Jihad Watch
place for the Islamic world?
Talking about the recent female/child suicide attack in Iraq, this op-ed notes that, "This sort of act would have been worth a worldwide banner headline a decade ago. But now, it's just another demented Islamist senselessly slaughtering fellow Muslims. With her kid. Yawn." Indeed, contrast this indifference with the sort of media attention a Christian female/child suicide combo -- justifying their actions via Christianity -- would receive.
"Mommy blows up with toddler — this has got to be a new low for militant Islam," by Jonathan Kay for the National Post, April 28:
Having spent this morning catching up on my weekend reading, I came across this Page 4 article from Friday's New York Times. Here's the lead paragraph: "BAGHDAD — At least 80 people died and 120 others were injured Thursday in three bombings, one by a female suicide bomber in Baghdad who, Iraqi officials said, held a young child’s hand as she set off her explosives among a group of women and children receiving emergency food aid."
Even putting aside our baseline revulsion at terrorism, there are three especially hideous things that jump out from this:
1) A mother deliberately taking her (presumed) child with her as she immolates herself. For all the hundreds of suicide bombings that Iraq has already witnessed, this has got to be a first.
2) This was a line for food aid. Islamists have gone from attacking U.S. soldiers, to attacking Iraqi soldiers, to attacking police stations, to attacking the religious ceremonies of rival sects — on down the line of nihilism until, now, they are reduced to blowing up hungry people seeking sustenance.
3) This hideous crime was played on page four of The New York Times. And a quick scan of other media suggests it got similar B-rate treatment elsewhere. This sort of act would have been worth a worldwide banner headline a decade ago. But now, it's just another demented Islamist senselessly slaughtering fellow Muslims. With her kid. Yawn.
Says a lot about the world we live in, doesn't it?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Palestinian National Covenant, as published officially in English by the PLO
Leila S. Kadi (ed.) - Mar 01, 2009
Palestine Research Centre, Beirut
The following is the complete and unabridged text of the Palestinian National Covenant, as published officially in English by the PLO*, based largely on the text adopted earlier in 1964.
In his letter of September 9, 1993 to Prime Minister Rabin, Yasser Arafat stated that those articles which deny Israel`s right to exist or are inconsistent with the PLO`s new commitments to Israel following their mutual recognition, are no longer valid. Several of the key articles to be amended are highlighted below.
On April 24, 1996, the Palestinian National Council, convening in Gaza, voted 504 to 54, with 14 abstentions, as follows:
1. "The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
2. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first session of the Palestinian central council." (24/04/96)
On December 14, 1998, the Palestinian National Council, in accordance with the Wye Memorandum, convened in Gaza in the presence of U.S. President Clinton and voted to reaffirm this decision.
Draft Palestinian Constitution - March 2003
Text of the 1968 Charter:
Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.
Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people, through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them.
Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.
Article 7: That there is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.
Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute - both their organizations and the individuals - one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.
Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.
Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.
Article 11: The Palestinians will have three mottoes: national (wataniyya) unity, national (qawmiyya) mobilization, and liberation.
Article 12: The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity, and oppose any plan that may dissolve or impair it.
Article 13: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary objectives, the attainment of either of which facilitates the attainment of the other. Thus, Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity; and work toward the realization of one objective proceeds side by side with work toward the realization of the other.
Article 14: The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation`s pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal.
Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.
Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country`s religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.
Article 17: The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world.
Article 18: The liberation of Palestine, from an international point of view, is a defensive action necessitated by the demands of self-defense. Accordingly the Palestinian people, desirous as they are of the friendship of all people, look to freedom-loving, and peace-loving states for support in order to restore their legitimate rights in Palestine, to re-establish peace and security in the country, and to enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.
Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.
Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.
Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands safeguarded.
Article 24: The Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them.
Article 25: For the realization of the goals of this Charter and its principles, the Palestine Liberation Organization will perform its role in the liberation of Palestine in accordance with the Constitution of this Organization.
Article 26: The Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the Palestinian revolutionary forces, is responsible for the Palestinian Arab people`s movement in its struggle - to retrieve its homeland, liberate and return to it and exercise the right to self-determination in it - in all military, political, and financial fields and also for whatever may be required by the Palestine case on the inter-Arab and international levels.
Article 27: The Palestine Liberation Organization shall cooperate with all Arab states, each according to its potentialities; and will adopt a neutral policy among them in the light of the requirements of the war of liberation; and on this basis it shall not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab state.
Article 28: The Palestinian Arab people assert the genuineness and independence of their national (wataniyya) revolution and reject all forms of intervention, trusteeship, and subordination.
Article 29: The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and genuine legal right to liberate and retrieve their homeland. The Palestinian people determine their attitude toward all states and forces on the basis of the stands they adopt vis-a-vis to the Palestinian revolution to fulfill the aims of the Palestinian people.
Article 30: Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of liberation are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people.
Article 31: The Organization shall have a flag, an oath of allegiance, and an anthem. All this shall be decided upon in accordance with a special regulation.
Article 32: Regulations, which shall be known as the Constitution of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, shall be annexed to this Charter. It will lay down the manner in which the Organization, and its organs and institutions, shall be constituted; the respective competence of each; and the requirements of its obligation under the Charter.
Article 33: This Charter shall not be amended save by [vote of] a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization [taken] at a special session convened for that purpose.
* English rendition as published in Basic Political Documents of the Armed Palestinian Resistance Movement; Leila S. Kadi (ed.), Palestine Research Centre, Beirut, December 1969, pp.137-141.
Guest Comment: Now you have the written, clear commitment of two destroy-Israel orgs, despite what Obama's admin or the press are spinning on you. They should be ashamed to gamble with peoples' lives like this.
These Arabs have been called moderate by the press and our governments, but their Arab/Muslim belief system and their goals say otherwise. This is called a Covenant, not merely a charter! Don
Palestine Research Centre, Beirut
The following is the complete and unabridged text of the Palestinian National Covenant, as published officially in English by the PLO*, based largely on the text adopted earlier in 1964.
In his letter of September 9, 1993 to Prime Minister Rabin, Yasser Arafat stated that those articles which deny Israel`s right to exist or are inconsistent with the PLO`s new commitments to Israel following their mutual recognition, are no longer valid. Several of the key articles to be amended are highlighted below.
On April 24, 1996, the Palestinian National Council, convening in Gaza, voted 504 to 54, with 14 abstentions, as follows:
1. "The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
2. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first session of the Palestinian central council." (24/04/96)
On December 14, 1998, the Palestinian National Council, in accordance with the Wye Memorandum, convened in Gaza in the presence of U.S. President Clinton and voted to reaffirm this decision.
Draft Palestinian Constitution - March 2003
Text of the 1968 Charter:
Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.
Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people, through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them.
Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.
Article 7: That there is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.
Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute - both their organizations and the individuals - one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.
Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.
Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.
Article 11: The Palestinians will have three mottoes: national (wataniyya) unity, national (qawmiyya) mobilization, and liberation.
Article 12: The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity, and oppose any plan that may dissolve or impair it.
Article 13: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary objectives, the attainment of either of which facilitates the attainment of the other. Thus, Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity; and work toward the realization of one objective proceeds side by side with work toward the realization of the other.
Article 14: The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation`s pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal.
Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.
Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country`s religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.
Article 17: The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world.
Article 18: The liberation of Palestine, from an international point of view, is a defensive action necessitated by the demands of self-defense. Accordingly the Palestinian people, desirous as they are of the friendship of all people, look to freedom-loving, and peace-loving states for support in order to restore their legitimate rights in Palestine, to re-establish peace and security in the country, and to enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.
Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.
Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.
Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands safeguarded.
Article 24: The Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them.
Article 25: For the realization of the goals of this Charter and its principles, the Palestine Liberation Organization will perform its role in the liberation of Palestine in accordance with the Constitution of this Organization.
Article 26: The Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the Palestinian revolutionary forces, is responsible for the Palestinian Arab people`s movement in its struggle - to retrieve its homeland, liberate and return to it and exercise the right to self-determination in it - in all military, political, and financial fields and also for whatever may be required by the Palestine case on the inter-Arab and international levels.
Article 27: The Palestine Liberation Organization shall cooperate with all Arab states, each according to its potentialities; and will adopt a neutral policy among them in the light of the requirements of the war of liberation; and on this basis it shall not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab state.
Article 28: The Palestinian Arab people assert the genuineness and independence of their national (wataniyya) revolution and reject all forms of intervention, trusteeship, and subordination.
Article 29: The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and genuine legal right to liberate and retrieve their homeland. The Palestinian people determine their attitude toward all states and forces on the basis of the stands they adopt vis-a-vis to the Palestinian revolution to fulfill the aims of the Palestinian people.
Article 30: Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of liberation are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people.
Article 31: The Organization shall have a flag, an oath of allegiance, and an anthem. All this shall be decided upon in accordance with a special regulation.
Article 32: Regulations, which shall be known as the Constitution of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, shall be annexed to this Charter. It will lay down the manner in which the Organization, and its organs and institutions, shall be constituted; the respective competence of each; and the requirements of its obligation under the Charter.
Article 33: This Charter shall not be amended save by [vote of] a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization [taken] at a special session convened for that purpose.
* English rendition as published in Basic Political Documents of the Armed Palestinian Resistance Movement; Leila S. Kadi (ed.), Palestine Research Centre, Beirut, December 1969, pp.137-141.
Guest Comment: Now you have the written, clear commitment of two destroy-Israel orgs, despite what Obama's admin or the press are spinning on you. They should be ashamed to gamble with peoples' lives like this.
These Arabs have been called moderate by the press and our governments, but their Arab/Muslim belief system and their goals say otherwise. This is called a Covenant, not merely a charter! Don
Obama`s Mideast Myopia
Leo Rennert - Apr 24, 2009 (first posted)
American Thinker
President Obama met this week at the White House with King Abdullah of Jordan -- the first of separate get-togethers with Israeli, Palestinian and Egyptian leaders in coming weeks. In an exchange with reporters, Obama made several comments which ought to give pause to anyone expecting him to act as an honest broker to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace. His comments raise serious doubts about his grasp of the conflict and thus what it will take to resolve it. To wit:
1. If you log on to the White House website, the transcript of the Obama and Abdullah remarks is preceded by a statement that the two leaders spent the bulk of their time on questions regarding Israel and "Palestine". Obama`s support of a two-state solution is well known. But to have the White House declare that there already exists a "Palestine" is, to say the least, jumping the gun. Beyond that, it points up the basic flaw in Obama`s peacemaking strategy -- to start with Palestinian statehood instead of preceding it with confidence-building measures, including Palestinian renunciation of terrorism and cessation of anti-Israel incitement, as required by Bush`s "road map," which the Obama administration itself seems to have embraced.
2. In stressing the need for an end to the conflict, Obama said "generations of Palestinian and Israeli children are growing up insecure, in an atmosphere of hate." This is what you get when you persist in playing the equivalence game, regardless of how lopsided some realities may be. Is there really as much of an "atmosphere of hate" in Israeli homes and schools as there is in Palestinian homes and schools? Does Israeli children`s TV promote the killing of Palestinians as Palestinian TV does in grooming Palestinian kids to become terrorist "martyrs"?
3. And with such an equivalence paradigm, Obama then goes on to declare that there will need to be "some hard choices of all the actors involved." What about "hard choices" already made? On the Israeli side, there has been a total withdrawal from Gaza and a ceding of administrative and political autonomy to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Plus, recent Israeli leaders already have shown ample evidence of readiness for "hard choices" by volunteering to withdraw from 95 percent of the West Bank and even to give up Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
What "hard choices," in return, were made by Arafat or, more recently, by Abbas? Zilch. Abbas hasn`t deviated one inch from his claim of an absolute Palestinian "right of return" (which would create 2 states -- both Palestinian) and complete Israeli withdrawal from the entire Old City of Jerusalem and all of Hebron. Yet, by flippantly calling on both sides to make "hard choices," Obama buys into the false notion that there is somehow an equivalent point of departure -- as if Israel and the Palestinians will have to proceed from the same starting gate -- with no points for Israel for already having unilaterally shrunken its size and unilaterally empowered the Palestinian Authority to rule all major Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, to say nothing of Hamastan in Gaza.
4. Said Obama: "I am a strong believer in a two-state solution. I think there are a lot of Israelis who also believe in a two-state solution." This is a not-so-veiled slap at Prime Minister Netanyahu for not embracing Obama`s mantra to put Palestinian statehood at the head of the line. And why did Obama fail to say anything about how many Palestinians favor a two-state solution? Why is it only important that Israelis do? Why not admit that many Palestinians reject a two-state solution and want a single Palestinian state from the river to the sea? After all, Hams iron rule of Gaza and as a sizeable political presence in the West Bank isn`t exactly chopped liver. If Obama were really serious about playing the role of impartial, honest broker, he`d have to, at a minimum, spell out how Abbas can negotiate for the Palestinians as long as he can`t speak for half his people.
But to Obama, these are all inconvenient details to be swept aside in favor of his grand vision of a Palestinian state.
http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/article.php?id=3942
American Thinker
President Obama met this week at the White House with King Abdullah of Jordan -- the first of separate get-togethers with Israeli, Palestinian and Egyptian leaders in coming weeks. In an exchange with reporters, Obama made several comments which ought to give pause to anyone expecting him to act as an honest broker to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace. His comments raise serious doubts about his grasp of the conflict and thus what it will take to resolve it. To wit:
1. If you log on to the White House website, the transcript of the Obama and Abdullah remarks is preceded by a statement that the two leaders spent the bulk of their time on questions regarding Israel and "Palestine". Obama`s support of a two-state solution is well known. But to have the White House declare that there already exists a "Palestine" is, to say the least, jumping the gun. Beyond that, it points up the basic flaw in Obama`s peacemaking strategy -- to start with Palestinian statehood instead of preceding it with confidence-building measures, including Palestinian renunciation of terrorism and cessation of anti-Israel incitement, as required by Bush`s "road map," which the Obama administration itself seems to have embraced.
2. In stressing the need for an end to the conflict, Obama said "generations of Palestinian and Israeli children are growing up insecure, in an atmosphere of hate." This is what you get when you persist in playing the equivalence game, regardless of how lopsided some realities may be. Is there really as much of an "atmosphere of hate" in Israeli homes and schools as there is in Palestinian homes and schools? Does Israeli children`s TV promote the killing of Palestinians as Palestinian TV does in grooming Palestinian kids to become terrorist "martyrs"?
