support network. Among secretly recorded wiretaps in evidence in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development are conversations including two CAIR founders about deceiving Americans about their political ambitions and the outright declaration that "war is deception."
Before carrying their water again, the politicians may wish to find out whether the war ended.
Myth of Palestinian unity
Palestinian public epitomizes divided society shackled by factionalism
Moshe Elad
YNET News
A few days ago, official Egyptian sources rushed to announce that August 25th, 2009 will be “Palestinian Unity Day.” A reminder to those who forgot: Representatives of the various Palestinian factions have been in Cairo for long months (and maybe years,) alongside Egyptian mediators, but are having trouble signing a basic memorandum of understandings that would eventually prompt the formation of a “Palestinian national unity government.”The Egyptians, with American assistance, tried almost everything in order to secure this end result. American and European pressure was exerted on Israel on various issues, mostly in respect to the outposts and settlements; generous aid packages were promised, including a multi-million grant earmarked for “rehabilitating Gaza,” with an explicit obligation to provide an unprecedented sum of money to be deposited in a joint account…yet the prospect of a unity government keeps on distancing.
There is no doubt that the dramatic Egyptian announcement regarding the seeming “closing of ranks” within Palestinian society is mostly a desired outcome and expression of hope, or even a transparent media spin that aims to atone for longtime frustration, more than it is a fact or the realization of a vision.
We should recall that representatives of the greatest Arab power, topped by Intelligence Minister Omar Suleiman, are perceived as a paper tiger in the Arab world. Their repeated failures to secure compromises between two marginal Arab groups, Fatah and Hamas, are met with a disparaging response. “What happened to the great Egypt?” the Arabs ask. “Can’t a lion facilitate reconciliation between two foxes?”
It would be good for the Egyptians, as well as for those who promote “Palestinian unity” – the Europeans and Americans – to realize that their current efforts are doomed for failure. The notion of Palestinian unity is largely a paradox. The Palestinian public was never cohesive and united, and there is great doubt in respect to the prospect of future unity.
In the past 100 years, this public was the epitome of a split and divided society that has trouble giving rise to leadership accepted by all factions. For that reason, this society has entrusted its fate in the hands of foreign elements and encouraged foreign intervention, instead of taking the reins.
Sign of upcoming upheaval
Historians who research Palestinian society tend to point to this public as a classic example of separatism and factionalism that prevent any genuine possibility of manifesting national aspirations, including the desire for independence. Even Arab and Palestinian researchers expressed public reservations over the well-renowned Palestinian “sense of family” and “tribalism,” which averted the possibility of getting rid of foreign occupiers such as the Ottoman, British, and Jordanian administration, instead serving them as submissive slaves.
At their time of distress, and in the framework of their ceaseless efforts to prove to the US and Europe that despite all the grim predictions there is Palestinian hope, Mahmoud Abbas’ people are pointing to August 4th, the date of the upcoming Fatah convention, as a decisive date. “The Fatah and only the Fatah will decide whether we’ll be going for unity,” say the followers of the secular-nationalist camp. “Hamas will not thwart unity,” Khaled Mashaal rushes to declare from Damascus. Cynics in the territories are saying that this time we may see peace secured between the settlers and Hamas, but never between Fatah and Hamas. The division resonating in the declarations of both sides is already outlining the next collision course.
The recent attack carried out by Hamas during the wedding of the Fatah’s Dahlan family in Gaza is merely the first indication of the upcoming upheaval. The vendetta for the massacre of June 2007 in Gaza will come, Fatah members threaten.
Some will say that Palestinian factionalism in this decade is manifested through the ideological clash between the secular-nationalist camp and the religious-fundamentalist camp (Fatah-Hamas.) Indeed, this is the openly visible rivalry. Yet the backdrop for the hidden and real conflict is a little harder to identify; that is, the conflict over the core issues.
The true confrontation is over what should be the top issue on the national agenda: The right of return, or the need to cling to the land. That is, it pits those who demand the removal of settlements and the retaking of that land against those who demand a return to the Israeli homes they were expelled or fled from.
And for those who wonder why the Americans show such great insistence on placing the removal of outpost and a settlement freeze at the top of their demands from Israel, the explanation is simple: The practical expression of the focus on clinging to the land is the outposts and settlements. And so, Obama has already decided – he will not pressure Israel on the issue of the right of return, but the Israelis will pay for this with giving up their insistence to cling to the land, that is, the settlements.
Israeli agreement to this will keep Obama satisfied. However, again we will only see half the Palestinian public accept this approach.
Colonel (res.) Moshe Elad served in various senior posts in the territories. At this time he serves as a lecturer at the Western Galilee Academic College
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Lebanese army on the ready for "any Israeli action"
July 28, 2009, 6:13 PM (GMT+02:00)
DEBKAfile's military sources report new tensions on the Lebanese Israeli border Tuesday, July 28.
The Lebanese army has placed troops on alert and sent armored forces to the border region to meet any "Israeli action" after Israeli's chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazy denied seeing "war clouds in the north." He added that the IDF was keeping watch on the situation. The army chief was responding to Lebanese media reports of Israeli military movements in the border region, including four Chariot tanks claimed to have moved out of their position in the highlands of Arqoub (Mt. Dov) toward the Kfarshouba military observation post.
On July 17, a crowd of Lebanese led by a Hizballah lawmaker crossed the border, seized this Israeli outpost and hoisted flags there before UN peacekeepers ordered them to leave.
Lebanese sources also reported Israeli Air Force planes hovering over Kfar Shouba, then turning west to fly over Hasbaya, the Western Beqaa Valley, Tufah and Marjayoun in southern Lebanon.
Israel, so much more attention to PR is required!
In the Line of Verbal Fire
Anav Silverman
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Pro-Palestinian group visits Sderot.
I recently had my second opportunity in Sderot to host a group from the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). EAPPI is a program supported and funded by the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, a major supporter of the anti-Israel divestment campaign.
