FamilySecurityMatters
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3872/pub_detail.asp
• Page 16: Private insurance will become ILLEGAL - Can't write NEW policies, and lose existing policies if you change jobs, coverage or prices!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!Editor’s note: The following was received via e-mail. Based on the popularity of the last “what’s in the healthcare bill” article we ran, we decided to run this as well, as it contains even more detail as to what’s in the bill that Rep. John Conyers complained he doesn’t have enough time to read before he votes on it. An informed electorate may be all that stands between America as we have known it and a nation that heads down a non-reversible socialist path.
Peter Fleckenstein, a blogger and former Marine from Phoenix, Arizona, is going through the ObamaCare bill page by page and highlighting the provisions he finds there. Here, clearly, Fleckenstein has struck a nerve. His list, originally published as a series of Twitter posts, has gone viral via email. Within days, the liberal fascists published his personal information on Twitter as a means to silence him. Fleckenstein promises legal action.
It’s easy to see why the liberals are tripping over themselves to suppress the information Fleckenstein unearthed. At its best, the information Fleckenstein culled from the bowels of the ObamaCare bill are absurd. When you really understand what the ObamaCare bill is and what Congress and Obama are trying to do with it, however, it turns from absurd to nearly terrifying.
Information has been taken from different sources for formatting purposes but verified back to Fleckenstein’s original work. Fleckenstein’s blog is here: http://blog.flecksoflife.com.
• Page 16: Private insurance will become ILLEGAL - Can't write NEW policies, and lose existing policies if you change jobs, coverage or prices!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t’ have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include a GOVERNMENT ORDER for end-of-life plans.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments
to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
* PG 502 Line 5-18 Government builds the “Center” to conduct, support, & synthesize research to define our HealthCare Services.
* PG 502 Section 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. – Hello Big Brother – Literally.
* PG 503 Line 13-19 Government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records.
* PG 503 Line 21-25 Government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the US including your data.
* PG 504 Line 6-10 The “Center” will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info)
* PG 506 Line 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data
* PG 518 Line 21-25 The Commission will have input from HealthCare consumer reps – Can you say unions & ACORN?
* PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.
* PGs 525-620 deals with the Govt basically taking over nursing homes,long-term care facilities (think assisted living) through regulations of the facilities, the owners of sd facilities, the employees of sd facilities and even the land owners of that sd facilities reside on. Additionally as you read these 90+ pages you can come to the conclusion that any Health related svcs will be determined and rationed by the Govt for our senior citizens and others in nursing homes. This one post should do enough to raise awareness of the control the Govt is exerting over the older population of American citizens.
* PG 620 Line 1-9 The Government will define, prioritize, and nationalize your Health Care Services.
* PG 621 Lines 20-25 Government will define what Quality means in HealthCare. Since when does Government know about quality?
* PG 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the quality Standards Government will transfer $$ from to other Government Trust Funds. More Taxes.
* PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes & functional status of patients.
* PG 628 Section 1443 Government will give “Multi-Stake Holders” Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of “Quality” Measures.
* PG 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those Multi-stake holder groups including Unions & groups like ACORN deciding HealthCare quality.
* PG 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any “Quality measure” of HealthCare Services as they see fit.
* PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed “Quality Measures” for Physician Services & Dialysis Services.
* PG 635 – 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision – Government wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Government.
* PG 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections – Looks okay.
* PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency – Government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.
* PG 676-686 Government will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, including teaching hospitals.
* PG 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean the Government with an $18 mil website?
* PGs 701-704 Section 1619 If your part of HealthCare plan that isn’t in Government HealthCare Exchange but you qualify for Federal aid, no payment.
* PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secretary gets complaints (ACORN) on HealthCare provider or supplier, Government can do background check.
* PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HealthCare providers/suppliers admittance into HealthCare Exchange.
* Pg 719-720 Section 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.
* PG 722 Section 1639 Government Mandates Doctors must have face-to-face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Services.
* PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same Government certifications will apply to medicaid & CHIP (your kids) Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforcement purposes, the Secretary of Health & Human Services will give Attorney General access to ALL data.
* PG 724 Lines 16-22 Government reserves right to apply face-to-face certification for patient to ANY other HealthCare service.
* PG 740-757 Government sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (That’s your tax dollars peeps) Pg 757-762 Fed Government will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)
* PG 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin Pg 765 Section 1711 Government will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)
* Pg 768 Section 1713 Government – Nurse Home Visitation Services (Hello union paybacks)
* Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Services include-economic self-sufficiency, employment advancement, school-readiness.
* Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services – “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Government Abortions anyone?