3. And with such an equivalence paradigm, Obama then goes on to declare that there will need to be "some hard choices of all the actors involved." What about "hard choices" already made? On the Israeli side, there has been a total withdrawal from Gaza and a ceding of administrative and political autonomy to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Plus, recent Israeli leaders already have shown ample evidence of readiness for "hard choices" by volunteering to withdraw from 95 percent of the West Bank and even to give up Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
What "hard choices," in return, were made by Arafat or, more recently, by Abbas? Zilch. Abbas hasn`t deviated one inch from his claim of an absolute Palestinian "right of return" (which would create 2 states -- both Palestinian) and complete Israeli withdrawal from the entire Old City of Jerusalem and all of Hebron. Yet, by flippantly calling on both sides to make "hard choices," Obama buys into the false notion that there is somehow an equivalent point of departure -- as if Israel and the Palestinians will have to proceed from the same starting gate -- with no points for Israel for already having unilaterally shrunken its size and unilaterally empowered the Palestinian Authority to rule all major Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, to say nothing of Hamastan in Gaza.
4. Said Obama: "I am a strong believer in a two-state solution. I think there are a lot of Israelis who also believe in a two-state solution." This is a not-so-veiled slap at Prime Minister Netanyahu for not embracing Obama`s mantra to put Palestinian statehood at the head of the line. And why did Obama fail to say anything about how many Palestinians favor a two-state solution? Why is it only important that Israelis do? Why not admit that many Palestinians reject a two-state solution and want a single Palestinian state from the river to the sea? After all, Hams iron rule of Gaza and as a sizeable political presence in the West Bank isn`t exactly chopped liver. If Obama were really serious about playing the role of impartial, honest broker, he`d have to, at a minimum, spell out how Abbas can negotiate for the Palestinians as long as he can`t speak for half his people.
But to Obama, these are all inconvenient details to be swept aside in favor of his grand vision of a Palestinian state.
http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/article.php?id=3942
A 9/10 Security Mindset
Heritage Foundation
Yesterday the citizens of New York and New Jersey who lived through 9/11 were witness to an ominous flashback. A massive aircraft, trailed closely by an F-16 fighter jet, descended towards the city and flew so close and low to Manhattan skyscrapers that office building windows rattled. Fortunately this was not a terrorist attack, but a poorly thought out photo-op by White House Military Office Director Louis Caldera. Before being appointed by President Barack Obama to his current post, Caldera most recently served on the board of directors for the failed bank IndyMac, which is currently under investigation by the federal government for fraud.
This breach of common sense is all too typical of the Obama administration’s approach to national security. Just 99 days into office, Obama’s performance has already raised serious questions about his national security strategy.
Apologizer in Chief: In his first 100 days in office, President Barack Obama completed two whirlwind tours of Europe and Latin America. His message on both continents was simple: America has made many mistakes in the past, but we’re now ready to listen to others and be more flexible. It was a hugely popular message, particularly when he criticized or apologized for America. But the results were paltry. The problem with this type of “engagement” is that, at some point, foreign leaders begin to see it (correctly) as pandering. President Obama’s apologies for U.S. policies are interpreted in North Korea, Iran and Venezuela not as an honest act of attrition that should elicit reciprocity from them, but rather as an apology demanding more concessions from the United States.
Gutting the Defense Budget: While the numbers for the FY 2010 defense budget are debatable, President Obama’s 10-year budget blueprint is crystal clear: in every year beyond FY 2010 there will be negative real growth for the defense budget. The deep cuts will come in procurement programs for systems like the F-22 and the next generation Navy destroyer. The decisions were driven not by national security needs but by a desire to rein in Pentagon spending. Projected Administration defense budgets over the next five years may underfund defense spending by over a trillion dollars.
Dumbing Missile Defense Down: The President approved a cut of roughly 15 percent of the Pentagon’s missile defense budget and abandoned deploying defenses in Western Europe. In addition, the White House failed to obtain any meaningful response from the U.N. Security Council on ballistic missile launches by Iran and North Korea. With Pakistan teetering on the edge, the ballistic missile threat has not diminished; in fact it is growing.
Detainee Dithering: The Obama administration continues to send mixed signals about how America will detain our enemies in what they now call “Overseas Contingency Operations.” The recent partial release of CIA memos was particularly unhelpful and betrays a complete lack of a coherent administration detainee strategy.
Border Blunders: Is it a crime to enter the U.S. illegally? Have terrorists routinely entered the United States through Canada, including the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks? Are our veterans a threat to national security? Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been an absolute disaster since she took office. She should face tough questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee next week.
There have been some bright spots for the Obama administration in national security. President Obama has largely continued to implement the strategic course laid out by the Bush Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even there, the left is pressuring the White House to change course.
QUICK HITS
The Obama administration is pushing for a deal that will make the United Auto Workers union the majority owners of Chrysler LLC.
The Obama administration is pushing to partially nationalize General Motors in a deal that will make the government majority owners and give United Auto Workers 39% of the company.
The Obama administration’s defense cuts will put more than 100,000 jobs at risk.
Lobbyists are working around the Obama ban by sending company executives, lawyers or consultants to meet with federal officials.
President Barack Obama got ahead of his teleprompter yesterday and began to name the members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, even though he had already introduced them.
Yesterday the citizens of New York and New Jersey who lived through 9/11 were witness to an ominous flashback. A massive aircraft, trailed closely by an F-16 fighter jet, descended towards the city and flew so close and low to Manhattan skyscrapers that office building windows rattled. Fortunately this was not a terrorist attack, but a poorly thought out photo-op by White House Military Office Director Louis Caldera. Before being appointed by President Barack Obama to his current post, Caldera most recently served on the board of directors for the failed bank IndyMac, which is currently under investigation by the federal government for fraud.
This breach of common sense is all too typical of the Obama administration’s approach to national security. Just 99 days into office, Obama’s performance has already raised serious questions about his national security strategy.
Apologizer in Chief: In his first 100 days in office, President Barack Obama completed two whirlwind tours of Europe and Latin America. His message on both continents was simple: America has made many mistakes in the past, but we’re now ready to listen to others and be more flexible. It was a hugely popular message, particularly when he criticized or apologized for America. But the results were paltry. The problem with this type of “engagement” is that, at some point, foreign leaders begin to see it (correctly) as pandering. President Obama’s apologies for U.S. policies are interpreted in North Korea, Iran and Venezuela not as an honest act of attrition that should elicit reciprocity from them, but rather as an apology demanding more concessions from the United States.
Gutting the Defense Budget: While the numbers for the FY 2010 defense budget are debatable, President Obama’s 10-year budget blueprint is crystal clear: in every year beyond FY 2010 there will be negative real growth for the defense budget. The deep cuts will come in procurement programs for systems like the F-22 and the next generation Navy destroyer. The decisions were driven not by national security needs but by a desire to rein in Pentagon spending. Projected Administration defense budgets over the next five years may underfund defense spending by over a trillion dollars.
Dumbing Missile Defense Down: The President approved a cut of roughly 15 percent of the Pentagon’s missile defense budget and abandoned deploying defenses in Western Europe. In addition, the White House failed to obtain any meaningful response from the U.N. Security Council on ballistic missile launches by Iran and North Korea. With Pakistan teetering on the edge, the ballistic missile threat has not diminished; in fact it is growing.
Detainee Dithering: The Obama administration continues to send mixed signals about how America will detain our enemies in what they now call “Overseas Contingency Operations.” The recent partial release of CIA memos was particularly unhelpful and betrays a complete lack of a coherent administration detainee strategy.
Border Blunders: Is it a crime to enter the U.S. illegally? Have terrorists routinely entered the United States through Canada, including the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks? Are our veterans a threat to national security? Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been an absolute disaster since she took office. She should face tough questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee next week.
There have been some bright spots for the Obama administration in national security. President Obama has largely continued to implement the strategic course laid out by the Bush Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even there, the left is pressuring the White House to change course.
QUICK HITS
The Obama administration is pushing for a deal that will make the United Auto Workers union the majority owners of Chrysler LLC.
The Obama administration is pushing to partially nationalize General Motors in a deal that will make the government majority owners and give United Auto Workers 39% of the company.
The Obama administration’s defense cuts will put more than 100,000 jobs at risk.
Lobbyists are working around the Obama ban by sending company executives, lawyers or consultants to meet with federal officials.
President Barack Obama got ahead of his teleprompter yesterday and began to name the members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, even though he had already introduced them.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
100 Days of the New Security Strategy
James Jay Carafano
Heritage Foundation | 4/29/2009
While marking the first hundred days of a new presidency is a tradition that dates back to the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the focus of media hype and pundit analysis usually focuses on domestic policies--grading how effectively a new leader can shape Washington's agenda. Matters of foreign policy and national security, on the other hand, do not lend themselves readily to a 100-day agenda.. President Obama, however, has presumptively reversed many long-standing national security policies since taking over the White House. The speed and lack of transparent analysis and robust debate on these choices raises serious questions about the prudence and efficacy of national security decision-making in the new White House. The Administration must develop more deliberate means for formulating its national security policies and immediately move to review the rash decisions made since taking office.
Leading or Campaigning?
On the most pressing national security matters--Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (despite the White House rhetoric from the contrary)--the Obama Administration has largely continued the strategic course laid out by the Bush Administration. This makes sense. U.S. vital national interests do not change because the party holding the presidency shifts. Neither do the facts on the ground, the resources available to the nation, or the enemy's objectives. It is therefore not surprising that the Administration would continue to advance the nation's interest in both parts of the world.
In contrast, on almost every other 100-day "national security initiative," the Administration has directed shifts in direction without clear strategic rationale.
Change on Cuba
The President declared that "50 years" of U.S. policy had not worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies to isolate the Cuban dictatorship. This explanation is fatuous. If the U.S. had followed a similar strategy with the Soviet Union, it would have abandoned containment and left Russia and half of Europe controlled by a nuclear-armed evil empire. What is most troubling and unexamined with this decision is how other dictators will interpret the seriousness of U.S. opposition to a dictatorial regime and its willingness to persevere against oppression and systemic violations of human and civil rights.
Dumbing Down Missile Defense
The President approved a cut of about 15 percent of the Pentagon's budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe. In addition, the White House downplayed the U.S. response to provocative missile launches by Iran and North Korea, as well as failing to obtain a serious U.N. Security Council response to either incident. Despite the advance of the North Korean and Iranian long-range missile programs, the Administration justified its decision by declaring it was more important to focus on "regional missile threats."
The rationale for this decision is opaque. The ballistic missile threat has not diminished; in fact it is growing. The need to defend the United States and Western Europe has not changed. Abrupt changes in missile defense programs (that have been under development for over a decade) make no sense.
Gutting the Defense Budget
In a speech previewing the impending release of next year's defense budget, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced deep cuts in procurement programs. In addition, the Administration is phasing-out supplemental spending, shifting the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into the "core" Pentagon budget. That will leave even less money for buying new equipment.
Gates justified the decision as eliminating "Cold War" weapons systems, including the F-22 stealth fighter aircraft and next-generation Navy destroyer. All the programs named by Gates came into development after the fall of the Soviet Union and were justified and funded by a succession of both Democratic and Republican Congresses and Presidents.
Gates also announced these decisions before the Pentagon had even completed the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) or a White House National Security Strategy (NSS)--documents that are supposed to provide the strategic rationale for such decisions. The decisions were driven not by national security needs but by a desire to rein in Pentagon spending. Projected Administration defense budgets over the next five years may underfund defense spending by over a trillion dollars.
Ho-Hum on Homeland Security
Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory statements on homeland security and counterterrorism policies since 9/11. Both the President and the secretary of homeland security have been reticent on the threat of transnational terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security has shown signs of reversing Bush Administration strategies on border security and immigration enforcement.
The Administration lacks a coherent approach to homeland security and has adopted these steps before undertaking the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR).
Detainee and Counterterrorism Policy in Disarray
The President has promised the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and repudiated interrogation policies. In addition, the Administration has been unclear about its support for vitally important legislation reauthorizing critical investigation tools granted under the USA PATRIOT Act. While the President has dismissed Bush's policies on combating terrorism, the Administration has not offered a credible alternative to address the pre-9/11 problems identified by the 9/11 commission. This gap could leave the nation at risk.
Reset on National Security
The lesson of the first 100 days is that the Administration needs to start over on national security. It should:
* Reconsider dramatic and unwarranted missile defense and Pentagon procurement cuts and ill-considered changes in counterterrorism and homeland security policy;
* Finalize and implement changes in reorganizing the National Security Council and use cabinet officials and the council, not unaccountable czars, to develop critical national security policies; and
* Make a serious effort to develop and engage with Congress and the American people on the QDR, QHSR, and NSS.
Presidents must keep the nation safe, free, and prosperous for four years, not 100 days. The White House has a lot more work to do.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Heritage Foundation | 4/29/2009
While marking the first hundred days of a new presidency is a tradition that dates back to the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the focus of media hype and pundit analysis usually focuses on domestic policies--grading how effectively a new leader can shape Washington's agenda. Matters of foreign policy and national security, on the other hand, do not lend themselves readily to a 100-day agenda.. President Obama, however, has presumptively reversed many long-standing national security policies since taking over the White House. The speed and lack of transparent analysis and robust debate on these choices raises serious questions about the prudence and efficacy of national security decision-making in the new White House. The Administration must develop more deliberate means for formulating its national security policies and immediately move to review the rash decisions made since taking office.
Leading or Campaigning?
On the most pressing national security matters--Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (despite the White House rhetoric from the contrary)--the Obama Administration has largely continued the strategic course laid out by the Bush Administration. This makes sense. U.S. vital national interests do not change because the party holding the presidency shifts. Neither do the facts on the ground, the resources available to the nation, or the enemy's objectives. It is therefore not surprising that the Administration would continue to advance the nation's interest in both parts of the world.
In contrast, on almost every other 100-day "national security initiative," the Administration has directed shifts in direction without clear strategic rationale.
Change on Cuba
The President declared that "50 years" of U.S. policy had not worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies to isolate the Cuban dictatorship. This explanation is fatuous. If the U.S. had followed a similar strategy with the Soviet Union, it would have abandoned containment and left Russia and half of Europe controlled by a nuclear-armed evil empire. What is most troubling and unexamined with this decision is how other dictators will interpret the seriousness of U.S. opposition to a dictatorial regime and its willingness to persevere against oppression and systemic violations of human and civil rights.
Dumbing Down Missile Defense
The President approved a cut of about 15 percent of the Pentagon's budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe. In addition, the White House downplayed the U.S. response to provocative missile launches by Iran and North Korea, as well as failing to obtain a serious U.N. Security Council response to either incident. Despite the advance of the North Korean and Iranian long-range missile programs, the Administration justified its decision by declaring it was more important to focus on "regional missile threats."