According to NGO Monitor, EAPPI policies reflect a radically pro-Palestinian agenda, presenting a biased Palestinian narrative and failing to make any mention of Palestinian terror or the human rights of Israelis. In fact, the principal agenda of EAPPI includes the Ecumenical Campaign to End the Illegal Occupation of Palestine. Since the EAPPI program was launched in August 2002, 198 activists have participated from more than 30 churches and ecumenical partners in 12 countries. According to NGO Monitor most of these activists, upon returning to their home countries, become active in anti-Israel campaigns.
In other words, this was not going to be an easy tour. Usually, visitors to Sderot express sympathy, sometimes horror to the plight of Sderot residents living under the terror of rocket fire for almost a decade.
But left-wing and pro-Palestinian groups who have previously visited with Sderot Media Center have always surprised me with their almost indifferent reactions to the suffering of Israelis in Sderot and opinionated comments on why Sderot residents are targeted by rockets.
Therefore, the verbal line of fire that would follow from this EAPPI group did not catch me by surprise. In fact, I expected no less from this nice group of people, mostly Europeans, which included college students, journalists and senior citizens, all gathered together on a sweltering Tuesday afternoon to impart some of their wisdom to me.
The tour began at the Sderot police station, where hundreds of rockets were on display including the May 19 rocket that struck in the heart of a Sderot residential neighborhood, damaging two homes, injuring two people, and sending eight others into shock.
The first question that was asked of me and repeated throughout the tour was—What percentage of Sderot residents were in favor of the war in Gaza?
Each time the question was asked, those in the group carrying pens and notebooks were poised to write down the answer. Other questions also followed—Do Sderot residents understand why they are in the line of fire? How do the people of Sderot feel about the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza? Do you feel the war was successful? And so on.
Keep in mind that these questions were asked as we were surrounded by visible signs of a city preparing for future rocket strikes. As we passed by Sderot homes with newly built bomb-shelters outside, and stood in Sderot’s ‘rocket-proof’ playground complete with concrete caterpillars that children run into when the siren blares, the aggressive questioning continued.
I emphasized that Sderot residents were in favor of stopping rockets from continuing to devastate their homes and community--that Sderot children did not hate Palestinian children--that no Israeli wanted innocent Palestinian civilians harmed in the war. And that if I was in Gaza, I would be telling the EAPPI group the human story there.
The group calmed down after I made the last statement. But I also told them to keep in mind that there was another narrative to the Middle East conflict and Sderot was at the center of it. “Sderot residents place full responsibility on the Hamas regime. Since the radical Islamic organization came into power, over 7, 000 rockets have been fired at southern Israel, injuring and psychologically traumatizing thousands.”
But that was a little too much. “It’s not Hamas’s fault,” one elderly lady from England angrily told me. “Then are you simply blaming Israel for all this?” I asked her.
The blame game is an easy game to play for those who are led to believe that Israel lies at the root of the conflict and remains the primary reason for Palestinian suffering.
When I led the EAPPI group around Sderot, I understood that I was speaking to average everyday people who have been presented with a very one-sided view of the Arab-Israeli conflict—so one-sided that it was difficult for most of them to recognize Israel’s right to exist and defend, even when standing right in the heart of a city targeted by unrelenting rocket terror.
I knew what this group believed—that the rockets fired on Israeli civilians were a primitive means of resisting Israeli occupation—although there is no Israeli presence in Gaza. The EAPPI personnel constantly compared the number of Gazans killed to the number of Israelis killed in the war. But this comparison did not faze me.
As a part-time resident of Sderot, I know that the suffering that Israelis here have been forced to endure under the terror of rocket explosions and siren alarms is cruel and intolerable—and had to end.
And when one young Swedish student came up to me at the end and told me frankly that in his college studies he had always been taught the Palestinian side and then thanked me for sharing Sderot’s story, I knew that the tour had made some kind of impact on the group.
However, the greater point of dispute lies in the goal behind EAPPI and the World Council of Churches. According to the EAPPI website, the NGO was launched to end the illegal occupation of Palestine and support a just peace in the Middle East. Does EAPPI believe that a just peace entails a Jewish state of Israel who has every democratic right to protect and defend her citizens? It appears not.
Anav Silverman is a correspondent for the Sderot Media Center in Sderot.
What Happened to Our Postracial President?
Obama has unwittingly made his real beliefs clear.
By Victor Davis Hanson
NRO
From time to time, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas have naturally talked about growing up African-American under far less tolerant conditions than those we take for granted today. Yet their biggest contributions to American race relations have been their admirable abilities to transcend such racial intolerance — to make being black incidental, not essential, at least in public, to their sterling characters and impressive achievements. They all paid a price for emphasizing individuality rather than adhering to identity politics. Those on the left often criticized them as somehow inauthentic, or not fully representative of the “real” black experience. Indeed, one of weirdest paradoxes of contemporary culture has been the tendency of wealthy white liberals to adjudicate who really speaks for the so-called African-American community — based on an authenticity that is often, in ironic fashion, based on the degree of perceived hostility to whites themselves.
Then came Barack Obama, and the nation as a whole entered an even stranger racial landscape. Unlike Powell, Rice, or Thomas, Obama was not born into, but rather piggy-backed onto, the African-American experience. He came of age well after the South’s oppressive Jim Crow culture began to wane. He grew up in a multiracial Hawaii that was always somewhat more relaxed, and was exempt from the tensions inside the continental United States. Obama was of half-white ancestry, and raised by white grandparents. Finally, Obama’s father was a Kenyan national and Muslim, not a descendant of American slaves, and so he lacked an African-American pedigree altogether. In other words, as Obama himself often insisted, our new president was in a way reminiscent of Tiger Woods: postracial — black, white, a little bit of everything, but beyond divisive self-identification with any one particular group or tribe.
Yet somehow one Barry Dunham/Obama — after Occidental, Columbia, Harvard, Chicago organizing, and the Reverend Wright’s Trinity Church — morphed into an authentic voice of the African-American collective experience. The rest is history. A black politician who once struggled to establish African-American credentials has now become our collective arbiter of race in a way former African-American national figures could hardly imagine.