* Pg 770 SEC 1714 Federal Government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Say abortion & State Sovereign.
* Pg 789-797 Government will set & mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs will brought to market. Bye innovation
* Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for grad medical education. The government will now control Drs education. PG 801 Sec 1751 The Government will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!
* Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc. required to register. Government takes over private payment system.
* PG 820-824 Sec 1801 Government will identify individuals ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal finances
.
* Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Government Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.
* PG 829-833 Government will impose a fee on ALL private health insurance plans including self insured to pay for Trust Fund!
* PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Government for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.
* Pg 838-840 Government will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expecting kids.
* PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Program includes Government coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!
* Pg 859 Government will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes thats Billion.
* PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HealthCare for 2 years for part loan repayment.
* PG 876-892 The Government takes over the education of our Medical students and Drs.
* PG 898 The Government will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps. to ensure supply of public health professionals.
* PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.
* PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.
* PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.
* PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HealthCare Draft?
* PG 910 The Government will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.
* PG 913-914 Government starts a HealthCare affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.
* PG 915 SEC. 2251. Government MANDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HealthCare professionals.
* Pg 932 The Government will establish Preventative & Wellness Trust fund – intial cost of $30,800,000,000-Billion.
* PG 935 21-22 Government will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control You!!
* PG 936 Government will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards” Tell me what to eat?
* PG 942 Lines 22-25 More Government? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Services, Minority Health, Women’s Health
* PG 950- 980 BIG Government core public health infrastructure includes workforce capacity, lab systems; health information systems
, etc
* PG 993 Government will establish school based health clinics. Your kids wont have a chance.
* PG 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment. Say Government Brainwash!
* PG 1001 The Government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?
* PG 1003 9-11 National Medical Dev Reg ‘‘(iii) other postmarket device surveillance activities” you WILL be tracked.
* PG 1018 States give up some of their State Sovereignty.
Are you concerned about what socialized medicine will mean for you and your family? Tell your elected officials what you think.
Contact the White House
Comments: 202.456.111
Switchboard: 202.456.1414
FAX: 202.456.2461
Webmail: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Thursday, July 30, 2009
How to Make Health-Care Reform Bipartisan
BOBBY JINDAL
In Washington, it seems history always repeats itself. That’s what’s happening now with health-care reform. This is an unfortunate turn of events for Americans who are legitimately concerned about the skyrocketing cost of a basic human need.
In 1993 and 1994, Hillary Clinton’s health-care reform proposal failed because it was concocted in secret without the guiding hand of public consensus-building, and because it was a philosophical over-reach. Today President Barack Obama is repeating these mistakes.
The reason is plain: The left in Washington has concluded that honesty will not yield its desired policy result. So it resorts to a fundamentally dishonest approach to reform. I say this because the marketing of the Democrats’ plans as presented in the House of Representatives and endorsed heartily by President Obama rests on three falsehoods. 1. Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan.
If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care.
2. The Democrats disingenuously argue their reforms will not diminish the quality of our health care even as government involvement in the delivery of that health care increases massively. For all of us who have seen the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to hurricanes, this contention is laughable on its face. When government bureaucracies drive the delivery of services—in this case inserting themselves between health-care providers and their patients—quality degradation will surely come. House Democrats seem willing to accept that problem to achieve their philosophical aim—the long-term removal of for-profit entities from the health-care landscape.
3. Mr. Obama’s rhetoric paints a picture of a massive new benefit that will actually cost average Americans less than what they pay today. The Democrats want middle-class taxpayers to believe they won’t feel the pinch of this initiative, even as their employers are assessed massive new taxes. They might as well try to argue that up is down. The analysis of the Democrats’ proposal by the Congressional Budget Office shows that it will not reduce government spending on health care, and that it will substantially increase the federal deficit—and this despite all the tax increases.
I served in the U.S. House with a majority of the current 435 representatives, and I am confident that if given the proper amount of legislative review, they will not accept the flawed Pelosi plan that is currently stuck in committee. Yet there is general agreement among Republicans and Democrats that we need health-care reform to bring costs down. This agreement can be the basis of a genuine, bipartisan reform, once the current over-reach by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi fails. Leaders of both parties can then come together behind health-care reform that stresses these seven principles:
¨ Consumer choice guided by transparency. We need a system where individuals choose an integrated plan that adopts the best disease-management practices, as opposed to fragmented care. Pricing and outcomes data for all tests, treatments and procedures should be posted on the Internet. Portable electronic health-care records can reduce paperwork, duplication and errors, while also empowering consumers to seek the provider that best meets their needs.