The rationale for this decision is opaque. The ballistic missile threat has not diminished; in fact it is growing. The need to defend the United States and Western Europe has not changed. Abrupt changes in missile defense programs (that have been under development for over a decade) make no sense.
Gutting the Defense Budget
In a speech previewing the impending release of next year's defense budget, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced deep cuts in procurement programs. In addition, the Administration is phasing-out supplemental spending, shifting the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into the "core" Pentagon budget. That will leave even less money for buying new equipment.
Gates justified the decision as eliminating "Cold War" weapons systems, including the F-22 stealth fighter aircraft and next-generation Navy destroyer. All the programs named by Gates came into development after the fall of the Soviet Union and were justified and funded by a succession of both Democratic and Republican Congresses and Presidents.
Gates also announced these decisions before the Pentagon had even completed the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) or a White House National Security Strategy (NSS)--documents that are supposed to provide the strategic rationale for such decisions. The decisions were driven not by national security needs but by a desire to rein in Pentagon spending. Projected Administration defense budgets over the next five years may underfund defense spending by over a trillion dollars.
Ho-Hum on Homeland Security
Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory statements on homeland security and counterterrorism policies since 9/11. Both the President and the secretary of homeland security have been reticent on the threat of transnational terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security has shown signs of reversing Bush Administration strategies on border security and immigration enforcement.
The Administration lacks a coherent approach to homeland security and has adopted these steps before undertaking the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR).
Detainee and Counterterrorism Policy in Disarray
The President has promised the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and repudiated interrogation policies. In addition, the Administration has been unclear about its support for vitally important legislation reauthorizing critical investigation tools granted under the USA PATRIOT Act. While the President has dismissed Bush's policies on combating terrorism, the Administration has not offered a credible alternative to address the pre-9/11 problems identified by the 9/11 commission. This gap could leave the nation at risk.
Reset on National Security
The lesson of the first 100 days is that the Administration needs to start over on national security. It should:
* Reconsider dramatic and unwarranted missile defense and Pentagon procurement cuts and ill-considered changes in counterterrorism and homeland security policy;
* Finalize and implement changes in reorganizing the National Security Council and use cabinet officials and the council, not unaccountable czars, to develop critical national security policies; and
* Make a serious effort to develop and engage with Congress and the American people on the QDR, QHSR, and NSS.
Presidents must keep the nation safe, free, and prosperous for four years, not 100 days. The White House has a lot more work to do.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Obama Declines Iran Offer of al-Qaida Members
Kenneth R. Timmerman
When Iranian government official Ahmad Samavati arrived in Washington, D.C., in February at the head of a five-man negotiating team, he thought he had an offer the Obama administration couldn’t refuse. he Iranian regime was going to turn over scores of top al-Qaida operatives, including some on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list.
To Samavati’s surprise, the State Department officials he met declined the offer. “They told him they did not want any al-Qaida people. They told him they didn’t want them in the United States,” an Iranian source familiar with the negotiations told Newsmax.
The decline, and the very fact that the Iranian regime sent Samavati to Washington in the first place, shows the profound policy shift that has occurred in both Tehran and Washington since Barack Obama became president.
But Washington seems to be going in one direction and Tehran in another.
In the annual report on terrorism it released last April, the State Department blasted Iran for its unwillingness to cooperate in arresting, rendering, or controlling al-Qaida members operating from its territory.
“Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its AQ [al-Qaida] detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogation or trial. Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some AQ members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,” the report stated.
Obama’s determination to shift gears on Iran is no secret.
He announced his intention to negotiate with the regime during the presidential campaign, and he has repeated that determination many times since taking office.
But no one at Foggy Bottom will comment on why the State Department refused the Iranian offer in February, despite numerous phone messages and e-mails entreaties.
To piece together this story, which goes beyond the public policy statements from the administration, Newsmax has sought out Iranians with personal knowledge of the secret negotiations, including some who work closely with the Iranian government and current and former U.S. officials in the military and intelligence community.
Persian-language Web sites also have detailed leaks from Tehran.
At the time Samavati came to Washington, the State Department was still in the throes of a “policy review” concerning Iran.
So on one level, his offer was premature. But beyond that, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, may be simply too disorganized to coordinate a government-wide response to such a forward-leaning proposal, a source close to the negotiations suggested.
“Hillary Clinton is very much against these negotiations,” another source familiar with the U.S.-Iran talks told Newsmax.
“In Tehran, they don’t understand this,” said a third source who recently returned from Iran after discussing the Iranian and American proposals. “When the ruling factions actually agree on a policy, they put the whole government apparatus behind it.”
Tehran now believes that the al-Qaida operatives it is sheltering in Iran have become a liability. Some, such as al-Qaida military chief Saif al-Adel and Ahmed Mughassil, who has been indicted for the 1996 bombing of a U.S. military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, figure on the FBI’s Most Wanted List of terrorists and have American blood on their hands.
Other more low-level operatives have married into Iranian families in Tehran and have become a security challenge for the regime, a source knowledgeable of the U.S.-Iran negotiations told Newsmax.
“The Iranians want to get rid of the al-Qaida people who are now in Iran,” the source added. “That is absolutely clear. They have been training and providing support to al-Qaida operatives, but now find they have become an embarrassment.”
Al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been a liaison for the Iranian intelligence minister, the Revolutionary Guards, and Osama bin Laden since the early 1990s, when they were together in the Sudan.
Newsmax has received numerous reports over the past four years from former Iranian intelligence officers who claim that since the 9/11 attacks al-Zawahiri spends most of his time in Iran.
And yet, in a video posted last week on radical Islamist Web sites, al-Zawahiri warns the United States against any rapprochement with the Tehran regime.
"The more you cooperate with Iran, the more hatred you will generate from Muslims,” al-Zawahiri says in the video.
Even before 9/11, the Iranian government was careful to give the impression in the West that it was at war with radical Sunni Muslim groups, even as it trained terrorists from those groups in secret camps in Iran, according to former Iranian intelligence officers who were personally involved in the training.
The most celebrated case of this was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq until he was killed during an American military raid in 2006.
Al-Zarqawi declared war against Iraqi Shiites; and yet, he and his group, initially known as Ansar al Islam, were funded, trained, and equipped by the Iranian regime, which inserted them into Iraq in 2002.
Asked whether the U.S. intelligence community would like to see al-Qaida terrorists such as Saif al-Adel rendered to the United States, a U.S. intelligence official responded without ambiguity: “The U.S. intelligence community would very much like to see them taken off the streets. After all, they’re hardened terrorists.”
The type of al-Qaida operatives now being sheltered in Iran “have knowledge of the terrorist group’s current activities,” and thus have current intelligence value to the United States, the official added.
But such a desire on the part of U.S. intelligence officers who are still engaged in fighting a global war against radical Islamic terrorist groups flies in the face of the oft-expressed desire of President Obama to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison, where such terrorists would undoubtedly wind up.
“If you’re talking about individuals against whom there are no criminal charges, then it gets complicated,” former CIA Director R. James Woolsey told Newsmax. “If you close down Gitmo, where are you going to keep them?”
Woolsey said he could see no reason why the Obama administration wouldn’t take terrorists who are facing U.S. criminal charges. “To me, it would be extremely unwise not to take them out of circulation.”
The lack of criminal charges was the reason used by the Clinton administration to reject a 1996 offer by the government of Sudan to render Osama bin Laden to the United States, Woolsey recalled.
The Iranian government helped evacuate hundreds of al-Qaida terrorists and their families from Afghanistan in the weeks and months after the 9/11 attacks, establishing a “rat line” using fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and hundreds of four-wheel drive vehicles, according to U.S. intelligence reports.
Since then, the regime has sheltered these and other al-Qaida members at safe houses in and around Tehran and provided them military training, equipment, and “hajj” passports so they can travel to the annual Muslim pilgrimage in Mecca.
The National Security Agency intercepted a communication from al-Qaida military chief, Saif al-Adel, giving the orders to an al-Qaida cell in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to launch the deadly attacks on May 12, 2003 that killed more than 90 people.
When the Bush administration realized that al-Adel was in an Iranian government safe house at the time he gave the order for the terrorist attacks, they cut off back-channel negotiations with Iran then being conducted by U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad.
In January, Undersecretary of State Stuart A. Levy released a report laying out the extensive support the Iranian government has provided top al-Qaida members, including Saad bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist’s eldest son and heir apparent.
For more on this, read "Top al-Qaida Operatives Worked Closely with Iran — U.S. Treasury."
Just hours after the Treasury announcement, outgoing Director of National Intelligence Adm. Mike McConnell told reporters that the younger bin Laden had left Iran in September and was now in Pakistan.
But a former Iranian intelligence officer who maintains access to the Iranian intelligence community recently showed Newsmax photographs of Saad bin Laden and a wheelchair-bound aide, which he claimed had been taken at a safe house in the Tehran area this March.
Some sources believe the regime is sheltering Osama bin Laden himself, as Newsmax reported recently. For more on this, read "Did Bin Laden Find Safe Haven in Iran?"
The State Department has not responded to repeated requests for comment on this story.
“The State Department’s lack of response is worrisome, especially since the president has said we’re going to Afghanistan to get al-Qaida,” said retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, now a Fox News contributor. “It would be of great interest, for example, to know of any relationship between the Iranian nuclear program and al-Qaida.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
When Iranian government official Ahmad Samavati arrived in Washington, D.C., in February at the head of a five-man negotiating team, he thought he had an offer the Obama administration couldn’t refuse. he Iranian regime was going to turn over scores of top al-Qaida operatives, including some on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list.
To Samavati’s surprise, the State Department officials he met declined the offer. “They told him they did not want any al-Qaida people. They told him they didn’t want them in the United States,” an Iranian source familiar with the negotiations told Newsmax.
The decline, and the very fact that the Iranian regime sent Samavati to Washington in the first place, shows the profound policy shift that has occurred in both Tehran and Washington since Barack Obama became president.
But Washington seems to be going in one direction and Tehran in another.
In the annual report on terrorism it released last April, the State Department blasted Iran for its unwillingness to cooperate in arresting, rendering, or controlling al-Qaida members operating from its territory.
“Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its AQ [al-Qaida] detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogation or trial. Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some AQ members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,” the report stated.
Obama’s determination to shift gears on Iran is no secret.
He announced his intention to negotiate with the regime during the presidential campaign, and he has repeated that determination many times since taking office.
But no one at Foggy Bottom will comment on why the State Department refused the Iranian offer in February, despite numerous phone messages and e-mails entreaties.
To piece together this story, which goes beyond the public policy statements from the administration, Newsmax has sought out Iranians with personal knowledge of the secret negotiations, including some who work closely with the Iranian government and current and former U.S. officials in the military and intelligence community.
Persian-language Web sites also have detailed leaks from Tehran.
At the time Samavati came to Washington, the State Department was still in the throes of a “policy review” concerning Iran.
So on one level, his offer was premature. But beyond that, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, may be simply too disorganized to coordinate a government-wide response to such a forward-leaning proposal, a source close to the negotiations suggested.
“Hillary Clinton is very much against these negotiations,” another source familiar with the U.S.-Iran talks told Newsmax.
“In Tehran, they don’t understand this,” said a third source who recently returned from Iran after discussing the Iranian and American proposals. “When the ruling factions actually agree on a policy, they put the whole government apparatus behind it.”
Tehran now believes that the al-Qaida operatives it is sheltering in Iran have become a liability. Some, such as al-Qaida military chief Saif al-Adel and Ahmed Mughassil, who has been indicted for the 1996 bombing of a U.S. military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, figure on the FBI’s Most Wanted List of terrorists and have American blood on their hands.
Other more low-level operatives have married into Iranian families in Tehran and have become a security challenge for the regime, a source knowledgeable of the U.S.-Iran negotiations told Newsmax.
“The Iranians want to get rid of the al-Qaida people who are now in Iran,” the source added. “That is absolutely clear. They have been training and providing support to al-Qaida operatives, but now find they have become an embarrassment.”
Al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been a liaison for the Iranian intelligence minister, the Revolutionary Guards, and Osama bin Laden since the early 1990s, when they were together in the Sudan.
Newsmax has received numerous reports over the past four years from former Iranian intelligence officers who claim that since the 9/11 attacks al-Zawahiri spends most of his time in Iran.
And yet, in a video posted last week on radical Islamist Web sites, al-Zawahiri warns the United States against any rapprochement with the Tehran regime.
"The more you cooperate with Iran, the more hatred you will generate from Muslims,” al-Zawahiri says in the video.
Even before 9/11, the Iranian government was careful to give the impression in the West that it was at war with radical Sunni Muslim groups, even as it trained terrorists from those groups in secret camps in Iran, according to former Iranian intelligence officers who were personally involved in the training.
The most celebrated case of this was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq until he was killed during an American military raid in 2006.
Al-Zarqawi declared war against Iraqi Shiites; and yet, he and his group, initially known as Ansar al Islam, were funded, trained, and equipped by the Iranian regime, which inserted them into Iraq in 2002.
Asked whether the U.S. intelligence community would like to see al-Qaida terrorists such as Saif al-Adel rendered to the United States, a U.S. intelligence official responded without ambiguity: “The U.S. intelligence community would very much like to see them taken off the streets. After all, they’re hardened terrorists.”
The type of al-Qaida operatives now being sheltered in Iran “have knowledge of the terrorist group’s current activities,” and thus have current intelligence value to the United States, the official added.
But such a desire on the part of U.S. intelligence officers who are still engaged in fighting a global war against radical Islamic terrorist groups flies in the face of the oft-expressed desire of President Obama to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison, where such terrorists would undoubtedly wind up.
“If you’re talking about individuals against whom there are no criminal charges, then it gets complicated,” former CIA Director R. James Woolsey told Newsmax. “If you close down Gitmo, where are you going to keep them?”
Woolsey said he could see no reason why the Obama administration wouldn’t take terrorists who are facing U.S. criminal charges. “To me, it would be extremely unwise not to take them out of circulation.”
The lack of criminal charges was the reason used by the Clinton administration to reject a 1996 offer by the government of Sudan to render Osama bin Laden to the United States, Woolsey recalled.
The Iranian government helped evacuate hundreds of al-Qaida terrorists and their families from Afghanistan in the weeks and months after the 9/11 attacks, establishing a “rat line” using fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and hundreds of four-wheel drive vehicles, according to U.S. intelligence reports.