Whether due to the utility of identity politics or simply to his own comfort with racial emphases, Obama has highlighted, rather than downplayed, his own mixed heritage in efforts to accentuate an African-American identity. We saw that in the Democratic primary, when his support from the black community was not at a mere 60/40 majority, or 70/30, but more often an astounding 95/5. His continued apologies for the racist Reverend Wright were as sincere as they were suicidal — until Wright’s increasingly lunatic racism was too overt to be any longer defended by a serious candidate for the presidency.
From time to time, a voice of near-antipathy in Obama erupted, as in his infamous “clingers” speech about the lower-middle-class supposed know-nothings of Pennsylvania, or in his dismissal of the grandmother who raised him as a “typical white person.” Before Michelle Obama grew silent, she managed to tell America that it was a “downright mean” country, where the bar was raised serially even on those as wealthy and privileged as the Obamas, and that, prior to her husband’s presidential campaign, she had not been especially proud of the United States — amplification of long-held views that can be seen as early as her Princeton undergraduate thesis.
No matter. The media and the liberal elite ignored these telltale signs, and instead were eager to accept the implicit pact that the soothing racial healer Barack Obama offered them. It was an unspoken understanding that might be paraphrased as something along the following lines: “Vote for me and I will offer you instant exemption from all prior racial guilt — and yet allow you to live your rather secluded lives as usual.”
In other words, the endowed professor, the corporate attorney, the green CEO, the endowment officer, and the high-school teacher could all continue to live in safe and separate neighborhoods, ensure their children went to mostly white and Asian schools (whether elite public or private), and through taxes for entitlements and abstract support for affirmative action still feel they were doing a great deal for race relations. As they saw it, they elected one comfortable and hip Barack Obama as their president — without living among, going to school with, or working alongside the Other.
But nemesis is not so understanding; it demands more of us than such cheap bromides. And Barack Obama’s prior racialism, as evidenced by two decades of attendance in, and subsidies to, the Reverend Wright’s racist church, leaves indelible scars. And so to paraphrase the reverend, the chickens are now coming home to roost for America.
The president’s apologies abroad focused on supposed American felonies, from slavery to the conquest of Native America to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Since there were many such lamentations, and they were not balanced by citing the gallantry of Shiloh or Gettysburg in ending slavery, or Guadalcanal to stop Japanese brutality, or Chosin to save South Korea, the impression was left that Barack Obama sees America quite differently from many, if not most, of its citizens — who understand our own sins as those shared with mankind, but our singular efforts at correcting them as unmatched abroad.
The Cairo speech was full of historical falsehoods, and a textbook example of moral equivalence, as Islamic felonies were juxtaposed alongside American misdemeanors in the fashion of the Platonic “noble lie.” Time and time again, in both implicit and explicit fashion, our president has made it clear that he does not believe in American exceptionalism — despite assuming quite an exceptional pulpit to weigh in on global matters.
Then we learned that Obama was not terribly disturbed to hear that his attorney general had lambasted the American people as “cowards” for not engaging in yet more national conversations on race — which in the past have not proven to be honest and painful discussions that touched on black responsibilities as well as civil rights. He tsk-tsked Judge Sotomayor’s racialist comments about the innate superiority of Latina judges over their white counterparts — although the unfortunate remark occurred at least five times, in both written and oral contexts, and was part of a brief speech in which she managed to reference herself as a Latina/Latino dozens of times.
Now President Obama has passed judgment on the Professor Gates tragicomedy by deriding the Cambridge police force for acting “stupidly” in arresting and then releasing his friend. It mattered little that Obama, the Harvard Law graduate, knew nothing about the details of the case. A picture taken at the scene, and eyewitness accounts of bystanders — and who knows what the yet-unreleased transcript of the recorded exchange with Professor Gates could reveal — all seemed to suggest that Gates overreacted to a legitimate request for an ID. Americans, white and black, may lament someone being arrested in his own house, but they also do not think it a wise idea to insult and ridicule armed police arriving at their homes after being summoned to an apparent burglary in progress.
Indeed, if anyone evoked race and profiled one by race, it was more likely the professor of race studies than the police. And for all the president’s referencing of the old standby toss-off line that minorities are disproportionately stopped by police, the nation was hardly likely to think that Gates — as one of the country’s highest-paid professors in the humanities, and as a personal friend to the African-American mayor of Cambridge, governor of Massachusetts, and president of the United States — was being railroaded.
In the jargon of postmodernism, the president asserted one racial narrative as truth, while most of multiracial America accepted quite another: that Professor’s Gates’s contacts and friendships gave him privileged treatment not accorded to others who scream and blow up at policemen, and that minority males are indeed tragically disproportionately stopped by police because they also, tragically, are more likely to commit felonies. The president’s ossified remark ignored real efforts on the part of police departments to hire African-American officers and chiefs, engage community leaders, and train police in racial sensitivity — all the while dealing with the fact that African-American males commit violent felonies in numbers that vastly exceed their presence in the general population.
None of us gets a pass once we evoke racial identity, not even the president of the United States, not even one of mixed racial heritage. Once we go down that road of racial self-aggrandizement, of seeing each other not by the content of our characters, but by the color of our skins, we invite nemesis — and there will be retribution. Because Barack Obama has consistently emphasized racial identity to further his own advantage, I fear others, both black and white, will be emboldened to follow his polarizing lead — in ways both novel and far more pernicious. We once trusted our uniquely qualified president to help lead us out of our racial morass, but so far he has only pushed us far deeper into it.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. © 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZTRlNDM5YTIxMGUzMjdiM2I5MWFjZDAzZTM3Nzg5N2U
Muslim-Coptic Ties Not Satisfactory - Coptic Pope
Mohammed Abdul-Raouf
Asharq Alawsat
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Pope Shenouda III, the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt, believes that there is no common solution to sectarian problems that arise from time to time in Egypt.“Every problem should be tackled in its own context and [according to] the environment in which it emerged and should be tackled by all relevant parties,” he said.