¨ Aligned consumer interests. Consumers should be financially invested in better health decisions through health-savings accounts, lower premiums and reduced cost sharing. If they seek care in cost-effective settings, comply with medical regimens, preventative care, and lifestyles that reduce the likelihood of chronic disease, they should share in the savings.
¨ Medical lawsuit reform. The practice of defensive medicine costs an estimated $100 billion-plus each year, according to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, which used a study by economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. No health reform is serious about reducing costs unless it reduces the costs of frivolous lawsuits.
¨ Insurance reform. Congress should establish simple guidelines to make policies more portable, with more coverage for pre-existing conditions. Reinsurance, high-risk pools, and other mechanisms can reduce the dangers of adverse risk selection and the incentive to avoid covering the sick. Individuals should also be able to keep insurance as they change jobs or states.
¨ Pooling for small businesses, the self-employed, and others. All consumers should have equal opportunity to buy the lowest-cost, highest-quality insurance available. Individuals should benefit from the economies of scale currently available to those working for large employers. They should be free to purchase their health coverage without tax penalty through their employer, church, union, etc.
¨ Pay for performance, not activity. Roughly 75% of health-care spending is for the care of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes—and there is little coordination of this care. We can save money and improve outcomes by using integrated networks of care with rigorous, transparent outcome measures emphasizing prevention and disease management.
¨ Refundable tax credits. Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.
These steps would bring down health-care costs. They would not bankrupt our nation or increase taxes in the midst of a recession. They are achievable reforms with bipartisan consensus and public support. All they require is a willingness by the president to slow down and have an honest discussion with Americans about the real downstream consequences of his ideas. Let’s start there.
Mr. Jindal is governor of Louisiana.
Contact the Blue Dogs
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Contact%20Page.html
Blue Dog Leadership
Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration: Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL)
Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy: Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09)
Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications: Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03)
Blue Dog Whip: Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Contact the Blue Dogs:
Kristen Hawn
Communications Director
BlueDog@mail.house.gov
In Washington, it seems history always repeats itself. That’s what’s happening now with health-care reform. This is an unfortunate turn of events for Americans who are legitimately concerned about the skyrocketing cost of a basic human need.
In 1993 and 1994, Hillary Clinton’s health-care reform proposal failed because it was concocted in secret without the guiding hand of public consensus-building, and because it was a philosophical over-reach. Today President Barack Obama is repeating these mistakes.
The reason is plain: The left in Washington has concluded that honesty will not yield its desired policy result. So it resorts to a fundamentally dishonest approach to reform. I say this because the marketing of the Democrats’ plans as presented in the House of Representatives and endorsed heartily by President Obama rests on three falsehoods. 1. Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan.
If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care.
2. The Democrats disingenuously argue their reforms will not diminish the quality of our health care even as government involvement in the delivery of that health care increases massively. For all of us who have seen the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to hurricanes, this contention is laughable on its face. When government bureaucracies drive the delivery of services—in this case inserting themselves between health-care providers and their patients—quality degradation will surely come. House Democrats seem willing to accept that problem to achieve their philosophical aim—the long-term removal of for-profit entities from the health-care landscape.
3. Mr. Obama’s rhetoric paints a picture of a massive new benefit that will actually cost average Americans less than what they pay today. The Democrats want middle-class taxpayers to believe they won’t feel the pinch of this initiative, even as their employers are assessed massive new taxes. They might as well try to argue that up is down. The analysis of the Democrats’ proposal by the Congressional Budget Office shows that it will not reduce government spending on health care, and that it will substantially increase the federal deficit—and this despite all the tax increases.
I served in the U.S. House with a majority of the current 435 representatives, and I am confident that if given the proper amount of legislative review, they will not accept the flawed Pelosi plan that is currently stuck in committee. Yet there is general agreement among Republicans and Democrats that we need health-care reform to bring costs down. This agreement can be the basis of a genuine, bipartisan reform, once the current over-reach by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi fails. Leaders of both parties can then come together behind health-care reform that stresses these seven principles:
¨ Consumer choice guided by transparency. We need a system where individuals choose an integrated plan that adopts the best disease-management practices, as opposed to fragmented care. Pricing and outcomes data for all tests, treatments and procedures should be posted on the Internet. Portable electronic health-care records can reduce paperwork, duplication and errors, while also empowering consumers to seek the provider that best meets their needs.
¨ Aligned consumer interests. Consumers should be financially invested in better health decisions through health-savings accounts, lower premiums and reduced cost sharing. If they seek care in cost-effective settings, comply with medical regimens, preventative care, and lifestyles that reduce the likelihood of chronic disease, they should share in the savings.