Since then, the regime has sheltered these and other al-Qaida members at safe houses in and around Tehran and provided them military training, equipment, and “hajj” passports so they can travel to the annual Muslim pilgrimage in Mecca.
The National Security Agency intercepted a communication from al-Qaida military chief, Saif al-Adel, giving the orders to an al-Qaida cell in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to launch the deadly attacks on May 12, 2003 that killed more than 90 people.
When the Bush administration realized that al-Adel was in an Iranian government safe house at the time he gave the order for the terrorist attacks, they cut off back-channel negotiations with Iran then being conducted by U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad.
In January, Undersecretary of State Stuart A. Levy released a report laying out the extensive support the Iranian government has provided top al-Qaida members, including Saad bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist’s eldest son and heir apparent.
For more on this, read "Top al-Qaida Operatives Worked Closely with Iran — U.S. Treasury."
Just hours after the Treasury announcement, outgoing Director of National Intelligence Adm. Mike McConnell told reporters that the younger bin Laden had left Iran in September and was now in Pakistan.
But a former Iranian intelligence officer who maintains access to the Iranian intelligence community recently showed Newsmax photographs of Saad bin Laden and a wheelchair-bound aide, which he claimed had been taken at a safe house in the Tehran area this March.
Some sources believe the regime is sheltering Osama bin Laden himself, as Newsmax reported recently. For more on this, read "Did Bin Laden Find Safe Haven in Iran?"
The State Department has not responded to repeated requests for comment on this story.
“The State Department’s lack of response is worrisome, especially since the president has said we’re going to Afghanistan to get al-Qaida,” said retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, now a Fox News contributor. “It would be of great interest, for example, to know of any relationship between the Iranian nuclear program and al-Qaida.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Survival Optional
Thomas Sowell
It used to be said that self-preservation is the first law of nature.
But much of what has been happening in recent times in the United
States, and in Western civilization in general, suggests that survival
is taking a back seat to the shibboleths of political correctness. We have already turned loose dozens of captured terrorists, who have
resumed their terrorism. Why? Because they have been given "rights" that
exist neither in our laws nor under international law.
These are not criminals in our society, entitled to the protection of
the Constitution of the United States. They are not prisoners of war
entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.
There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not
entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. German
soldiers who put on U.S. military uniforms, in order to infiltrate
American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were simply lined up
against a wall and shot.
Nobody even thought that this was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
American authorities filmed the mass executions. Nobody dreamed up
fictitious "rights" for these enemy combatants who had violated the
rules of war. Nobody thought we had to prove that we were nicer than the
Nazis by bending over backward.
Bending over backward is a very bad position from which to try to defend
yourself. Nobody in those days confused bending over backward with "the
rule of law," as Barack Obama did recently. Bending over backward is the
antithesis of the rule of law. It is depriving the people of the
protection of their laws, in order to pander to mushy notions among the
elite.
Even under the Geneva Convention, enemy soldiers have no right to be
turned loose before the war is over. Terrorists-- "militants" or
"insurgents" for those of you who are squeamish-- have declared
open-ended war against America. It is open-ended in time and open-ended
in methods, including beheadings of innocent civilians.
President Obama can ban the phrase "war on terror" but he cannot ban the
terrorists' war on us. That war continues, so there is no reason to turn
terrorists loose before it ends. They chose to make it that kind of war.
We don't need to risk American lives to prove that we are nicer than
they are.
The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law is
not some "brooding omnipresence in the sky." It is a set of explicit
rules by which human beings structure their lives and their
relationships with one another.
Those who choose to live outside those laws, whether terrorists or
pirates, can be-- and have been-- shot on sight. Squeamishness is
neither law nor morality. And moral exhibitionism is beneath contempt,
when it sacrifices the safety of those who live within the law for the
sake of self-satisfied preening, whether in editorial offices or in the
White House.
As if it is not enough to turn cutthroats loose to cut throats again, we
are now contemplating legal action against Americans who wrung
information about international terrorist operations out of captured
terrorists.
Does nobody think ahead to what this will mean-- for many years to
come-- if people trying protect this country from terrorists have to
worry about being put behind bars themselves? Do we need to have
American intelligence agencies tip-toeing through the tulips when they
deal with terrorists?
In his visit to CIA headquarters, President Obama pledged his support to
the people working there and said that there would be no prosecutions of
CIA agents for prior actions. Then he welshed on that in a matter of
hours by leaving the door open for such prosecutions, which the left has
been clamoring for, both inside and outside of Congress.
Repercussions extend far beyond issues of the day. It is bad enough that
we have a glib and sophomoric narcissist in the White House. What is
worse is that whole nations that rely on the United States for their
security see how easily our president welshes on his commitments. So do
other nations, including those with murderous intentions toward us, our
children and grandchildren.
Copyright (c) 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Thanks General Vallely
It used to be said that self-preservation is the first law of nature.
But much of what has been happening in recent times in the United
States, and in Western civilization in general, suggests that survival
is taking a back seat to the shibboleths of political correctness. We have already turned loose dozens of captured terrorists, who have
resumed their terrorism. Why? Because they have been given "rights" that
exist neither in our laws nor under international law.
These are not criminals in our society, entitled to the protection of
the Constitution of the United States. They are not prisoners of war
entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.
There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not
entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. German
soldiers who put on U.S. military uniforms, in order to infiltrate
American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were simply lined up
against a wall and shot.
Nobody even thought that this was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
American authorities filmed the mass executions. Nobody dreamed up
fictitious "rights" for these enemy combatants who had violated the
rules of war. Nobody thought we had to prove that we were nicer than the
Nazis by bending over backward.
Bending over backward is a very bad position from which to try to defend
yourself. Nobody in those days confused bending over backward with "the
rule of law," as Barack Obama did recently. Bending over backward is the
antithesis of the rule of law. It is depriving the people of the
protection of their laws, in order to pander to mushy notions among the
elite.
Even under the Geneva Convention, enemy soldiers have no right to be
turned loose before the war is over. Terrorists-- "militants" or
"insurgents" for those of you who are squeamish-- have declared
open-ended war against America. It is open-ended in time and open-ended
in methods, including beheadings of innocent civilians.
President Obama can ban the phrase "war on terror" but he cannot ban the
terrorists' war on us. That war continues, so there is no reason to turn
terrorists loose before it ends. They chose to make it that kind of war.
We don't need to risk American lives to prove that we are nicer than
they are.
The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law is
not some "brooding omnipresence in the sky." It is a set of explicit
rules by which human beings structure their lives and their
relationships with one another.
Those who choose to live outside those laws, whether terrorists or
pirates, can be-- and have been-- shot on sight. Squeamishness is
neither law nor morality. And moral exhibitionism is beneath contempt,
when it sacrifices the safety of those who live within the law for the
sake of self-satisfied preening, whether in editorial offices or in the
White House.
As if it is not enough to turn cutthroats loose to cut throats again, we
are now contemplating legal action against Americans who wrung
information about international terrorist operations out of captured
terrorists.
Does nobody think ahead to what this will mean-- for many years to
come-- if people trying protect this country from terrorists have to
worry about being put behind bars themselves? Do we need to have
American intelligence agencies tip-toeing through the tulips when they
deal with terrorists?
In his visit to CIA headquarters, President Obama pledged his support to
the people working there and said that there would be no prosecutions of
CIA agents for prior actions. Then he welshed on that in a matter of
hours by leaving the door open for such prosecutions, which the left has
been clamoring for, both inside and outside of Congress.
Repercussions extend far beyond issues of the day. It is bad enough that
we have a glib and sophomoric narcissist in the White House. What is
worse is that whole nations that rely on the United States for their
security see how easily our president welshes on his commitments. So do
other nations, including those with murderous intentions toward us, our
children and grandchildren.
Copyright (c) 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Thanks General Vallely
Who Runs U.S. Foreign Policy and Will it be Barack versus Hillary?
RubinReports
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-runs-us-foreign-policy-and-will-it.html
Only about June will the Obama administration start functioning smoothly in foreign policy though, of course, it has already laid out major themes. There is a strong sense of wanting to start over (reset); a desire to conciliate and apologize; to put a priority on engagement with enemies (which are far from being "former enemies" and are not likely to become such).But you know all that.
There is also an element of continuity and pragmatism which is often missed by those who hate Obama and want to make things worse than they are (things are bad enough without exaggeration!).
To some extent, the more positive features are coming from the State Department. Why is that when the department has long been identified with a lot of bad things? Part of the answer is that in recent years, the department has sabotaged or opposed presidents who were
--more to the center or center-right, now it is holding back a man who is the most left-wing president in American history.
--wanting to make small but necessary changes (even in a moderate liberal direction). Now it is holding back a president who wants to change far too much.
Having written a book that was a history of the foreign policymaking process--Secrets of State-- which is the only one I know that tries to explain the mysteries of this system, let me say some things about what's going on now.
First, the White House doesn't have the time or staff to run foreign policy. It sets out themes and deals with high-level focal-point issues but the State Department (along with the Defense Department) have to handle international affairs. The institutional counter to that is the National Security Council but that requires a very strong national security advisor who has the president's ear plus a decisive (and it helps if he's knowledgeable) president.
Inevitably, then, 90 percent is going to be the State Department. A president may have a special interest in certain topics which have to be set out and even then he can't deal with the details. Perhaps Obama will be directly engaged over engagement with Iran and the withdrawal from Iraq. I doubt he is going to be at that level on Israel-Palestinian or U.S.-Syria, for example, no matter what he says publicly.
Second, there's the little matter of domestic issues and just plain politics that takes up a lot of White House time.
Third, the president tends to focus on one big thing at any given moment: a key bill in Congress, a summit meeting, and so on. Meanwhile, a hundred other things are going on.
One factor that makes people underestimate the role of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the existence of at least three special envoys to the Middle East. But this situation is far less important than it seems.
Dennis Ross is more like a roving ambassador--his role during the Bush administration--who is trying to coordinate with Gulf states on the U.S. policy toward Iran. What should be happening is his functioning as an alliance-building coordinator to put together a strong alignment against Iran. Instead, he is reduced to reassuring Gulf regimes that the United States isn't going to abandon them in order to be Tehran's friend. Ross is very able but it doesn't amount to much.
The same thing applies for George Mitchell on Arab-Israeli, or more properly Israeli-Palestinian, issues. He isn't formulating or implementing anything, just sort of shmoozing and gathering facts. He will have no lasting impact.
Richard Holbrooke is a bit different as he is supposed to be actually negotiating with Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not much appears to be happening and if either one blows up into a crisis the work will be quickly kicked up to a higher level.
The administration has not yet faced any real foreign policy crisis. When it does, actions have to be proposed, disagreements can arise and that is the point where you might see real splits between Obama and Clinton over both jurisdiction and choices..
The other key decision point is when things start going wrong, though that could take longer. What happens when it becomes clear that Cuba doesn't want to become a democracy; North Korea continues to act like a rogue elephant, Russia bashes its neighbors, Iran breaks any promises and speeds toward nuclear arms, and Syria demonstrably sponsors terrorism and bullies Lebanon?
Does the administration change course or pretend that nothing is happening? That's when I'd expect Obama and Clinton to clash. Hillary doesn't have that much foreign policy experience but she seems to have grasped the concept of true Realism (not the nonsense often peddled nowadays under that label) and has the right personality for what's needed (tough, nasty, grasps facts, wants to get things done) while Obama seems to feel that words equate to deeds and that the world is one big community in need of organizing.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-runs-us-foreign-policy-and-will-it.html
Only about June will the Obama administration start functioning smoothly in foreign policy though, of course, it has already laid out major themes. There is a strong sense of wanting to start over (reset); a desire to conciliate and apologize; to put a priority on engagement with enemies (which are far from being "former enemies" and are not likely to become such).But you know all that.
There is also an element of continuity and pragmatism which is often missed by those who hate Obama and want to make things worse than they are (things are bad enough without exaggeration!).
To some extent, the more positive features are coming from the State Department. Why is that when the department has long been identified with a lot of bad things? Part of the answer is that in recent years, the department has sabotaged or opposed presidents who were
--more to the center or center-right, now it is holding back a man who is the most left-wing president in American history.
--wanting to make small but necessary changes (even in a moderate liberal direction). Now it is holding back a president who wants to change far too much.
Having written a book that was a history of the foreign policymaking process--Secrets of State-- which is the only one I know that tries to explain the mysteries of this system, let me say some things about what's going on now.
First, the White House doesn't have the time or staff to run foreign policy. It sets out themes and deals with high-level focal-point issues but the State Department (along with the Defense Department) have to handle international affairs. The institutional counter to that is the National Security Council but that requires a very strong national security advisor who has the president's ear plus a decisive (and it helps if he's knowledgeable) president.
Inevitably, then, 90 percent is going to be the State Department. A president may have a special interest in certain topics which have to be set out and even then he can't deal with the details. Perhaps Obama will be directly engaged over engagement with Iran and the withdrawal from Iraq. I doubt he is going to be at that level on Israel-Palestinian or U.S.-Syria, for example, no matter what he says publicly.
Second, there's the little matter of domestic issues and just plain politics that takes up a lot of White House time.
Third, the president tends to focus on one big thing at any given moment: a key bill in Congress, a summit meeting, and so on. Meanwhile, a hundred other things are going on.
One factor that makes people underestimate the role of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the existence of at least three special envoys to the Middle East. But this situation is far less important than it seems.
Dennis Ross is more like a roving ambassador--his role during the Bush administration--who is trying to coordinate with Gulf states on the U.S. policy toward Iran. What should be happening is his functioning as an alliance-building coordinator to put together a strong alignment against Iran. Instead, he is reduced to reassuring Gulf regimes that the United States isn't going to abandon them in order to be Tehran's friend. Ross is very able but it doesn't amount to much.
The same thing applies for George Mitchell on Arab-Israeli, or more properly Israeli-Palestinian, issues. He isn't formulating or implementing anything, just sort of shmoozing and gathering facts. He will have no lasting impact.
Richard Holbrooke is a bit different as he is supposed to be actually negotiating with Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not much appears to be happening and if either one blows up into a crisis the work will be quickly kicked up to a higher level.
The administration has not yet faced any real foreign policy crisis. When it does, actions have to be proposed, disagreements can arise and that is the point where you might see real splits between Obama and Clinton over both jurisdiction and choices..
The other key decision point is when things start going wrong, though that could take longer. What happens when it becomes clear that Cuba doesn't want to become a democracy; North Korea continues to act like a rogue elephant, Russia bashes its neighbors, Iran breaks any promises and speeds toward nuclear arms, and Syria demonstrably sponsors terrorism and bullies Lebanon?