In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Pope Shenouda said, “With regards to sectarian problems, there is only a role for security forces whilst MPs and municipal councils are absent. After the security forces get involved, religious institutions also intervene in support of the security solution. After that, we attack religious figures and accuse them of being political.”
The Pope denied that these were isolated incidents saying, “If isolated incidents are happening again and again they cannot be described as isolated incidents.” He also expressed that not all problems are dealt with objectively; however he refused to name any parties that he believes are not impartial.
The Pope stated that Muslim-Coptic ties in general in Egypt are not satisfactory. “The Sheikh of Al Azhar is a good, merciful man and we have a good friendship and we meet on various occasions. But this does not necessarily mean that there is a good relationship between Muslims and Copts as well.”
Sectarian clashes between Muslims and Copts break out from time to time in different parts of the country. The most recent conflict took place a few days ago in Al Minya (240km south of Cairo) after a number of Coptic Christians from one village tried to turn one of the houses into a church where they could perform their religious practices.
“There can be a good friendship and good ties between Muslims and Copts but when it comes to voting in elections, a Muslim will not vote for a Coptic candidate,” said Pope Shenouda who added that this is a new issue. “In the Egyptian Lawyers’ Syndicate, Makram Pasha Ebeid, a Copt, headed the Syndicate, and then it became customary that the representative would be a Copt. Then Coptic representation completely disappeared from Syndicates’ administrative board.” He added, “Coptic candidates were elected by Muslim voters, so what happened?” Pope Shenouda believes that the Coptic role in elections has weakened.
In reference to the controversy among opposition circles regarding the upcoming presidential elections, Pope Shenouda said, “I do not think that there will be a [power] bequeathal. It is efficiency and legal principles alone that will determine the election of the next president. If a person considers himself competent he can nominate himself, and whoever meets the legal criteria can enter the elections. Whoever the nation approves will win.”
President Hosni Mubarak’s fifth term in office will come to an end in 2011 and the presidential elections will be carried out in accordance with Article 76 of the Egyptian constitution that was twice amended in 2005 and 2007 when independent and opposition candidates were allowed to run for presidency in keeping with certain terms and conditions.
Asked whether a Copt could assume power in Egypt, Pope Shenouda III said, “This cannot happen because the majority is made up of Muslims and a Copt cannot rule and represent the [Muslim] majority.”
Shenouda added, “The chance of any Coptic candidate [winning] in the elections is slim. If Coptic candidates aren’t successful in parliamentary and Syndicate elections, how can we expect a Coptic candidate to succeed in the presidential elections?”
Pope Shenouda praised the way that the Egyptian government handled the crisis of Max Michel (Maximus I) who appointed himself as a patriarch. He said, “The Egyptian government took a strong position against him and took away his identity card and passport that listed this alleged title. I know him as he was one of my students at the theology college, but his opinions contradicted the Christian doctrine so he did not have any position in the church.”
“When Maximus failed in Egypt, he took shelter in the US where he obtained the status of archbishop. However this does not mean anything to the Orthodox Church,” said Pope Shenouda.
Asked about second marriages amongst Copts, Pope Shenouda said, “In Christian teachings there are no second marriages except under specific circumstances. When a court grants a Christian citizen a divorce, it should allow him to marry [a second time] and not force me to allow him to marry a second time.”
Speaking about the status of expatriate Copts, Pope Shenouda said, “They are large in number and, of course, they all have different viewpoints so it would be wrong to generalize. I think that they should strengthen their links with the Egyptian embassies and consulates abroad.” The Pope expressed his willingness to meet any expatriate Copts if they wanted to meet him and denied that there were disputes between them and the Church.
COP: In the Name of Global Warming
Don Blankenship
American Thinker
In the name of global warming, politicians in Washington, DC are threatening to pass so called Cap and Trade legislation that will handicap our economy and force more American jobs offshore. Many business groups and leaders are convinced that the best way to advocate against Cap and Trade legislation is not to challenge the science of global warming. They believe that although global warming is not a fact that the "scientific debate" is over. These business elites say that only the "political science" remains. They say it's a "political reality." They also say global warming is a "religion" and that the faith of those who believe in it cannot be changed.
But say what they will, "global warming" is neither a reality nor a religion. It is instead a "superstition." A reality is something that actually exists. Global warming has not existed for at least 7 years. Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's internal memos say it does not exist, and so do increasing numbers of noted scientists. A religion is a belief in a supernatural being, a system of faith or worship. Obviously, global warming does not fit this definition.
A "superstition" is a fear founded on irrational feelings and marked by credulity -- i.e. a willingness to believe in the improbable or the marvelous. It should be easy for even members of our Congress to understand that no projection of future world temperatures is a scientific reality. Even they can't be that credulous ... or can they?
What (other than extremely credulous) could you call a member of Congress who believes that by lowering the standard of living of 5% of the world's population (that includes you, me, and everyone else living in America) that the Congress -- by passing a law -- can reduce the temperature of the earth or lower sea levels? Simple common sense, not conflicted science is required to know better.
Only superstitious, credulous, and pompous politicians would even consider voting for such a bill ... sight unseen! You would have to first be irrational and have unfounded fears of something that doesn't exist; you would then have to be prone to believe in the highly improbable -- and then vain enough to believe you can change the climate system of the earth, even while most of the rest of the world is fully enjoying the benefits of carbon use.
Americans should be gravely concerned that Congress might act to deal with a superstitious belief and willfully and knowingly cost Americans their jobs, increase household utility bills, and increase worldwide toxic pollutants that are being released into the atmosphere. Yes, increase pollutants in the name of the environment by transferring more jobs and industrial activity to heavily polluting countries like China that don't even have an EPA. Additionally, it is naïve to believe that these countries will follow our lead on CO2 reductions since they have not done so for other truly polluting emissions.
The reality is that credulous political elites (whose personal ideology is to transfer wealth not only within classes of American citizens, but from America to foreign countries) will impede domestic energy production and fund countries and technologies that threaten America's homeland security.