¨ Medical lawsuit reform. The practice of defensive medicine costs an estimated $100 billion-plus each year, according to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, which used a study by economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. No health reform is serious about reducing costs unless it reduces the costs of frivolous lawsuits.
¨ Insurance reform. Congress should establish simple guidelines to make policies more portable, with more coverage for pre-existing conditions. Reinsurance, high-risk pools, and other mechanisms can reduce the dangers of adverse risk selection and the incentive to avoid covering the sick. Individuals should also be able to keep insurance as they change jobs or states.
¨ Pooling for small businesses, the self-employed, and others. All consumers should have equal opportunity to buy the lowest-cost, highest-quality insurance available. Individuals should benefit from the economies of scale currently available to those working for large employers. They should be free to purchase their health coverage without tax penalty through their employer, church, union, etc.
¨ Pay for performance, not activity. Roughly 75% of health-care spending is for the care of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes—and there is little coordination of this care. We can save money and improve outcomes by using integrated networks of care with rigorous, transparent outcome measures emphasizing prevention and disease management.
¨ Refundable tax credits. Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.
These steps would bring down health-care costs. They would not bankrupt our nation or increase taxes in the midst of a recession. They are achievable reforms with bipartisan consensus and public support. All they require is a willingness by the president to slow down and have an honest discussion with Americans about the real downstream consequences of his ideas. Let’s start there.
Mr. Jindal is governor of Louisiana.
Contact the Blue Dogs
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Contact%20Page.html
Blue Dog Leadership
Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration: Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL)
Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy: Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09)
Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications: Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03)
Blue Dog Whip: Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Contact the Blue Dogs:
Kristen Hawn
Communications Director
BlueDog@mail.house.gov
A Talk With Obama: You Can't Make This Stuff Up
Ross Mackenzie
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Ever wish you could rap with the president? Here's your chance - an imaginary conversation in an occasional series. Quotation marks indicate actual words Barack Obama has used.
Mr. President, thanks for the opportunity.
Happy to do it. What's on your mind?
Could we start with health care? You've said you want a plan providing improved care for reduced cost, and extending health insurance coverage to perhaps 50 million more Americans. You also want a taxpayer-financed public option to private insurance. I set an August deadline that obviously will be missed. But it will happen, as Madame Pelosi has said it will. We simply must have a public competitor to keep the private sector honest. We also need a remedy for the current system allowing doctors to limit care and rip off patients.
Do you truly believe most doctors are the enemy?
Look. "You come in and you've got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats. The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out.'" Stuff like that. It's sick. Doctors take out too many tonsils. They push too many pills.
By limiting tonsillectomies and the number of pills doctors prescribe, wouldn't you be building in to your new structure precisely the rationing you deny it would contain?
As my Budget Director, Peter Orszag, has recommended, we would have a panel of doctors and bureaucrats determining who would receive what level of care. These are difficult decisions, so it would be a distinguished panel.
Rationing by whomever, by whatever entity, no matter how distinguished, is still rationing. And how do you improve care by limiting the options available to doctors and telling them what they can charge? And with a trillion-dollar deficit already, which worries at least the Chinese, how are you proposing to finance your plan?
Through cost-savings. Look. "If there's a blue pill and a red pill and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?...Part of what we want to do is make sure that those decisions are being made by doctors and medical experts based on evidence, based on what works - because that's not how it's working now."
You want to substitute the decision-making of doctors on site with decision-making by "medical experts" rationing care from El Paso and Dubuque? And sock the taxpayers bigtime? It's hard to make this stuff up.
What's your next topic?
The minimum wage has just gone up 11 percent - to $7.25 an hour. An endless parade of studies shows that when the cost of labor rises, companies become more cautious in hiring and unemployment increases. Unemployment currently stands at 9.5 percent - a 26-year high. Given its upward pressure on unemployment, is this the proper time to raise the minimum wage?
Well, of course, that is something Congress mandated. I had little to do with it.
Yet you voted for the increase as a senator. Are you now saying you regret that vote?
No, no. We need more people employed, but the people who are employed need more money. Every employee believes that. Just ask him.
Meaning no disrespect, sir, is it then wrong to conclude you think it's better for some to be unemployed at $7.25 an hour than to be employed at $5 or $6.50?
Let's move on.
Two foreign items. First, Honduras. Regarding the coup there, you and your administration are siding with Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Fidelista (Hugo Chavez), and every other whack-left dictator in Latin America.
My friend, my administration believes in the institution of democracy. The coup leaders installing a former president violated the principles of that revered institution. Their actions were intolerable.
Deposed president Manuel Zelaya, a Chavez acolyte, was moving to destroy democracy in Honduras and install himself as president for life there - as Chavez has done in Venezuela. There's solid logic arguing the coup was an act to preserve democracy, not destroy it.