Does the administration change course or pretend that nothing is happening? That's when I'd expect Obama and Clinton to clash. Hillary doesn't have that much foreign policy experience but she seems to have grasped the concept of true Realism (not the nonsense often peddled nowadays under that label) and has the right personality for what's needed (tough, nasty, grasps facts, wants to get things done) while Obama seems to feel that words equate to deeds and that the world is one big community in need of organizing.
Free Enterprise’s 100 Day Death March
Heritage Foundation
Previewing the Obama administration’s upcoming “sweeping” environmental regulatory agenda, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.”
Jackson’s honesty about the Obama administration’s intentions for the auto industry puts an end to White House claims that, with respect to the federal government’s now controlling stake in General Motors, the “goal is to exert as little influence as possible” and “to exit as quickly as possible.” Make no mistake; this administration will be dictating which cars GM will be making in the future.
And General Motors is not the only car company the Obama administration is seeking to control. Last week they announced their intention to turn Wall Street bailout funds from preferred shares in financial institutions into common shares. This gave the Obama administration even more leverage over the nation’s banks, who then agreed (coincidentally we’re sure) to a United Auto Workers union take over of Chrysler.
Today marks the 100th day of Barack Obama’s presidency; a presidency that is every bit as comfortable as Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s was in blending the power of big government, big business, and big labor into one national industrial policy. And just as under FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act, the result of the Obama agenda will be fewer small businesses, less jobs, and a longer recession. UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian have found that the NIRA accounted for 60% of the weak recovery and prolonged the depression by seven full years.
President Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod has called the 100-day benchmark “a Hallmark holiday.” Does Hallmark sell a condolence card for the death of free enterprise?
QUICK HITS
North Korea has threatened to conduct nuclear and missile tests in anger over U.N. criticism of its rocket launch earlier this month.
The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress results show that U.S. high-school students haven’t achieved any significant gains in reading or math for nearly four decades.
In February, the price of single-family homes in 20 major metropolitan areas fell 18.6 percent from the year earlier, compared with a record drop of 19 percent in January.
The administration’s plan to halt a $13 billion helicopter program will cost taxpayers at least $200 million in termination fees and perhaps hundreds of millions to extend the life of today’s aging fleet.
The White House approved Air Force One photo-op over New York City Monday cost taxpayers $328,835.
.
Previewing the Obama administration’s upcoming “sweeping” environmental regulatory agenda, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.”
Jackson’s honesty about the Obama administration’s intentions for the auto industry puts an end to White House claims that, with respect to the federal government’s now controlling stake in General Motors, the “goal is to exert as little influence as possible” and “to exit as quickly as possible.” Make no mistake; this administration will be dictating which cars GM will be making in the future.
And General Motors is not the only car company the Obama administration is seeking to control. Last week they announced their intention to turn Wall Street bailout funds from preferred shares in financial institutions into common shares. This gave the Obama administration even more leverage over the nation’s banks, who then agreed (coincidentally we’re sure) to a United Auto Workers union take over of Chrysler.
Today marks the 100th day of Barack Obama’s presidency; a presidency that is every bit as comfortable as Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s was in blending the power of big government, big business, and big labor into one national industrial policy. And just as under FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act, the result of the Obama agenda will be fewer small businesses, less jobs, and a longer recession. UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian have found that the NIRA accounted for 60% of the weak recovery and prolonged the depression by seven full years.
President Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod has called the 100-day benchmark “a Hallmark holiday.” Does Hallmark sell a condolence card for the death of free enterprise?
QUICK HITS
North Korea has threatened to conduct nuclear and missile tests in anger over U.N. criticism of its rocket launch earlier this month.
The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress results show that U.S. high-school students haven’t achieved any significant gains in reading or math for nearly four decades.
In February, the price of single-family homes in 20 major metropolitan areas fell 18.6 percent from the year earlier, compared with a record drop of 19 percent in January.
The administration’s plan to halt a $13 billion helicopter program will cost taxpayers at least $200 million in termination fees and perhaps hundreds of millions to extend the life of today’s aging fleet.
The White House approved Air Force One photo-op over New York City Monday cost taxpayers $328,835.
.
Israeli intel warns Netanyahu on Obama policy: 'We have become an obstacle'
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_israel0319_04_22.asp
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Israeli intel warns Netanyahu on Obama policy: 'We have become an obstacle'
TEL AVIV — A classified assessment relayed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Obama and his senior advisers would incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation with Israel that has developed over the last 20 years.
"Obama wants to make friends with our worst enemies and until now the worst enemies of the United States," an Israeli source familiar with the intelligence assessment said. "Under this policy, we are more than irrelevant. We have become an obstacle."
[On April 21, Obama said he would meet Netanyahu in Washington as part of revived U.S.-led peace efforts in the Middle East, Middle East Newsline reported. The president said the summit would take place over the next few weeks.]
0A Israeli sources said the administration would reject Israeli intelligence on such threats as Iran and Syria while advancing the Obama agenda to reconcile with the two states, both listed as state sponsors of terrorism by the U.S. State Dept.
On April 20, Israeli military intelligence commander Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin warned the Cabinet that Obama was prepared to allow Iran to retain its capability to assemble nuclear weapons and support Hamas and Hizbullah.
"Obama wants to advance the peace process in the direction of realistic discussions with extremist elements," Yadlin said.
The Israeli intelligence assess ment envisioned that Obama would maintain his reconciliation policy with Iran and Syria through at least 2010. The sources said the assessment determined that Obama was convinced that such a policy would enable a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Obama will want to show Iran, Syria and radical Muslims that the United States could pressure Israel on a strategic level," the source said. "The pressure has already begun and will intensify throughout the next year or two."
The military intelligence chief said Obama was also courting the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Yadlin said both Damascus and Teheran have not significantly reduced their support for insurgency groups throughout the region.
"President Bashar Assad hopes to turn over a new leaf with U.S. President Barack Obama," Yadlin said. "However, while Western powers are being hosted at the palace in Damascus, Syria is continuing to be used as the backyard of the axis of evil.&nbs p; Assad is letting Hizbullah and Iranian forces freely conduct their affairs in Syrian and use its territory for Hizbullah deployment.
Yadlin said Obama's policies have generated dismay among Arab allies of the United States. He said Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia were concerned that U.S. reconciliation efforts would merely encourage Teheran and its proxies to intensify destabilization efforts. In April 2009, Egypt reported a Hizbullah network that operated in Cairo and the Sinai Peninsula.
"The Arab world is starting to understand that Iranian proxies are a threat to the region," Yadlin said. "The Hizbullah activity in Egypt is not an isolated incident. Iran has infrastructures across the world seeking to perpetrate terror attacks against Israel.
At the same time, the Obama administration was expected to restrict U.S. arms exports to Israel in an effort t o deny systems that could be used in any attack against Iran or Syria. The intelligence sources said this policy was implemented during the last year of the Bush administration and would intensify under Obama.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Israeli intel warns Netanyahu on Obama policy: 'We have become an obstacle'
TEL AVIV — A classified assessment relayed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Obama and his senior advisers would incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation with Israel that has developed over the last 20 years.
"Obama wants to make friends with our worst enemies and until now the worst enemies of the United States," an Israeli source familiar with the intelligence assessment said. "Under this policy, we are more than irrelevant. We have become an obstacle."
[On April 21, Obama said he would meet Netanyahu in Washington as part of revived U.S.-led peace efforts in the Middle East, Middle East Newsline reported. The president said the summit would take place over the next few weeks.]
0A Israeli sources said the administration would reject Israeli intelligence on such threats as Iran and Syria while advancing the Obama agenda to reconcile with the two states, both listed as state sponsors of terrorism by the U.S. State Dept.
On April 20, Israeli military intelligence commander Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin warned the Cabinet that Obama was prepared to allow Iran to retain its capability to assemble nuclear weapons and support Hamas and Hizbullah.
"Obama wants to advance the peace process in the direction of realistic discussions with extremist elements," Yadlin said.
The Israeli intelligence assess ment envisioned that Obama would maintain his reconciliation policy with Iran and Syria through at least 2010. The sources said the assessment determined that Obama was convinced that such a policy would enable a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Obama will want to show Iran, Syria and radical Muslims that the United States could pressure Israel on a strategic level," the source said. "The pressure has already begun and will intensify throughout the next year or two."
The military intelligence chief said Obama was also courting the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Yadlin said both Damascus and Teheran have not significantly reduced their support for insurgency groups throughout the region.
"President Bashar Assad hopes to turn over a new leaf with U.S. President Barack Obama," Yadlin said. "However, while Western powers are being hosted at the palace in Damascus, Syria is continuing to be used as the backyard of the axis of evil.&nbs p; Assad is letting Hizbullah and Iranian forces freely conduct their affairs in Syrian and use its territory for Hizbullah deployment.
Yadlin said Obama's policies have generated dismay among Arab allies of the United States. He said Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia were concerned that U.S. reconciliation efforts would merely encourage Teheran and its proxies to intensify destabilization efforts. In April 2009, Egypt reported a Hizbullah network that operated in Cairo and the Sinai Peninsula.
"The Arab world is starting to understand that Iranian proxies are a threat to the region," Yadlin said. "The Hizbullah activity in Egypt is not an isolated incident. Iran has infrastructures across the world seeking to perpetrate terror attacks against Israel.
At the same time, the Obama administration was expected to restrict U.S. arms exports to Israel in an effort t o deny systems that could be used in any attack against Iran or Syria. The intelligence sources said this policy was implemented during the last year of the Bush administration and would intensify under Obama.
Democrats’ and Republicans’ Divergent Views on Israeli-Arab Peace
Dr. James Zogby
Posted on Monday April 27, 2009
The American electorate is deeply divided on issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with voters who backed Barack Obama and John McCain holding dramatically divergent views on the conflict, what should be done to solve it, and the role the U.S. ought to play.
This is the most startling finding of a Zogby International interactive survey conducted in April, 2009, for the Doha Debates, a BBC-TV program emanating from Doha, Qatar. The survey engaged 4,230 U.S. adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5%.
The survey found that substantial majorities (of all groups) believed: that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important; that the conflict negatively impacts U.S. interests in the Middle East; that both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to equal rights; and that there should be a Palestinian state.
Overall, the survey established that, while favorable attitudes toward Israel remain strong, pluralities of Americans believe that President Obama should pursue a policy less supportive of Israel than his predecessor. They believe he ought to “get tough” with Israel on settlements, and “steer a middle course between Israel and the Palestinians.”
These findings, however, mask the deep divide within the electorate.
Attitudes toward U.S.-Israeli Relations
Americans do support Israel, to be sure. But, are the interests of the two countries identical, and does its support for Israel strengthen or weaken the U.S.? Three quarters of voters who supported John McCain believe that the interests of the U.S. and Israel are identical. Nearly as many believe that the U.S. is strengthened by its support of Israel. Obama voters, however, strongly disagree with both propositions, with more than one half disagreeing that the interests of the two countries are the same. Similarly, half of Obama voters believe the U.S. is weakened by its support for Israel, with only one in five seeing the U.S. as strengthened.
When asked which is more important to the U.S.— relations with Israel, the Arabs, or both – only 7% of Obama voters say Israel, 17% say the Arabs, and 68% say both. On the other hand, 46% of McCain voters say that the U.S. relationship with Israel is most important, only 3% emphasize relations with the Arabs, while 48% say both.
It appears from the results of the survey that the recent war in Gaza served to widen the gap between the two groups of voters. Half of Obama supporters said that war made them less supportive of Israel, while two-thirds of McCain voters actually say that the Gaza war made them more supportive of Israel.
What Should the U.S. Do?
Predictably, McCain voters saw Bush as an honest broker (by an 84%-8% margin). Obama voters disagreed by an equally overwhelming margin. But what should President Obama do? When asked, 73% of those who voted for President Obama say he should “steer a middle course,” with only 10% saying he should support Israel and 6% saying support the Palestinians. Wildly different responses come from the McCain voters, 60% of whom say the current President should support Israel! Only 22% of McCain supporters say the President should be balanced in his approach to the conflict
Engage with Hamas? By a 67%-16% margin Obama voters say yes, while 79% of McCain voters say no. And should the U.S. get tough with Israel? 80% of Obama voters say it is time to get tough, with 73% Of McCain voters disagreeing.
Solving Final Status Issues
Even when it comes to solving critical final status issues, the two camps hold positions that are mirror opposites of one another. Do Palestinians have the right of return? Obama voters agree they do by a margin of 61%-13%, while McCain voters disagree, 21%-51%. Should Jerusalem be divided and serve as the capital of two states, or remain under sole Israeli control? Obama voters prefer the “divided” and “two capitals” option with McCain voters overwhelmingly supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel
Similarly, a majority of Obama voters believe Israel should be made to remove its settlements from occupied Palestinian lands, while a majority of McCain voters believe the settlements should stay.
Two Observations
The depth of this partisan divide is instructive on many levels. First and foremost, it establishes that, despite the claim of hard-line supporters of Israel, traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing. In fact, as the two parties have evolved over the past thirty years, and as the issue itself has evolved – since Oslo – each of the two parties have moved in different directions.
The dominant role of the religious right, which now comprises up to one-third of the base of the Republican Party, coupled with the degree to which neo-conservativism has come to define the world view of that party, have contributed to a significant reorientation of the GOP. These two strands of thought were brought together by George W. Bush, who also embraced Ariel Sharon, and, post-9/11, characterized the struggles of Israel and the U.S. as identical. As a result, it now appears that the GOP is no longer the party of George Herbert Walker Bush and James Baker, but an entirely new entity.
Meanwhile, the base of the Democratic Party, has come to be defined by progressives (including a significant number of progressive Jews) and minority communities who have grown weary of Bush’s ideological approach to conflict. They have come to reject his policies and recoil from their consequences.
Obama’s victory, therefore, represents not only the election of a new President, but the victory of a new coalition whose component parts support an anti-war, pro-peace and pro-human rights agenda. This coalition, our poll findings demonstrate, can provide the support the new President needs, should he decide on a dramatically different direction for U.S policy toward the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Comment: We shall see more of these polls as a major move toward shifting the notion of suport has begun. The Democrats are now firmly in control and their agenda is to ultimately force Israel to give in-they will use as one of their strategies. Politics ahead of human lives-so disappointing-our job hads become that much more difficult.
Posted on Monday April 27, 2009
The American electorate is deeply divided on issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with voters who backed Barack Obama and John McCain holding dramatically divergent views on the conflict, what should be done to solve it, and the role the U.S. ought to play.