But the political elites are only one group that is willing to damage America's economic strength and homeland security in support of Cap and Trade. Another group is the business elite. In the case of big businesses, it is not the grip of a medieval superstition, nor is it credulity driving, that is driving them. Instead it is what motivates most business people: profit and fear of government retaliation. Or maybe worse: hope for government favoritism. In fact, global warming - i.e., Cap and Trade - is a giant Ponzi scheme in the making that will make Madoff look like the tip of an advancing Alpine glacier.
Neither wind farms nor solar panels have any hope of effectively (cost effectively) displacing coal, nuclear, or natural gas as the primary energy sources for American electricity. Compelling America's workers to sacrifice more for the cap-and-trade falsehood is simply cruel and irresponsible.
Borrowing money from the largest polluting country in the world (China) to reduce a non-pollutant in order to address a superstition, to create a profit for multi-national companies that happen to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange (making most of their profits overseas) is an evil and cruel abomination. Politicians and business persons who participate in such a scheme, for whatever reason, are insensitive and represent a risk to the American way of life.
Anyone -- politicians, business persons, labor union leaders, journalists, teachers, environmentalists or a U.S. President -- that desires the best for America and its people will oppose Cap and Trade. Anyone who desires American prosperity, energy independence, homeland security, an improved environment, jobs and a future for our children will not be superstitious or complacent. They will not resort to trickery or seek an illicit profit. Instead, they will use a cost versus benefit evaluation based on real-world data to achieve true environmental and economic improvements.
Business people and politicians should be Americans first. They must use real science, truth, reality, and love for their country oppose to "Cap and Trade." If they do not, future American generations will consider them what they will have been - unmindful, unscrupulous, and uncaring. Going forward, we all owe our employees, our neighbors, our children, our constituents and all Americans nothing less than our best and honest effort to find the right answers to real pressing and critical challenges. Global warming is not the challenge of our time. Even if it were, Cap and Trade is the wrong answer.
President Reagan was man enough to label "evil" when he saw it. Madoff's Ponzi scheme was described by a judge as "evil." The Cap and Trade scheme, if passed, will be many times more "evil."
Conversely, a true worldwide effort to regulate and reduce particulate, sulfur and other pollutants on a cost benefit basis in developing countries would provide a real and significant improvement to the world's environment, without empty sacrifices of American lives and liberties. The choice between the two possibilities should not be difficult, even for the U.S. Congress. It incorporates, after all, their oath of office to protect Americans from enemies foreign and domestic, and to defend the constitution.
Don Blankenship is CEO of Massey Energy.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/in_the_name_of_global_warming.html at July 28, 2009 - 12:21:35 PM EDT
Islam’s Civil War
RubinReports
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/07/islams-civil-war.html
Barry Rubin
I’m reading a good book by Richard Dowden, a veteran reporter on Africa who now heads the Royal African Society. It’s entitled Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles, published recently by Public Affairs press. Especially interesting from a Middle Eastern standpoint is his chapter on Somalia: “Somalis are Sunni Muslims, but always followed the Sufi tradition….Their religious spirit is tolerant…and is mixed with elements of Somali’s pre Islamic Cushitic beliefs....In recent years their culture and religious practice have been undermined by Arab Wahabi preachers and Saudi money. Until recently Somali women played a major role in society, dressed in bright colors and did not cover their heads or arms. Today Somali women are expected to dress in the full Saudi black niqab and obey their men.”
This seems a bit too romantic. Somalia's Islam could be very strict and intolerant, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes in her own childhood. Nevertheless, Dowden makes an important and valid point: things have gotten much worse in recent years.
In addition, a radical Islamist movement has arisen in Somalia which at times has come to dominate the country, impose harsh laws, and even links up with al-Qaida. Dowden stresses that a lot of these developments are due to local conditions, including people being fed up with warlords and civil wars tearing apart the country causing famine and bloodshed. Islamism imposes unity and at least for a little while a decline in internal conflict.
While Afghanistan was always far more—if one can use this word—puritanical in its Islam, the pattern there with the rise of the Taliban was similar. Islamism, that is the political rule by an Islamist movement imposing its version of Islam, has the appeal of imposing a moralistic system on chaos and unity on anarchy. Elements of this kind of situation were visible among the Palestinians and Iraq, for instance, as well.
Still, the result of putting such movements into power is horrendous first and foremost for their subjects.
My view is that for centuries what I call conservative, traditional Islam dominated societies. It was politically quietist focusing more on individual behavior. Islamism is a definite break with that world view though, of course, it is rooted on basic Islamic teachings, beliefs, and writings.
The Egyptian thinker Tarek Heggy, who appears to be the Arab world’s most interesting and creative intellectual today, makes a distinction between a more moderate Egyptian-Ottoman Islam and a more intolerant Wahabi-Saudi version. That is a viable way of looking at the developments, though a lot of Islamism emerged from Egypt and other places that are not at all Wahabi, too.
Heggy also points out the great debates among Muslim thinkers in the early medieval period which led to the defeat of those more flexible and ready to integrate logic by the hardliners, who were the ancestors of the modern Wahabis but also of contemporary Islamists more generally.
When one looks at places like North Africa, Indonesia, Turkey, and sub-Saharan Africa, for example, there is clearly the phenomenon Dowden writes about in Somalia. In part, ironically, it is due to moderate transportation and communication, when the ideas of hardline Muslims and Islamists in places like Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are quickly transported to every corner of Muslim communities throughout the world. Money is sent; teachers are trained or dispatched to outlying areas.
The idea of Islam as a religion of peace is as simplistic as that of Islam as innately extremist. There is a struggle going on. The difference, however, is that in other religions, the moderates have been gaining victories for the last 500 years, while in Islam the hardliners closed down the use of reason in religion (closing the gates of ijtihad) 800 years ago and have been making huge new advances in the last 50 years.
One sees a steady erosion of conservative-traditionalist Islam as the Islamists have been pulling much of it over, steadily in their direction.