Your other foreign question?
Afghanistan. Given the inability of any foreign power to dominate in Afghanistan - witness most recently the failed enterprises by the British and the Soviets - what are the realistic prospects for U.S. victory in the war there now?
First of all, we are not at war. Let me recall for you that four months ago, as Commander-in-Chief, I instructed the Pentagon via memorandum no longer to use such phrases as the long war or the global war on terror. I redefined what we are doing in Afghanistan as an "overseas contingency operation."
Second, as I told one of the networks, "I'm always worried about using the word victory, because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."
So if we're not seeking victory in the Afghan contingency operation, what are we doing there?
I still have my team working on that. I expect to have some answers soon. Let's save that one for next time.
Thanks for playing. And have a nice day.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Spain: Muslim stabs his daughter 20 times in attempted honor killing
Jihad Watch
A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In accord with this, in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."
Why does it matter that the practice of honor killing has Islamic sanction? Because if the roots of honor killing are never discussed and always ignored, the practice will never stop. Until the Islamic roots of the practice are discussed openly and human rights groups begin calling for reform, honor killings will continue in the Islamic world -- and in Muslim communities in the West.
"Spain: Moroccan tries an Honor Killing, stabs 20 times his daughter," from Tea and Politics, July 29:
Público.es - Detenido tras asestar 20 navajazos a una de sus hijas
The Basque Autonomous Police (Ertzaintza) detained on Sunday night in Portugalete (Vizcaya) a 43-year-old man of Maghrebi origin, accused of stabbing his 20-year-old daughter 20 times and of hurting another two sons, according to the Basque Interior Department.
The attack began inside the family’s home, in Ruperto Medina’s st, when the man stabbed his older daughter. Her teenage brothers, another girl and a boy, tried to end the quarrel and got hurt. She has a cut in one hand. He fell off the stairs.
Both of them suceeded [sic] in fleeing the house asking for help, while the stabbed girl got in one neighbour’s house. But the father followed the first ones and had a hard discussion with his son in the street. According to another neighbour, who was woken up by the “shouts”, everything happened very quickly. Several minutes afterwards, the Police arrived at the scene and arrested the man. “He was shouting like a mad man and was very difficult to handle”, the witness say. (…).
(…) According to the police, the dispute was caused by the cultural clash between the two generations of this family of Maghrebi origin. While the two sisters were very well known and appreciated in their Portugalete district, no one know the father.
A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In accord with this, in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."
Why does it matter that the practice of honor killing has Islamic sanction? Because if the roots of honor killing are never discussed and always ignored, the practice will never stop. Until the Islamic roots of the practice are discussed openly and human rights groups begin calling for reform, honor killings will continue in the Islamic world -- and in Muslim communities in the West.
"Spain: Moroccan tries an Honor Killing, stabs 20 times his daughter," from Tea and Politics, July 29:
Público.es - Detenido tras asestar 20 navajazos a una de sus hijas
The Basque Autonomous Police (Ertzaintza) detained on Sunday night in Portugalete (Vizcaya) a 43-year-old man of Maghrebi origin, accused of stabbing his 20-year-old daughter 20 times and of hurting another two sons, according to the Basque Interior Department.
The attack began inside the family’s home, in Ruperto Medina’s st, when the man stabbed his older daughter. Her teenage brothers, another girl and a boy, tried to end the quarrel and got hurt. She has a cut in one hand. He fell off the stairs.
Both of them suceeded [sic] in fleeing the house asking for help, while the stabbed girl got in one neighbour’s house. But the father followed the first ones and had a hard discussion with his son in the street. According to another neighbour, who was woken up by the “shouts”, everything happened very quickly. Several minutes afterwards, the Police arrived at the scene and arrested the man. “He was shouting like a mad man and was very difficult to handle”, the witness say. (…).
(…) According to the police, the dispute was caused by the cultural clash between the two generations of this family of Maghrebi origin. While the two sisters were very well known and appreciated in their Portugalete district, no one know the father.