This is the most startling finding of a Zogby International interactive survey conducted in April, 2009, for the Doha Debates, a BBC-TV program emanating from Doha, Qatar. The survey engaged 4,230 U.S. adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5%.
The survey found that substantial majorities (of all groups) believed: that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important; that the conflict negatively impacts U.S. interests in the Middle East; that both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to equal rights; and that there should be a Palestinian state.
Overall, the survey established that, while favorable attitudes toward Israel remain strong, pluralities of Americans believe that President Obama should pursue a policy less supportive of Israel than his predecessor. They believe he ought to “get tough” with Israel on settlements, and “steer a middle course between Israel and the Palestinians.”
These findings, however, mask the deep divide within the electorate.
Attitudes toward U.S.-Israeli Relations
Americans do support Israel, to be sure. But, are the interests of the two countries identical, and does its support for Israel strengthen or weaken the U.S.? Three quarters of voters who supported John McCain believe that the interests of the U.S. and Israel are identical. Nearly as many believe that the U.S. is strengthened by its support of Israel. Obama voters, however, strongly disagree with both propositions, with more than one half disagreeing that the interests of the two countries are the same. Similarly, half of Obama voters believe the U.S. is weakened by its support for Israel, with only one in five seeing the U.S. as strengthened.
When asked which is more important to the U.S.— relations with Israel, the Arabs, or both – only 7% of Obama voters say Israel, 17% say the Arabs, and 68% say both. On the other hand, 46% of McCain voters say that the U.S. relationship with Israel is most important, only 3% emphasize relations with the Arabs, while 48% say both.
It appears from the results of the survey that the recent war in Gaza served to widen the gap between the two groups of voters. Half of Obama supporters said that war made them less supportive of Israel, while two-thirds of McCain voters actually say that the Gaza war made them more supportive of Israel.
What Should the U.S. Do?
Predictably, McCain voters saw Bush as an honest broker (by an 84%-8% margin). Obama voters disagreed by an equally overwhelming margin. But what should President Obama do? When asked, 73% of those who voted for President Obama say he should “steer a middle course,” with only 10% saying he should support Israel and 6% saying support the Palestinians. Wildly different responses come from the McCain voters, 60% of whom say the current President should support Israel! Only 22% of McCain supporters say the President should be balanced in his approach to the conflict
Engage with Hamas? By a 67%-16% margin Obama voters say yes, while 79% of McCain voters say no. And should the U.S. get tough with Israel? 80% of Obama voters say it is time to get tough, with 73% Of McCain voters disagreeing.
Solving Final Status Issues
Even when it comes to solving critical final status issues, the two camps hold positions that are mirror opposites of one another. Do Palestinians have the right of return? Obama voters agree they do by a margin of 61%-13%, while McCain voters disagree, 21%-51%. Should Jerusalem be divided and serve as the capital of two states, or remain under sole Israeli control? Obama voters prefer the “divided” and “two capitals” option with McCain voters overwhelmingly supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel
Similarly, a majority of Obama voters believe Israel should be made to remove its settlements from occupied Palestinian lands, while a majority of McCain voters believe the settlements should stay.
Two Observations
The depth of this partisan divide is instructive on many levels. First and foremost, it establishes that, despite the claim of hard-line supporters of Israel, traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing. In fact, as the two parties have evolved over the past thirty years, and as the issue itself has evolved – since Oslo – each of the two parties have moved in different directions.
The dominant role of the religious right, which now comprises up to one-third of the base of the Republican Party, coupled with the degree to which neo-conservativism has come to define the world view of that party, have contributed to a significant reorientation of the GOP. These two strands of thought were brought together by George W. Bush, who also embraced Ariel Sharon, and, post-9/11, characterized the struggles of Israel and the U.S. as identical. As a result, it now appears that the GOP is no longer the party of George Herbert Walker Bush and James Baker, but an entirely new entity.
Meanwhile, the base of the Democratic Party, has come to be defined by progressives (including a significant number of progressive Jews) and minority communities who have grown weary of Bush’s ideological approach to conflict. They have come to reject his policies and recoil from their consequences.
Obama’s victory, therefore, represents not only the election of a new President, but the victory of a new coalition whose component parts support an anti-war, pro-peace and pro-human rights agenda. This coalition, our poll findings demonstrate, can provide the support the new President needs, should he decide on a dramatically different direction for U.S policy toward the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Comment: We shall see more of these polls as a major move toward shifting the notion of suport has begun. The Democrats are now firmly in control and their agenda is to ultimately force Israel to give in-they will use as one of their strategies. Politics ahead of human lives-so disappointing-our job hads become that much more difficult.
One Hundred Polarized Days
Jillian Bandes
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Barack Obama celebrates the hundredth day of his Presidency today. Liberals say he’s doing a bang up-job. Conservatives contend it’s been 100 days of absolute horrorThe sharp difference in opinion illustrates one of Obama’s most defining characteristics thus far: partisanship. Obama’s approval rating (63%) are two points under the 100-day average for the past ten presidents. Yet 87% of Democrats approve of him while only 37% Republicans do.
“Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades,” reported the Pew Research Center, noting that growing partisanship has been a trend in American politics over the past few decades.
But Obama is ahead of his predecessors. Former President George W. Bush, for example, was nearly ten percentage points less polarizing than Obama at this point in his Presidency.
That didn’t stop Democrats and liberal media from pouring on the praise, with David Broder calling Obama’s first 100 days “a bravura opening.”
“If Obama's history-making campaign offered hope, the nation's first black president has delivered audacity; his vision of an activist government has been so vast, Washington now guarantees not only savings accounts but brakes on a Buick,” wrote Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak in the Los Angeles Times.
Compare that with the sentiments of Rep. Mike Pence, chair of the Republican Study Committee:
“The reality is that we have seen some of the most partisan, one-sided, lopsided legislation in my short tenure in the Congress of the United States,” said Pence. “In many ways it is altogether fitting that this President would mark his first 100 days by signing the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history into law.”
Conservatives point to Obama’s fiscal record as one of their main points of contention. Despite calling for absolute earmark reform, the President signed a spending bill with over 8,000 earmarks in it on the 51st day of his Presidency, according to research by Americans for Tax Reform. ATR also points to the numerous tax scandals in which Obama appointees have been embroiled and his hypocrisy on taxes.
“Signed into law back on Feb. 4, on just the sixteenth day of his presidency, the 156 percent–61 cents per pack—cigarette tax increase falls largely on the shoulders of middle and low-income Americans,” wrote ATR. This contrasts with Obama’s statement that no Americans who make less than $250,000 will see a tax increase. Experts also say that not increasing taxes will be difficult after increasing federal spending by 8% over last year.
The Heritage Foundation issued a judgment on Obama’s foreign policy after the first 100 days. Despite commitments to reduce troop sizes in Iraq over the summer, Obama has not yet reversed the course of the previous administration in the Middle East, something senior research fellow James Jay Carafano says “makes sense.”
However, Carafano also points to poor decision making in reversing the Cuban embargo, cutting money from missile defense and the overall defense budget, and closing Guantanamo bay.
“Presidents must keep the nation safe, free, and prosperous for four years, not 100 days. The White House has a lot more work to do,” he said.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
COP: Global Warming’s Real Danger: Taxation
E. Ralph Hostetter
FrontPageMagazine.com
The global warming debate has taken on a new dimension -- taxation. Nearly all the energy required for domestic and industrial use in the United States is based on carbon. Wind and water provide far lesser amounts of energy. Carbon is the base of all fossil fuels, such as gas, coal and petroleum, which are used to produce most of the nation's energy.
There are at present a variety of taxes up to and including taxes that are involved in the production and sale of domestic and industrial energy. The full use of a fossil fuel including gas, oil and coal, requires combustion of the product with the resulting release of various gases, one of which is carbon dioxide.
Automobiles have been suggested to be one of the largest sources of man-made contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The oceans of the world provide 90 percent of the world's carbon dioxide. However, in recent years catalytic converters, mandated for all motor vehicles in the 1970s, have reduced harmful exhaust emissions -- nitrous oxide, for example -- by some 88 percent. These automotive improvements, however, did not eliminate carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide represents but a trace of the earth's atmosphere, making up a mere 376 parts per million or about 0.04 percent. While this is a miniscule part of the atmosphere’s total content, it is an essential compound because of its role in harnessing the sun’s energy through the process of photosynthesis, which creates our planet’s vegetable matter. The resulting vegetation provides the base food source for both animals and human beings.
Climate change is not without "thoughtful" attention from the top. A headline today proclaims: President Obama "Stops Short of Endorsing Climate Bill."
President Clinton stated in a "pivotal" speech on climate on April 21, 1993, "Today I affirmed my personal, and announce our nation's, commitment to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000." The year 2000 has come and gone.
Not to be outdone in political rhetoric, Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, opening a hearing on global warming on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, noted that this is a "make-or-break" year on the issue of global warming and added, "The clock is ticking on the best chance the countries of the world will have to marshal an effective global response."
So much for climate rhetoric. The climate change debate has taken on a much more serious tone -- taxation. It's one thing to take on a controversial issue in public debate but quite another when a method is developed that will bring harm to the citizens of the nation for a problem over which they have no control. When taxes result from any issue the payment is painful. The pain is much more easily borne if it represents a necessary public service, such as security offered by a police department, for example. However, when that tax is levied for such a nebulous factor as a questionable debate on climate change, that argument goes beyond the pale.
Inasmuch as carbon dioxide has been identified as one of the main causes of global warming, carbon itself has been selected as the most likely commodity to tax. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, have both announced their intent to introduce climate legislation in the future. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, proposes ambitious cuts in allowed amounts of greenhouse gases produced over the next four decades. The legislation is co-sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA.
Reid plans to take up a cap and trade measure this year. Under cap and trade an authority such as government sets a limit or cap upon the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other organizations are issued permits representing the right to emit a specific amount. Companies that emit too much and cannot reduce emissions must purchase credits from those who pollute less, thus the trade. In theory, those that can reduce emissions most easily will do so, achieving pollution reduction at the least possible cost to all.
Not all students of climate favor legislation and some point out the dangers of over-regulation. Here are a few points by Arthur Robinson from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: First, man-made carbon dioxide is an insignificant greenhouse gas; water vapor is the major factor. Second, the sun’s cosmic rays have the most significant influence over global temperature and weather. Third, if all nations’ carbon dioxide emissions were halted the impact would not be significantly measureable. Fourth, the imposition of control would be catastrophic, adversely affecting the emerging nations of the world. Finally, climate alarmists are motivated by politics and finances, and if the controversy would end, thousands would be unemployed.
Americans may find the reality of additional taxation more painful than the questionable threat of global warming. E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman and publisher, is an award-winning columnist and Vice Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation Board of Directors.
FrontPageMagazine.com
The global warming debate has taken on a new dimension -- taxation. Nearly all the energy required for domestic and industrial use in the United States is based on carbon. Wind and water provide far lesser amounts of energy. Carbon is the base of all fossil fuels, such as gas, coal and petroleum, which are used to produce most of the nation's energy.
There are at present a variety of taxes up to and including taxes that are involved in the production and sale of domestic and industrial energy. The full use of a fossil fuel including gas, oil and coal, requires combustion of the product with the resulting release of various gases, one of which is carbon dioxide.
Automobiles have been suggested to be one of the largest sources of man-made contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The oceans of the world provide 90 percent of the world's carbon dioxide. However, in recent years catalytic converters, mandated for all motor vehicles in the 1970s, have reduced harmful exhaust emissions -- nitrous oxide, for example -- by some 88 percent. These automotive improvements, however, did not eliminate carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide represents but a trace of the earth's atmosphere, making up a mere 376 parts per million or about 0.04 percent. While this is a miniscule part of the atmosphere’s total content, it is an essential compound because of its role in harnessing the sun’s energy through the process of photosynthesis, which creates our planet’s vegetable matter. The resulting vegetation provides the base food source for both animals and human beings.
Climate change is not without "thoughtful" attention from the top. A headline today proclaims: President Obama "Stops Short of Endorsing Climate Bill."
President Clinton stated in a "pivotal" speech on climate on April 21, 1993, "Today I affirmed my personal, and announce our nation's, commitment to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000." The year 2000 has come and gone.
Not to be outdone in political rhetoric, Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, opening a hearing on global warming on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, noted that this is a "make-or-break" year on the issue of global warming and added, "The clock is ticking on the best chance the countries of the world will have to marshal an effective global response."
So much for climate rhetoric. The climate change debate has taken on a much more serious tone -- taxation. It's one thing to take on a controversial issue in public debate but quite another when a method is developed that will bring harm to the citizens of the nation for a problem over which they have no control. When taxes result from any issue the payment is painful. The pain is much more easily borne if it represents a necessary public service, such as security offered by a police department, for example. However, when that tax is levied for such a nebulous factor as a questionable debate on climate change, that argument goes beyond the pale.
Inasmuch as carbon dioxide has been identified as one of the main causes of global warming, carbon itself has been selected as the most likely commodity to tax. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, have both announced their intent to introduce climate legislation in the future. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, proposes ambitious cuts in allowed amounts of greenhouse gases produced over the next four decades. The legislation is co-sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA.
Reid plans to take up a cap and trade measure this year. Under cap and trade an authority such as government sets a limit or cap upon the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other organizations are issued permits representing the right to emit a specific amount. Companies that emit too much and cannot reduce emissions must purchase credits from those who pollute less, thus the trade. In theory, those that can reduce emissions most easily will do so, achieving pollution reduction at the least possible cost to all.
Not all students of climate favor legislation and some point out the dangers of over-regulation. Here are a few points by Arthur Robinson from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: First, man-made carbon dioxide is an insignificant greenhouse gas; water vapor is the major factor. Second, the sun’s cosmic rays have the most significant influence over global temperature and weather. Third, if all nations’ carbon dioxide emissions were halted the impact would not be significantly measureable. Fourth, the imposition of control would be catastrophic, adversely affecting the emerging nations of the world. Finally, climate alarmists are motivated by politics and finances, and if the controversy would end, thousands would be unemployed.
Americans may find the reality of additional taxation more painful than the questionable threat of global warming. E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman and publisher, is an award-winning columnist and Vice Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation Board of Directors.
Must Israel Make Peace with Rocket Fire?