An example is suicide bombing. A couple of decades ago if someone had argued that this behavior qualified as an act of martyrdom he would have been thrown out of the offices of mainstream clerics. Now, lots of them accept this deed as heroically proper in Islamic terms albeit only under certain conditions.
The same can be said with the idea of implementing a violent Jihad in contemporary situations. When Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj, a former Muslim Brotherhood member who split off to engage in revolutionary activity, wrote the book about Jihad, "The Neglected Obligation," almost thirty years ago, he was viewed within Islam as a marginal crank. Now his views are mainstream and motivating thousands to fight and millions to support them.
The Islamists gains have not been enough to take over whole societies—one should also never underestimate the attractiveness of Arab nationalism as an ideology and of the regimes’ power to survive--but if this trend continues things could get a lot worse for the region and its inhabitants. At a minimum, fighting out this battle will take the next 30 to 50 years at least.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles or to order books.
Why Won’t Obama Talk to Israel?
ALUF BENN
Published: July 27, 2009
TEL AVIV
IN his global tours and TV appearances, President Obama has spoken to Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Russians and Africans. His words have stirred emotions and been well received everywhere. But he hasn’t bothered to speak directly to Israelis.
And the effect? Six months into his presidency, Israelis find themselves increasingly suspicious of Mr. Obama. All they see is American pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements, a request that’s been interpreted here as political arm-twisting meant to please the Arab street at Israel’s expense — or simply to express the president’s dislike for Mr. Netanyahu.
This would seem counterproductive, given the importance the president has placed on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Israel is part of the problem, it’s also part of the solution. Yet so far, neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience, beyond brief statements made at diplomatic photo ops.
The Arabs got the Cairo speech; we got silence.
This policy of ignoring Israel carries a price. Though Mr. Obama has succeeded in prodding Mr. Netanyahu to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he has failed to induce Israel to impose a freeze on settlements. In fact, he has failed even to stir debate about the merits of one: no Israeli political figure has stood up to Mr. Netanyahu and begged him to support Mr. Obama; not even the Israeli left, desperate for a new agenda, has adopted Mr. Obama as its icon.
As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze. Moreover, he has succeeded in portraying Mr. Obama as a shaky ally. In Mr. Netanyahu’s narrative, the president has fallen under the influence of top aides — in this case Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod — whom the prime minister has called “self-hating Jews.” Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure, someone who sticks to the first commandment of Israeli culture: thou shalt never be the freier (that is, the dupe).
So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. Less scientifically: Israeli rightists have — in columns, articles and public statements — taken to calling the president by his middle name, Hussein, as proof of his pro-Arab tendencies.
What went wrong? Several explanations come to mind.
First, in the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention. Memories of State Department “Arabists” leading American policy in the Middle East were erased. The White House coordinated its policy with Jerusalem, and stayed out of the way when Israel embarked on controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. This approach infuriated America’s Arab and European allies, which blamed Washington for one-sidedness — something they were willing to forgive of Bill Clinton but not of George W. Bush.
Mr. Obama came to office determined to repair America’s broken alliances in Europe and the Middle East. One way to do this — to prove that he was the opposite of his predecessor — was to place some distance between Israel and himself.
Second, Mr. Obama’s quest for diplomacy has appeared to Israelis as dangerous American naïveté. The president offered a hand to the Iranians, and got nothing, merely giving them more time to advance their nuclear program. In Israeli eyes, he was humiliated by North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests. And he failed to move Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel. Conclusion: Mr. Obama is a softie, eager to please his listeners and avoid confrontation with anyone who is not Mr. Netanyahu.
Third, Mr. Obama seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis. We are close emotionally and politically, but we are different. We speak Hebrew and not English, we live in the Middle East and have separate historical narratives. Mr. Obama’s stop at Buchenwald and his strong rejection of Holocaust denial, immediately after his Cairo speech, appealed to American Jews but fell flat in Israel. Here we are taught that Zionist determination and struggle — not guilt over the Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland. Mr. Obama’s speech, which linked Israel’s existence to the Jewish tragedy, infuriated many Israelis who sensed its closeness to the narrative of enemies like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Fourth, as far as most Israelis are concerned, Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze. For starters, mainstream Israelis rarely have anything to do with the settlements; many have no idea where they are, even when they’re a half-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv.
More important: in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the “settlement blocs”) will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force — as the administration did — the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility — and strengthened Mr. Netanyahu’s position.
Perhaps there are good reasons behind Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy. Perhaps the settlement freeze is in Israel’s best interest. Perhaps the president is truly committed to Israel’s long-term security and well-being. Perhaps his popularity in the Arab street is the missing ingredient of peacemaking.
But until the president talks to us, we won’t know. Next time you’re in the neighborhood, Mr. President, speak to us directly. We will surely listen.
Aluf Benn is the editor at large of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Family Feud
Yossi Klein Halevi
Six ways that Obama can regain Israeli trust.
Post Date Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Are we in the early stages of an American-Israeli crisis? Or are the growing and public disagreements between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government over settlements and Jerusalem merely arguments "within the family," as President Obama insisted in his recent meeting with American Jewish leaders? According to one poll, only six percent of Israelis consider Obama a friend. That perception of hostility is new. Israelis welcomed Barack Obama when he visited here in July 2008 and many responded enthusiastically to his election. But Israelis sense that Obama has placed the onus for restarting negotiations on Israel. Worse, he is perceived as showing weakness toward the world's bullies while acting resolutely only toward Israel. Many Israelis--and not only on the right--suspect that Obama actually wants a showdown with Jerusalem to bolster his standing in the Muslim world. If those perceptions aren't countered, the Israeli public will reject Obama's peace initiatives.
On the assumption that the pessimists among us are wrong and the Obama administration isn't seeking a pretext to create a crisis in American-Israeli relations, here are some suggestions for Washington about how to reassure increasingly anxious Israelis.