EC: It Is Time for Responsible Health Care Reform
Heritage Foundation
Another day, another round of polls showing the American people do not want Obamacare. National Public Radio found that likely voters disapprove of Obamacare 47%-42% with 39% strongly opposed compared to 25% strongly in favor. Wall Street Journal and NBC News found that 42% of Americans called Obama care a “bad idea” while only 36% said it was a “good idea.” Finally, the New York Times/CBS News poll found: “Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatments and tests.” In a follow up interview, Democrat Mary Bevering of Fort Madison Iowa, told the NYT: “We need to fix health care but if the government creates the system, I’m afraid the quality of care will go down and costs will go up: We will pay more taxes.” Bevering is dead on. Reforming health care is an immense task that should be taken on gradually through experimentation, not top down government planning. Heritage VP for domestic policy Stuart Butler writes in today’s Washington Times:
If the U.S. health care sector were a separate national economy, it would be the sixth largest in the world - bigger that Britain’s entire economy. Imagine five bickering congressional committees trying to redesign the British economy successfully in just a few weeks. No wonder people are getting nervous. … [and] the congressional majority wants to revamp the huge health care economy using the doctrine of central planning. So we have thousands of pages of legislation, with potentially hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and dozens of boards and “czars.” These will regulate prices, reorganize hospitals and doctors, and decide what health care each of us should and should not have.
Conservatives have a different vision for health care reform that builds off the great American traditions of individualism and federalism:
Expand coverage by reforming Medicaid: Millions of uninsured Americans are eligible for programs such as Medicaid, yet they don’t sign up. Policymakers should focus on approaches that are patient-centered instead of system-centered. The current Medicaid structure is based on a system that reimburses providers for the services that they supply to beneficiaries. A patient-centered approach would direct Medicaid funds to the patient and reflect the individual needs of that patient.
Incentivize Americans to make their own health care decisions: Rather than micromanage the health system via central planning, we need to get the system’s basic incentives right. Under the current system, with tax-subsidized, third-party insurance, everyone has the incentive to spend more of someone else’s money. No wonder costs are exploding. Getting incentives right means things like pushing employers to show their employees how much of their compensation comes as health insurance. That would encourage all of us to look harder to see if our insurance is good value for money and to opt for fatter paychecks and less costly fringe benefits.
Make it easier for Americans to shop for health insurance: But even if Americans were incentivized to make their own insurance decisions, it is still currently very difficult for them to find the right bargains for them under the current system. “Health Insurance Exchange” is the generic name some have given such administrative mechanisms; Utah recently enacted health reform that creates a “Portal” for this purpose. This is exactly the kind of state level experimentation that the federal government should be encouraging.
The progressive wing of Congress is now threatening to kill health care reform unless their desire for a public plan is included. Nothing is preventing reform more than this Trojan Horse for government-run health care. We must and can get health reform. But it will never be achieved if Americans are pressured to agree to Big Bang change on a ridiculously short timetable - and based on central planning, rather than on better incentives for American creativity and federalism.
QUICK HITS
The No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department ultimately approved a decision to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November’s election.
The Democratic-controlled House is poised to pass a “Pork-Padded Defense Bill” including dozens of new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the military does not need.
According to the New York Times, most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy.
According to Wall Street Journal/NBC News, only 34% of Americans are in favor of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus, while 43% say it was a bad idea.
Has San Francisco become Paris? Four more cars were set ablaze overnight in San Francisco, bringing the number of arson attacks since this weekend to a dozen.
Another day, another round of polls showing the American people do not want Obamacare. National Public Radio found that likely voters disapprove of Obamacare 47%-42% with 39% strongly opposed compared to 25% strongly in favor. Wall Street Journal and NBC News found that 42% of Americans called Obama care a “bad idea” while only 36% said it was a “good idea.” Finally, the New York Times/CBS News poll found: “Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatments and tests.” In a follow up interview, Democrat Mary Bevering of Fort Madison Iowa, told the NYT: “We need to fix health care but if the government creates the system, I’m afraid the quality of care will go down and costs will go up: We will pay more taxes.” Bevering is dead on. Reforming health care is an immense task that should be taken on gradually through experimentation, not top down government planning. Heritage VP for domestic policy Stuart Butler writes in today’s Washington Times:
If the U.S. health care sector were a separate national economy, it would be the sixth largest in the world - bigger that Britain’s entire economy. Imagine five bickering congressional committees trying to redesign the British economy successfully in just a few weeks. No wonder people are getting nervous. … [and] the congressional majority wants to revamp the huge health care economy using the doctrine of central planning. So we have thousands of pages of legislation, with potentially hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and dozens of boards and “czars.” These will regulate prices, reorganize hospitals and doctors, and decide what health care each of us should and should not have.
Conservatives have a different vision for health care reform that builds off the great American traditions of individualism and federalism:
Expand coverage by reforming Medicaid: Millions of uninsured Americans are eligible for programs such as Medicaid, yet they don’t sign up. Policymakers should focus on approaches that are patient-centered instead of system-centered. The current Medicaid structure is based on a system that reimburses providers for the services that they supply to beneficiaries. A patient-centered approach would direct Medicaid funds to the patient and reflect the individual needs of that patient.