P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com
In an insightful, idol-smashing article in the currently Atlantic Monthly, Robert Kaplan proposes that the reason the “two-state solution” keeps being frustrated is that the Palestinians don’t actually want the state that’s being offered them. But Kaplan also castigates Israeli leaders who are closer to that level of insight and calls for harsh U.S. pressure on them. After saying that “The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century” and “is the signature issue of our time,” and that “obviously, part of the problem has been Israeli intransigence,” Kaplan says “there is a deeper structural and philosophical reason why the Palestinians remain stateless” and that it is “best explained” by a current Policy Review article by Jakub Grygiel. “In it,” Kaplan notes, “Grygiel does not discuss the Palestinians in particular, but rather the attitude of stateless people in general.”
Grygiel, Kaplan explains, says many stateless groups “do not aspire to have a state” and that it is now even “highly desirable” for them not to have one. In Kaplan’s telling, “New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states.” Kaplan points out that “It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made it easier for Israel to bomb it” whereas “statelessness offers a level of ‘impunity’ from retaliation.”
Kaplan goes on to add: “But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.”
Turning again to the Palestinians, Kaplan suggests that if Grygiel is right, “then the Palestinians may never have a state, because at a deep psychological level, enough of them—or at least the groups that speak in their name—may not really want one…. Better the glory of victimhood, combined with the power of radical abstractions! As a stateless people, Palestinians can lob rockets into Israel, but not be wholly blamed in the eyes of the international community. Statehood would, perforce, put an end to such license.”
Seemingly, then, Kaplan should be sympathetic or at least respectful of the advent of a new Israeli government that is much more skeptical than its predecessor of Palestinian goals and the “two-state solution.” Kaplan, though, is anything but.
Having earlier decried “Israeli intransigence” as “part of the problem,” he asserts: “Despite seeming to submit to territorial concessions, one Israeli government after another has quietly continued to bolster illegal settlements in the occupied territories. The new Israeli government may be the worst yet: Its foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, is so extreme in his anti-Arab views that he makes the right-wing Likud prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, appear like the centrist he isn’t. The prospects for peace under this government are fundamentally bleak.”
There is a lot here to cope with, but as briefly as possible: Israeli governments have not only “seem[ed] to submit to…concessions” in the territories but have actually transferred a high degree of control to Fatah in parts of the West Bank, at the cost of thousands of murdered, maimed, and traumatized Israeli citizens. As for settlements, Kaplan’s implication that because it was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 the West Bank is now legally off limits to Jews was controverted by, for instance, President George W. Bush—a strong proponent of a Palestinian state who in a 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon accepted the “already existing major Israeli population centers” in the West Bank and presumably did not mean thereby to commit the United States to supporting illegality.
And as for Lieberman, suffice it to say that while he has in fact made some harsh remarks about Arabs in the past, it might be worthwhile for Kaplan and others to check whether as foreign minister he has been living up to his demonic image. Apart from writing in February that he “advocate[s] the creation of a viable Palestinian state” and stating this month that Israel is obligated by the “roadmap to a two-state solution,” has Lieberman been making reprehensible statements or pushing reprehensible policies toward Israeli Arabs or any other Arabs? Worth looking into, perhaps—his conciliatory meeting on Thursday with Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman might be a good place to start.
Indeed, Kaplan is considerably more indulgent toward the Israeli public that elected Netanyahu and Lieberman than to those leaders themselves, writing: “And yet this Israeli government faithfully represents the Israeli electorate, which is in utter despair over the impossibility of finding credible partners on the Palestinian side with which to negotiate. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. President Mahmoud Abbas’s more moderate Fatah movement may be willing to live in peace with Israel, but it has insufficient political legitimacy among Palestinians to negotiate such a deal….”
Leaving aside that highly debatable statement about Fatah’s moderation, Kaplan seems to be saying that Israelis who have “despaired” have a point. And yet: “the United States should apply ample pressure on the new Israeli government to compromise with the Palestinians—ratcheting up the rhetoric and slowing down arms deliveries if necessary. It should do this because it is the right thing to do, and because it will help the U.S. to reestablish credibility in the Muslim world….”
Compromise with people who don’t want to compromise with you and prefer to “lob rockets” at you while savoring “the glory of victimhood”? How would Israel do that? Perhaps Kaplan can explain in his next piece.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com
Comment: The next few months are dangerous times for Israel-we shall find out how strong the new Israeli government really is..
FrontPageMagazine.com
In an insightful, idol-smashing article in the currently Atlantic Monthly, Robert Kaplan proposes that the reason the “two-state solution” keeps being frustrated is that the Palestinians don’t actually want the state that’s being offered them. But Kaplan also castigates Israeli leaders who are closer to that level of insight and calls for harsh U.S. pressure on them. After saying that “The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century” and “is the signature issue of our time,” and that “obviously, part of the problem has been Israeli intransigence,” Kaplan says “there is a deeper structural and philosophical reason why the Palestinians remain stateless” and that it is “best explained” by a current Policy Review article by Jakub Grygiel. “In it,” Kaplan notes, “Grygiel does not discuss the Palestinians in particular, but rather the attitude of stateless people in general.”
Grygiel, Kaplan explains, says many stateless groups “do not aspire to have a state” and that it is now even “highly desirable” for them not to have one. In Kaplan’s telling, “New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states.” Kaplan points out that “It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made it easier for Israel to bomb it” whereas “statelessness offers a level of ‘impunity’ from retaliation.”
Kaplan goes on to add: “But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.”
Turning again to the Palestinians, Kaplan suggests that if Grygiel is right, “then the Palestinians may never have a state, because at a deep psychological level, enough of them—or at least the groups that speak in their name—may not really want one…. Better the glory of victimhood, combined with the power of radical abstractions! As a stateless people, Palestinians can lob rockets into Israel, but not be wholly blamed in the eyes of the international community. Statehood would, perforce, put an end to such license.”
Seemingly, then, Kaplan should be sympathetic or at least respectful of the advent of a new Israeli government that is much more skeptical than its predecessor of Palestinian goals and the “two-state solution.” Kaplan, though, is anything but.
Having earlier decried “Israeli intransigence” as “part of the problem,” he asserts: “Despite seeming to submit to territorial concessions, one Israeli government after another has quietly continued to bolster illegal settlements in the occupied territories. The new Israeli government may be the worst yet: Its foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, is so extreme in his anti-Arab views that he makes the right-wing Likud prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, appear like the centrist he isn’t. The prospects for peace under this government are fundamentally bleak.”
There is a lot here to cope with, but as briefly as possible: Israeli governments have not only “seem[ed] to submit to…concessions” in the territories but have actually transferred a high degree of control to Fatah in parts of the West Bank, at the cost of thousands of murdered, maimed, and traumatized Israeli citizens. As for settlements, Kaplan’s implication that because it was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 the West Bank is now legally off limits to Jews was controverted by, for instance, President George W. Bush—a strong proponent of a Palestinian state who in a 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon accepted the “already existing major Israeli population centers” in the West Bank and presumably did not mean thereby to commit the United States to supporting illegality.
And as for Lieberman, suffice it to say that while he has in fact made some harsh remarks about Arabs in the past, it might be worthwhile for Kaplan and others to check whether as foreign minister he has been living up to his demonic image. Apart from writing in February that he “advocate[s] the creation of a viable Palestinian state” and stating this month that Israel is obligated by the “roadmap to a two-state solution,” has Lieberman been making reprehensible statements or pushing reprehensible policies toward Israeli Arabs or any other Arabs? Worth looking into, perhaps—his conciliatory meeting on Thursday with Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman might be a good place to start.
Indeed, Kaplan is considerably more indulgent toward the Israeli public that elected Netanyahu and Lieberman than to those leaders themselves, writing: “And yet this Israeli government faithfully represents the Israeli electorate, which is in utter despair over the impossibility of finding credible partners on the Palestinian side with which to negotiate. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. President Mahmoud Abbas’s more moderate Fatah movement may be willing to live in peace with Israel, but it has insufficient political legitimacy among Palestinians to negotiate such a deal….”
Leaving aside that highly debatable statement about Fatah’s moderation, Kaplan seems to be saying that Israelis who have “despaired” have a point. And yet: “the United States should apply ample pressure on the new Israeli government to compromise with the Palestinians—ratcheting up the rhetoric and slowing down arms deliveries if necessary. It should do this because it is the right thing to do, and because it will help the U.S. to reestablish credibility in the Muslim world….”
Compromise with people who don’t want to compromise with you and prefer to “lob rockets” at you while savoring “the glory of victimhood”? How would Israel do that? Perhaps Kaplan can explain in his next piece.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com
Comment: The next few months are dangerous times for Israel-we shall find out how strong the new Israeli government really is..
9 Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture
Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com
Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions: 1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did -- all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.
2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.
3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time -- even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives -- wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida -- for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured -- could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?
4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.
5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?
6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, ”We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?
7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?
8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos -- or at least photo re-enactments -- of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?
9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?
If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration. Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
FrontPageMagazine.com
Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions: 1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did -- all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.
2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.
3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time -- even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives -- wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida -- for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured -- could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?
4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.
5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?
6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, ”We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?
7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?
8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos -- or at least photo re-enactments -- of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?
9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?
If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration. Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Explaining Qatar’s schizophrenic foreign policy
Daily News-Egypt
David B Roberts
First Published: April 28, 2009
In recent months, Qatar has found itself embroiled in resurgent notions of an Arab Cold War. Moreover, Qatar is often painted as one of the instigators of this potential cold conflict. Hosting Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) conferences and unexpectedly inviting Iran, hosting post-Gaza invasion conferences apparently seeking to wrest away the mantle of Arab leadership from the traditional Saudi/Egypt axis and financially supporting Hezbollah are but a few methods by which Qatar can be seen to be fermenting issues. However, at the same time as clearly siding with what might be described as the more radical elements in the region, Qatar has good relations with America and hosts numerous crucial US military bases. Furthermore, Qatar is the only GCC country to recognize Israel. They have been interacting with the Jewish state since the late 1990s and have opened up an Israeli trade office in Doha. Granted, this is sporadically closed because of the vagaries of international politics, but this nevertheless certainly sets Qatar apart. Outwith these examples, Qatar is touting itself as a peacemaker. From Lebanon to Western Sahara and from Indonesia to Yemen, Qatar is involving itself in a range of conflicts. From time to time they are successful and thus accrue plaudits and international prestige. The best example of this was with the successful Qatari mediation of the 2008 Lebanese civil conflict that had flummoxed countless mediators before Qatar.
Another key strand of Qatar’s foreign policy is their international munificence. Qatar uses its significant financial largesse from their ever expanding Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) sales to give large amounts of foreign aid to, for example, the victims of hurricane Katrina and to Hezbollah.
There are, therefore, apparent contradictions throughout Qatar’s foreign policy. There cannot be many actors in the world — certainly none in the Middle East — that have close relations with Hezbollah and America, to the point where they will give aid to both.
Yet there is method to Qatar’s apparent madness, which stems from Qatar’s answers to its intrinsic vulnerabilities. Not only is Qatar a tiny country with negligible armed forces but it is penned-in to its north by irascible and unpredictable Iran and by the deeply conservative Saudi Arabia to the south. Both are infinitely larger and militarily more powerful countries and both controlled the Qatari Peninsula at one stage.
There are, therefore, firm and well-grounded irredentist claims against Qatar’s peninsula. Furthermore, there are — frankly — good reasons to invade Qatar. Not only would there only be a tiny native population of less than 250,000 to subdue, but Qatar has the fourteenth largest oil reserves and the third largest reserves of gas in the world. This is, it must not be forgotten, in a region which has seen a similar situation leading to invasion and war not two decades ago. Qatar is, therefore, suitably concerned and has sought ways to guarantee its security against these or indeed any other threats.
Seeking international friends
Qatar is pursuing policies where popularity is one of the key determinants. Supporting Hezbollah with their ever-popular anti-Israeli credentials as opposed to following policies emanating from a deeply unpopular regime in Cairo garners Qatar more kudos. In the same way, backing, interacting and establishing good relations with Iran, their anti-American stance being as popular as ever in the Arab world, is a more populist policy than following the archaic and conservative line of Riyadh. These kinds of policies garner Qatar support on what may loosely be referred to as ‘the Arab street’. However, it is not just an Arab audience that Qatar plays to.
When Qatar host US military forces and have relatively close relations with Israel, they are not aiming at the Arab street but the Western one. Supporting the US in their efforts in the Middle East and the progressive and even liberal policy of recognizing and interacting with Israel is likely to curry favor in the West. Additionally, when Qatar seeks to mediate conflicts around the world they are primarily doing two things. First, when successful, Qatar accrues kudos and thanks from the country involved. Second, and perhaps more importantly, by marketing themselves as peacemakers Qatar is increasing its deterrence, for it is surely harder to attack a country that is primarily known for promoting peace.
…and trying to influence them
Yet what exactly is the importance of ethereal notions of popularity, kudos or thanks? Harvard political scientist Joseph Nye coined and popularized the terms soft and hard power back in 1990. For Qatar, hard power is primarily evidenced by the US military bases in Qatar, which offer a direct military threat to anyone contemplating attacking: it is a stick. Soft power is more about carrots. The essence of soft power is getting one’s way through attraction and not coercion. Increasing Qatar’s attractiveness in the West by hosting US bases, recognizing Israel, acting as an international peacemaker and so on may well enable the US forces to remain in Qatar for longer. US domestic pressure was, after all, one of the factors that precipitated the removal of US forces from Saudi Arabia to Qatar.
More generally, if Qatar presents itself as an attractive, modern, relatively progressive peacemaking state in a region which is none of these things, then this can offer Qatar comparative advantages over their neighboring countries. This can be of particular importance in terms of economics. For although Qatar has huge supplies of gas it must nevertheless think and plan for its post-gas future. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is, therefore, critical. Qatar will need to seek investment in terms of finance, technology and skills to transform itself from a primarily one-industry country. At the same time, however, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the Emirates are in the same position and vying for the same commodities. Every dollar or engineer that goes to Abu Dhabi, therefore, is one dollar and one engineer that does not go to Doha: it is an entirely zero-sum game. Whatever Qatar can do to increase its chances, for example, by using its soft power to augment its international image, it must.