1. Make clear that renewing the peace process requires simultaneous Israeli and Arab concessions.
The impression conveyed by the administration's relentless public focus on the settlements is that a settlement freeze is the sole prerequisite toward jump-starting peace talks. After the disastrous consequences of the Oslo process (which led to more than five years of suicide bombings in Israeli cities) and of the withdrawal from Gaza (which led to three years of rocket attacks on Israeli towns near the Gaza border), the Israeli public is in no mood for unilateral concessions.
The administration insists that its intentions have been misunderstood, that it expects the Arab world to offer gestures of normalization to Israel. But unlike its hectoring tone toward Israel, there has been little public rebuke directed toward Arab leaders. True, Secretary of State Clinton recently did note that America expects a more forthcoming Arab attitude toward Israel. But that statement has hardly resonated, and the media focus remains on the settlements as the main obstacle to renewing the peace process.
2. Reaffirm the Israeli status of the settlement blocs in a future agreement.
In weighing the future of the settlements, Israelis will be looking not only for tangible signs of Arab goodwill but also of American goodwill--specifically, a reiteration of the Bush administration's endorsement of Israeli sovereignty over the major settlement blocs as part of a peace agreement. In return, a future Palestinian state would receive compensatory territory from within Israel proper.
The administration is right to insist that the current Israeli government must be bound by the commitments of previous Israeli governments (a position that Prime Minister Netanyahu has in fact upheld). But that same principle should also apply to Washington. Obama should not dismiss previous administration promises to Israel--even those made by George W. Bush.
3. Actively confront Palestinian demonization of Israel.
In his Cairo speech, Obama called for an end to Palestinian incitement against Israel. A systematic culture of denial--denying any historical legitimacy to the Jewish presence in the land of Israel--is being nurtured not only by Hamas but by the Palestinian Authority. In recent months, for example, the Fatah media has promoted a campaign denying the historical attachments of Jews to Jerusalem.
Challenging that campaign of lies would be a good way for the administation to begin proving its seriousness on incitement. Negating any Jewish rights to Jerusalem reinforces the very rejectionism among Palestinians that led to the collapse of the Oslo proces--surely no less a threat to peace than building 20 apartments in East Jerusalem.
4. Affirm Israel's historical legitimacy to the Muslim world.
In his Cairo speech, Obama rightly noted that the key obstacle on the Arab side toward making peace is the ongoing refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Crucially, he has made clear that he intends to carry the issue of Israel's legitimacy into his dialogue with the Muslim world. This presents an unprecedented opportunity for Muslims to hear Israel's case. So far, though, the president has failed to make it. By referring only to the Holocaust, and ignoring the historical Jewish attachment to the land of Israel, the president has inadvertently reinforced Muslim misconceptions regarding Jewish indigenousness. The Holocaust helps explain why Israel fights, not why Israel exists. It doesn't explain why thousands of Ethiopian Jews walked across jungle and desert to reach Zion; nor for that matter why some Jews leave New York and Paris to raise families in a Middle Eastern war zone.
5. Make clear that the impending nuclearization of Iran, and not the Palestinian problem, is the region's most urgent crisis.
Continuing to publicly reprimand Israel over settlement building while only reluctantly and belatedly criticizing the Iranian regime for suppressing dissent has further alienated Israelis from the Obama adminstration. In one recent cartoon in the daily Maariv, Obama is depicted as a waiter serving Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Obama offers him two plates: On one is a carrot, and on the other--a carrot.
Israelis need to know that there is no substantive difference between Obama and Netanyahu on the need to prevent an Iranian bomb at all costs--or to put it more bluntly, that there is as much urgency over a nuclear Iran in Washington as there is in Riyadh and Paris.
6. Don't treat the Netanyahu government as a pariah.
For weeks Israelis have been reading in their newspapers about a near-total breakdown in trust between Washington and Jerusalem. For his part, Netanyahu has repeatedly praised Obama's friendship for Israel, and refused to attack his Iran policy. During his meeting with Jewish leaders, Obama reaffirmed his friendship for Israel but seems to have mentioned no words of friendship for Israel's prime minister. Israelis need to hear some words of warmth from the White House toward their elected leader. That's what one expects from friends, to say nothing of family.
Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor of The New Republic and a senior fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.
© The New Republic 2009
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=00fd8e08-4699-4c30-a42a-bf4daa5680a7
UN Security Council Resolution 1397
No Surprise Palestinian Arabs Believe that Politically Motivated Violence is Legitimate and Effective
July 28, 2009 | Eli E. Hertz
UN Security Council Resolution 1397 was adopted on 12 March 2002, after 18 months of failed American shuttle diplomacy designed to get Palestinian Arabs to honor their repeated promises to cease the violence. The United States, which authored the resolution, sought to mobilize the Security Council to achieve the same goal of cessation of violence by providing Palestinian Arabs with a positive incentive: Public endorsement of a future Palestinian state. Resolution 1397 declared that the goal of the peace process was a Palestinian state "side-by-side" with Israel, "within secure and recognized borders."Penned with the utmost diplomacy, the resolution avoided finger pointing, speaking solely in general terms of "tragic and violent events" and demanding " immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction." [Italics by author]
The resolution has been criticized for what appears to be moral equivalency in its efforts to be balanced, resulting in vague wording ("all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians"); for its fawning lip service to an unconstructive Saudi Arabia initiative, and for rewarding Palestinian Arabs for their violence by making a Palestinian state the subject of the Security Council. Yet, Arabs attempted to reap further rewards by reading into 1397 meanings that are not there.
"Two States, Israel and Palestine" was a vision, not a directive, as some Arabs would have us believe. It certainly did not recognize rights to a Palestinian state under all conditions, despite its veiled wording. Moreover, the vision was linked to living "side-by-side within secure and recognized borders." While the resolution applauds the Saudi's peace plan as a "contribution," the Security Council in no way adopts nor endorses this plan, as some Arabs claim.
While 1397 welcomed "diplomatic efforts of special envoys [Today, George Mitchell]" to "bring about a comprehensive just and lasting peace in the Middle East," these measures do not substitute or replace the principle of direct negotiation enshrined in Resolution 242 and 338. Such diplomatic efforts are viewed merely as a constructive step toward restarting the peace process. This did not happen. Resolution 1397 was basically a free pass for Palestinian Arabs that required no concessions on their side - not then and not now.