Incentivize Americans to make their own health care decisions: Rather than micromanage the health system via central planning, we need to get the system’s basic incentives right. Under the current system, with tax-subsidized, third-party insurance, everyone has the incentive to spend more of someone else’s money. No wonder costs are exploding. Getting incentives right means things like pushing employers to show their employees how much of their compensation comes as health insurance. That would encourage all of us to look harder to see if our insurance is good value for money and to opt for fatter paychecks and less costly fringe benefits.
Make it easier for Americans to shop for health insurance: But even if Americans were incentivized to make their own insurance decisions, it is still currently very difficult for them to find the right bargains for them under the current system. “Health Insurance Exchange” is the generic name some have given such administrative mechanisms; Utah recently enacted health reform that creates a “Portal” for this purpose. This is exactly the kind of state level experimentation that the federal government should be encouraging.
The progressive wing of Congress is now threatening to kill health care reform unless their desire for a public plan is included. Nothing is preventing reform more than this Trojan Horse for government-run health care. We must and can get health reform. But it will never be achieved if Americans are pressured to agree to Big Bang change on a ridiculously short timetable - and based on central planning, rather than on better incentives for American creativity and federalism.
QUICK HITS
The No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department ultimately approved a decision to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November’s election.
The Democratic-controlled House is poised to pass a “Pork-Padded Defense Bill” including dozens of new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the military does not need.
According to the New York Times, most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy.
According to Wall Street Journal/NBC News, only 34% of Americans are in favor of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus, while 43% say it was a bad idea.
Has San Francisco become Paris? Four more cars were set ablaze overnight in San Francisco, bringing the number of arson attacks since this weekend to a dozen.
Tough on Israel
Why President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating
Washington Post
Thursday, July 30, 2009
ONE OF THE MORE striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel.The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank. To a less visible extent, the two governments also have differed over policy toward Iran.
This week a parade of senior U.S. officials has been visiting Jerusalem to tackle the issues: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Middle East envoy George J. Mitchell, national security adviser James L. Jones and senior aide Dennis Ross. But the tensions persist, and public opinion is following: The Pew Global Attitudes Project reported last week that Israel was the only country among 25 surveyed where the public's image of the United States was getting worse rather than better.
In part the trouble was unavoidable: Taking office with a commitment to pursuing Middle East peace, Mr. Obama faced a new, right-wing Israeli government whose prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to accept the goal of Palestinian statehood. In part it was tactical: By making plain his disagreements with Mr. Netanyahu on statehood and Jewish settlements, Mr. Obama hoped to force an Israeli retreat while building credibility with Arab governments -- two advances that he arguably needs to set the stage for a serious peace process.
But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu's initial concessions -- he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations -- Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement "freeze." Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the "confidence-building" concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume.
ad_icon
U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world -- a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him -- and he must be tough on more than one country.
Washington Post
Thursday, July 30, 2009
ONE OF THE MORE striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel.The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank. To a less visible extent, the two governments also have differed over policy toward Iran.
This week a parade of senior U.S. officials has been visiting Jerusalem to tackle the issues: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Middle East envoy George J. Mitchell, national security adviser James L. Jones and senior aide Dennis Ross. But the tensions persist, and public opinion is following: The Pew Global Attitudes Project reported last week that Israel was the only country among 25 surveyed where the public's image of the United States was getting worse rather than better.
In part the trouble was unavoidable: Taking office with a commitment to pursuing Middle East peace, Mr. Obama faced a new, right-wing Israeli government whose prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to accept the goal of Palestinian statehood. In part it was tactical: By making plain his disagreements with Mr. Netanyahu on statehood and Jewish settlements, Mr. Obama hoped to force an Israeli retreat while building credibility with Arab governments -- two advances that he arguably needs to set the stage for a serious peace process.
But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu's initial concessions -- he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations -- Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement "freeze." Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the "confidence-building" concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume.
ad_icon
U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world -- a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him -- and he must be tough on more than one country.
Death of a Doctrine
Obama Discovers Engagement's Limits
By Michael Gerson
WashingtonPost
The Obama administration lacks a foreign policy ideology as a matter of ideology. Speaking recently at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted, "Rigid ideologies and old formulas don't apply." The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- tempered by pragmatism, proud of its ad hockery and willing to consider everything on a case-by-case basis. But even lacking an ideology, the administration does have a doctrine. The defining principle of President Obama's foreign policy is engagement with America's adversaries. Much of the president's public diplomacy has been designed to clear a path for such talks -- expressing respect for legitimate grievances, apologizing for past wrongs and offering dialogue without preconditions.