Qatar’s widespread international relations, particularly those where they are involved in mediation, can act as a starting point for closer bilateral relations. Qatari negotiators necessarily interact with important leaders in any given country. Also, the protagonists in the conflict are usually brought to Doha for a conference to seek a resolution. It stands to reason that these occasions contribute to the fostering of contacts and a development of relations, which can potentially lead to improved reciprocal trade or other relations
On the street
When Qatar seeks to improve its soft power on the Arab street, it is presumably aiming at fostering some kind of solidarity. Whilst it is unreasonable to expect native populations to significantly alter their country’s policies towards Qatar, having something akin to popular support in the Arab world is important for legitimation. Several Arab leaders, notably from Nasser onwards, have sought Arab popularity and used it as a platform for political leadership and mandate. It is also important to recognize that there are other reasons afoot, in terms of these policy decisions. Iran, for example, sharing the world’s largest gas field with Qatar, having the Middle East’s most potent military, being one of the most bellicose countries in the region and having occasional irredentist spurts of rhetoric are clearly the biggest potential threat to Qatar. These policies of closer relations with Iran and Hezbollah obviously also derive from the belief that if not appeasing, then at least accommodating Iran is far wiser than antagonizing or ignoring it. This factor dovetails perfectly with Qatar’s overall desire to foster the maximum amount of international support possible.
Soft power is an elusive and nebulous concept that is difficult to define and yet more difficult to pick out specific examples of it in action. However, for a small state like Qatar, soft power would be particularly important as it is difficult for such countries to corral, coerce or force other international actors to do something. Therefore, such small states must rely on attraction (i.e. soft power) in order to get what they need in international relations.
Qatar’s deliberate decision to foster its soft power through seeking to pursue broadly populist policies is working well so far. Qatar is also lucky that its need for US protection whilst maintaining good Iranian relations is served well by this policy. There is always the danger, however, in that trying to please everybody Qatar ends up pleasing no-one. Or that supporting these two antagonistic groups at the same time may weaken support in both camps. Yet so far Qatar is skilfully prospering and carving out a role for itself as something of the Scandinavia of the Middle East: rich, relatively neutral, mostly popular with all sides and with a reputation for the honest brokering of peace deals.
David B Robertsis a doctoral student at the University Of Durham, UK focusing on Qatar.
David B Roberts
First Published: April 28, 2009
In recent months, Qatar has found itself embroiled in resurgent notions of an Arab Cold War. Moreover, Qatar is often painted as one of the instigators of this potential cold conflict. Hosting Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) conferences and unexpectedly inviting Iran, hosting post-Gaza invasion conferences apparently seeking to wrest away the mantle of Arab leadership from the traditional Saudi/Egypt axis and financially supporting Hezbollah are but a few methods by which Qatar can be seen to be fermenting issues. However, at the same time as clearly siding with what might be described as the more radical elements in the region, Qatar has good relations with America and hosts numerous crucial US military bases. Furthermore, Qatar is the only GCC country to recognize Israel. They have been interacting with the Jewish state since the late 1990s and have opened up an Israeli trade office in Doha. Granted, this is sporadically closed because of the vagaries of international politics, but this nevertheless certainly sets Qatar apart. Outwith these examples, Qatar is touting itself as a peacemaker. From Lebanon to Western Sahara and from Indonesia to Yemen, Qatar is involving itself in a range of conflicts. From time to time they are successful and thus accrue plaudits and international prestige. The best example of this was with the successful Qatari mediation of the 2008 Lebanese civil conflict that had flummoxed countless mediators before Qatar.
Another key strand of Qatar’s foreign policy is their international munificence. Qatar uses its significant financial largesse from their ever expanding Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) sales to give large amounts of foreign aid to, for example, the victims of hurricane Katrina and to Hezbollah.
There are, therefore, apparent contradictions throughout Qatar’s foreign policy. There cannot be many actors in the world — certainly none in the Middle East — that have close relations with Hezbollah and America, to the point where they will give aid to both.
Yet there is method to Qatar’s apparent madness, which stems from Qatar’s answers to its intrinsic vulnerabilities. Not only is Qatar a tiny country with negligible armed forces but it is penned-in to its north by irascible and unpredictable Iran and by the deeply conservative Saudi Arabia to the south. Both are infinitely larger and militarily more powerful countries and both controlled the Qatari Peninsula at one stage.
There are, therefore, firm and well-grounded irredentist claims against Qatar’s peninsula. Furthermore, there are — frankly — good reasons to invade Qatar. Not only would there only be a tiny native population of less than 250,000 to subdue, but Qatar has the fourteenth largest oil reserves and the third largest reserves of gas in the world. This is, it must not be forgotten, in a region which has seen a similar situation leading to invasion and war not two decades ago. Qatar is, therefore, suitably concerned and has sought ways to guarantee its security against these or indeed any other threats.
Seeking international friends
Qatar is pursuing policies where popularity is one of the key determinants. Supporting Hezbollah with their ever-popular anti-Israeli credentials as opposed to following policies emanating from a deeply unpopular regime in Cairo garners Qatar more kudos. In the same way, backing, interacting and establishing good relations with Iran, their anti-American stance being as popular as ever in the Arab world, is a more populist policy than following the archaic and conservative line of Riyadh. These kinds of policies garner Qatar support on what may loosely be referred to as ‘the Arab street’. However, it is not just an Arab audience that Qatar plays to.
When Qatar host US military forces and have relatively close relations with Israel, they are not aiming at the Arab street but the Western one. Supporting the US in their efforts in the Middle East and the progressive and even liberal policy of recognizing and interacting with Israel is likely to curry favor in the West. Additionally, when Qatar seeks to mediate conflicts around the world they are primarily doing two things. First, when successful, Qatar accrues kudos and thanks from the country involved. Second, and perhaps more importantly, by marketing themselves as peacemakers Qatar is increasing its deterrence, for it is surely harder to attack a country that is primarily known for promoting peace.
…and trying to influence them
Yet what exactly is the importance of ethereal notions of popularity, kudos or thanks? Harvard political scientist Joseph Nye coined and popularized the terms soft and hard power back in 1990. For Qatar, hard power is primarily evidenced by the US military bases in Qatar, which offer a direct military threat to anyone contemplating attacking: it is a stick. Soft power is more about carrots. The essence of soft power is getting one’s way through attraction and not coercion. Increasing Qatar’s attractiveness in the West by hosting US bases, recognizing Israel, acting as an international peacemaker and so on may well enable the US forces to remain in Qatar for longer. US domestic pressure was, after all, one of the factors that precipitated the removal of US forces from Saudi Arabia to Qatar.
More generally, if Qatar presents itself as an attractive, modern, relatively progressive peacemaking state in a region which is none of these things, then this can offer Qatar comparative advantages over their neighboring countries. This can be of particular importance in terms of economics. For although Qatar has huge supplies of gas it must nevertheless think and plan for its post-gas future. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is, therefore, critical. Qatar will need to seek investment in terms of finance, technology and skills to transform itself from a primarily one-industry country. At the same time, however, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the Emirates are in the same position and vying for the same commodities. Every dollar or engineer that goes to Abu Dhabi, therefore, is one dollar and one engineer that does not go to Doha: it is an entirely zero-sum game. Whatever Qatar can do to increase its chances, for example, by using its soft power to augment its international image, it must.
Qatar’s widespread international relations, particularly those where they are involved in mediation, can act as a starting point for closer bilateral relations. Qatari negotiators necessarily interact with important leaders in any given country. Also, the protagonists in the conflict are usually brought to Doha for a conference to seek a resolution. It stands to reason that these occasions contribute to the fostering of contacts and a development of relations, which can potentially lead to improved reciprocal trade or other relations
On the street
When Qatar seeks to improve its soft power on the Arab street, it is presumably aiming at fostering some kind of solidarity. Whilst it is unreasonable to expect native populations to significantly alter their country’s policies towards Qatar, having something akin to popular support in the Arab world is important for legitimation. Several Arab leaders, notably from Nasser onwards, have sought Arab popularity and used it as a platform for political leadership and mandate. It is also important to recognize that there are other reasons afoot, in terms of these policy decisions. Iran, for example, sharing the world’s largest gas field with Qatar, having the Middle East’s most potent military, being one of the most bellicose countries in the region and having occasional irredentist spurts of rhetoric are clearly the biggest potential threat to Qatar. These policies of closer relations with Iran and Hezbollah obviously also derive from the belief that if not appeasing, then at least accommodating Iran is far wiser than antagonizing or ignoring it. This factor dovetails perfectly with Qatar’s overall desire to foster the maximum amount of international support possible.
Soft power is an elusive and nebulous concept that is difficult to define and yet more difficult to pick out specific examples of it in action. However, for a small state like Qatar, soft power would be particularly important as it is difficult for such countries to corral, coerce or force other international actors to do something. Therefore, such small states must rely on attraction (i.e. soft power) in order to get what they need in international relations.
Qatar’s deliberate decision to foster its soft power through seeking to pursue broadly populist policies is working well so far. Qatar is also lucky that its need for US protection whilst maintaining good Iranian relations is served well by this policy. There is always the danger, however, in that trying to please everybody Qatar ends up pleasing no-one. Or that supporting these two antagonistic groups at the same time may weaken support in both camps. Yet so far Qatar is skilfully prospering and carving out a role for itself as something of the Scandinavia of the Middle East: rich, relatively neutral, mostly popular with all sides and with a reputation for the honest brokering of peace deals.
David B Robertsis a doctoral student at the University Of Durham, UK focusing on Qatar.
Maliki confirms Baghdadi arrest
Daily Gulf News
BAGHDAD: Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki confirmed on Tuesday that Abu Omar Al Baghdadi, one of the top leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq, is being held by Iraqi authorities. "The criminal terrorist Abu Omar Al Baghdadi is in the hands of justice," Maliki's office said in a statement, referring to the shadowy leader of the group, whom the US military once said was a fictional character.
Iraqi security forces said they had arrested a man they believed to be Baghdadi last week but they were still investigating him.
The Al Qaeda leader has never been photographed.
Maliki hailed the "new victory" of Iraqi security forces in arresting Baghdadi, whom he accused of trying to ignite a civil war in Iraq through a devastating campaign of bombings against civilians and Shiite holy places.
Maliki referred to Baghdadi as "the head of evil, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq," and said he had ties to the followers of the secular regime of executed dictator Saddam Hussein.
"This terrorist has strong relations with the previous regime and made a devilish alliance with its followers that left its mark on the innocent bodies of children, women and sheikhs in bloody scenes."
Iraqi police announced on Thursday they had arrested Baghdadi in the capital and would reveal him on television but have not yet released any pictures of the man, who has been reported captured or killed several times in the past.
Baghdadi is said to be the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, a self-styled umbrella organisation for Al Qaeda-affiliated insurgent groups fighting US and Iraqi forces that has pledged loyalty to Osama Bin Laden.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said that Baghdadi's real name is Ahmed Abed Ahmed and that he is a 40-year-old former officer in the Iraqi army.
"According to our intelligence he is Abu Omar Al Baghdadi, but we have to check very carefully because there have been a lot of Abu Omar Al Baghdadis," Dabbagh said last week.
The Pentagon praised the news of Baghdadi's capture at the time it happened, saying he was "believed to be a key leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq for some time."
But in July 2007 a US military spokesman had said Baghdadi was a fictional character designed to put an Iraqi face on a terror group led by foreigners and that the voice on his audiotapes was that of an actor.
The US military has always said that the real leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq is Abu Hamza Al Muhajir -- better known as Abu Ayyub Al Masri -- a veteran Egyptian militant named Al Qaeda chief in June 2006 following the death of his better-known Jordanian predecessor Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in a US air raid.
BAGHDAD: Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki confirmed on Tuesday that Abu Omar Al Baghdadi, one of the top leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq, is being held by Iraqi authorities. "The criminal terrorist Abu Omar Al Baghdadi is in the hands of justice," Maliki's office said in a statement, referring to the shadowy leader of the group, whom the US military once said was a fictional character.
Iraqi security forces said they had arrested a man they believed to be Baghdadi last week but they were still investigating him.
The Al Qaeda leader has never been photographed.
Maliki hailed the "new victory" of Iraqi security forces in arresting Baghdadi, whom he accused of trying to ignite a civil war in Iraq through a devastating campaign of bombings against civilians and Shiite holy places.
Maliki referred to Baghdadi as "the head of evil, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq," and said he had ties to the followers of the secular regime of executed dictator Saddam Hussein.
"This terrorist has strong relations with the previous regime and made a devilish alliance with its followers that left its mark on the innocent bodies of children, women and sheikhs in bloody scenes."
Iraqi police announced on Thursday they had arrested Baghdadi in the capital and would reveal him on television but have not yet released any pictures of the man, who has been reported captured or killed several times in the past.
Baghdadi is said to be the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, a self-styled umbrella organisation for Al Qaeda-affiliated insurgent groups fighting US and Iraqi forces that has pledged loyalty to Osama Bin Laden.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said that Baghdadi's real name is Ahmed Abed Ahmed and that he is a 40-year-old former officer in the Iraqi army.
"According to our intelligence he is Abu Omar Al Baghdadi, but we have to check very carefully because there have been a lot of Abu Omar Al Baghdadis," Dabbagh said last week.
The Pentagon praised the news of Baghdadi's capture at the time it happened, saying he was "believed to be a key leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq for some time."
But in July 2007 a US military spokesman had said Baghdadi was a fictional character designed to put an Iraqi face on a terror group led by foreigners and that the voice on his audiotapes was that of an actor.
The US military has always said that the real leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq is Abu Hamza Al Muhajir -- better known as Abu Ayyub Al Masri -- a veteran Egyptian militant named Al Qaeda chief in June 2006 following the death of his better-known Jordanian predecessor Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in a US air raid.
Palestinian rivals end unity talks
Al Jazeera
Rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah have concluded Egyptian-mediated talks without reaching an agreement on forming a unity government The talks in Cairo, aimed at reaching a unity deal before elections in 2010, came to a close on Tuesday, with the two factions agreeing to meet again on May 16.
Most international powers say they will only deal with a Palestinian government that recognises Israel, a concession that Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement, is unwilling to make.
Egyptian mediators have suggested that Hamas stay out of the transitional government and instead enable Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader and Palestinian president, who already has the West's backing, to run it.
As compensation, Hamas and other Palestinian factions would become part of an advisory committee that would be given a say in the government's decisions.
But Hamas, which won a sweeping victory in the 2006 Palestinian parliament elections, appears unlikely to embrace the Egyptian proposal, which would keep them out of the government.
Delegates at the talks also held meetings with Omar Suleiman, Egypt's intelligence chief.
Suleiman reportedly asked for a final response to the Egyptian compromise proposal when talks resume on May 16.
"Now all the concentration is on the Egyptian proposal, which says that ... any government formed by President Abbas will conduct the contacts with the international community," Nabil Shaath, Fatah's negotiator, said.
Poor relations between Fatah and Hamas further degenerated after security forces loyal to Hamas pushed Fatah fighters out of the Gaza Strip in June 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)