OC: Obamacare’s Effect on Seniors
Heritage Foundation
Today at 1:30 PM, President Barack Obama will participate in a health care “tele-town hall” at AARP headquarters in Washington, DC. The President is scheduled to answer questions about his health care plan from AARP members via phone, email, and even a live audience of about 40 AARP members and volunteers. We hope the event’s moderators will allow for a lively and honest debate because our nation’s seniors stand to be huge losers under Obamacare:
Losing Your Doctor: Under the current system, more and more seniors are discovering that it is becoming harder and harder to find and keep doctors who will accept Medicare patients. A 2008 survey found that 29% of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24% the year before. This problem is compounded by the fact that our nation is facing a growing shortage of doctors. Obamacare promises to only make these problems worse. First, Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. Second, Obama’s public “option” could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion. Facing a sharp reduction in their pay, more doctors will retire early and more bright students will elect to pursue other careers, thereby reducing access and ensuring lower quality health care for future generations as well.
Losing Your Coverage: 22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coordinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.
Rationing Your Care: Another centerpiece to Obamacare is the creation of a federal health board that will ration your health care. Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: “The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated.” Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick. Americans can do better.
There is no question that America’s $2.4 trillion health care system needs to be reformed. But it should not be done on the backs of America’s seniors. Conservatives have a better vision for health care reform that cuts health care costs by reforming the tax system, enabling true health care competition, and giving families control of their health care dollars.
QUICK HITS
Under oath to the Senate Ethics Committee, former Countrywide Financial loan officer Robert Feinberg, testified that Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) both knew their Countrywide loans came from a special program to give below-market-rate mortgages to the powerful and famous.
Seven men, including a father who trained in jihad camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, were arrested in North Carolina on terrorism charges.
According to Gallup, only 27% of Americans believe members of Congress “have a good understanding” about health care issues.
Court and regulatory rulings protecting endangered fish are causing California farmers to lay off thousands of workers.
Despite the catastrophic threat from Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack, the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t have an EMP disaster-planning scenario and the Obama administration has cut missile defense.
Historic opportunity at Fatah Sixth General Conference
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
On Aug. 4-5, 2009, the Fatah movement will convene its Sixth General Conference - the first such gathering in 20 years and the first since the 1993 signing of the Oslo Accords. This official gathering offers a historic and unique opportunity for Fatah, and for Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of both Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, to officially and publicly eradicate four Fatah principles that are basic foundations of the conflict. This would demonstrate to the world and to Palestinians that the Palestinians have joined the peace process.1- Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Fatah leaders emphasize that this ideology is current and not merely an oversight.
Mahmoud Abbas: "It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel." [Al-Arabiya TV [Dubai] and PATV Oct. 3, 2006]
Click to view
Muhammad Dahlan, senior Fatah MP:
"I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today." [PA TV March 17, 2009]
Click to view
2- Fatah continues to use maps that don't acknowledge Israel's existence.
Abbas holding map of "Palestine"President Barack Obama has condemned such maps as a threat to Israel's security:
Obama: "I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security... Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence."
[AIPAC Conference, June 4, 2008]
In photo to the right, note PA flag and word "Palestine" in English at top of map. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Apr. 28, 2009]
Fatah website home pageSuch a map also appears as an official Fatah symbol under guns and under the PLO flag. When this symbol was created it had only one meaning - that Fatah would destroy Israel through violence. This map is not merely a historical symbol. Today Fatah promotes this symbol and it appears no fewer than 11 times on the official Fatah website home page.
At the coming Fatah Conference, will Abbas sit under the official Fatah symbol, a symbol that to Palestinians implies the goal of destroying Israel?
In photo to the right: Fatah website home page
3- Fatah charter still calls for Israel's destruction
Fatah charter on websiteFatah's charter, calling for Israel's destruction, is still valid and still appears on Fatah's website:
Article 8: "The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism."
Article 19: "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated."
Link to Fatah charter on Fatah site
4- Fatah continues to endorse violence and terror
On many occasions Fatah leaders have echoed the Hamas policy of justifying a ceasefire as a temporary or tactical measure:
Mahmoud Abbas: "Now we are against armed conflict because we are unable. In the future stages, things may be different... I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965 [Fatah terror against Israel began in 1965], and having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world, defining it and when it is beneficial and when it is not... we had the honor of leading the resistance. We taught everyone what resistance is, including the Hezbollah, who were trained in our camps [i.e. PLO camps in '60s and '70s]."
[Al-Dustur (Jordan), Feb. 28, 2008]
Muhammad Dahlan, senior Fatah MP: "The political plan guarantees the continuation of our national struggle in all its forms..."
PA TV host: "If so, the [violent] resistance and struggle continue."
Muhammad Dahlan: "This is our right, a legal right. The international community affirms it for us. But it is the responsibility of the leadership to use it when it wants, in the proper place and at the proper time. We cannot leave it in the hands of youth who use their own judgment. This is the difference between [PA] using this right and just anyone using it. I lived with Chairman Yasser Arafat for years. Arafat would condemn [terror] operations by day while at night he would do honorable things. I don't want to say any more about this."
[PATV (Fatah), July 22, 2009]
Click to view
Conclusion - Historic opportunity for Fatah to join the peace process
- If Abbas's Fatah refuses to recognize Israel,
then a peace process has not yet begun.
- If Abbas sits under a map of Israel as "Palestine",
then a peace process has not yet begun.
- If Abbas's Fatah charter calls for Israel's destruction,
then a peace process has not yet begun.
- If Abbas's Fatah continues endorsing armed conflict,
then a peace process has not yet begun.
The convening of the Fatah Sixth General Conference
is a historic opportunity for Fatah to enter the peace process.
Obama Called 'Racist' in Jerusalem Rally
Hillel Fendel
A7 News
An estimated 1,500 people crowded a Jerus