Six months on, how fares the Obama doctrine? Concerning North Korea and Iran, the doctrine is on its deathbed.
North Korea responded to administration outreach by testing a nuclear weapon, firing missiles toward U.S. allies, resuming plutonium reprocessing and threatening the United States with a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation." During congressional testimony, Clinton admitted, "At this point [it] seems implausible, if not impossible, the North Koreans will return to the six-party talks and begin to disable their nuclear capacity again."
ad_icon
The Iranian regime's reaction to engagement was to cut the ribbon on a nuclear enrichment facility, add centrifuges, conduct a fraudulent election, and kill and imprison a variety of political opponents. Regarding administration overtures, Clinton recently told the BBC, "We haven't had any response. We've certainly reached out and made it clear that's what we'd be willing to do . . . but I don't think they have any capacity to make that kind of decision right now."
The problem is not engagement itself -- which was, after all, attempted in various forms by the previous administration. The difficulty is that the Obama foreign policy team has often argued that the reason for tension and conflict with nations such as North Korea and Iran is a lack of adequate American engagement -- which is absurd, and which has raised absurdly high expectations.
During the 2008 campaign, for example, Obama adviser P.J. Crowley (now State Department spokesman) argued, "Hard-liners on both sides have dominated that relationship and made it very difficult for the United States and Iran to come together and have a serious conversation." But can the lack of a serious conversation with Iran -- or with North Korea -- now credibly be blamed on the previous administration? Obama's diplomatic hand has been extended for a while now. Fists remain clenched. This is not because some magical diplomatic words remain unspoken. It is because of the nature of oppressive regimes themselves.
Such regimes are often internally preoccupied. Precisely because they lack genuine legitimacy, they spend large amounts of time and effort maintaining their fragile authority, consolidating power and managing undemocratic transitions. North Korea confronts a succession crisis. Iran deals with growing dissent and clerical division. Both tend to make calculations based on internal power struggles, not some rational calculation of their external image and interests. They are so inwardly focused that they do not have, as Clinton said, "any capacity" to respond to engagement. It is questionable in these cases whether we currently have any serious negotiating partners at all.
And the inherent instability of oppressive regimes also leads them to tighten control by invoking threats from abroad -- particularly from the United States. Because anti-Americanism is a central commitment of North Korean and Iranian ideologies, any softening of this resentment requires a kind of voluntary regime change. Pyongyang and Tehran would need to find a new source of legitimacy -- a new prop for their power -- other than hatred for America. Not easy or likely.
The Obama administration's public campaign of engaging enemies is headed toward an entirely unintended consequence. Eventually it will raise expectations for action. As the extended hand is slapped again and again, the goals of North Korea and Iran will be fully revealed and the cost to American credibility will rise. Already the administration has given Iran a September deadline to respond to the offer of talks and has threatened "crippling action" if Iran achieves nuclear capabilities. Congress is preparing sanctions on Iranian refined petroleum, which would escalate tensions significantly.
This is the paradox of the Obama doctrine. By attempting to engage North Korea and Iran so visibly, Obama is dramatically exposing the limits of engagement -- and building the case for confrontation.
mgerson@globalengage.org
By Michael Gerson
WashingtonPost
The Obama administration lacks a foreign policy ideology as a matter of ideology. Speaking recently at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted, "Rigid ideologies and old formulas don't apply." The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- tempered by pragmatism, proud of its ad hockery and willing to consider everything on a case-by-case basis. But even lacking an ideology, the administration does have a doctrine. The defining principle of President Obama's foreign policy is engagement with America's adversaries. Much of the president's public diplomacy has been designed to clear a path for such talks -- expressing respect for legitimate grievances, apologizing for past wrongs and offering dialogue without preconditions.
Six months on, how fares the Obama doctrine? Concerning North Korea and Iran, the doctrine is on its deathbed.
North Korea responded to administration outreach by testing a nuclear weapon, firing missiles toward U.S. allies, resuming plutonium reprocessing and threatening the United States with a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation." During congressional testimony, Clinton admitted, "At this point [it] seems implausible, if not impossible, the North Koreans will return to the six-party talks and begin to disable their nuclear capacity again."
ad_icon
The Iranian regime's reaction to engagement was to cut the ribbon on a nuclear enrichment facility, add centrifuges, conduct a fraudulent election, and kill and imprison a variety of political opponents. Regarding administration overtures, Clinton recently told the BBC, "We haven't had any response. We've certainly reached out and made it clear that's what we'd be willing to do . . . but I don't think they have any capacity to make that kind of decision right now."
The problem is not engagement itself -- which was, after all, attempted in various forms by the previous administration. The difficulty is that the Obama foreign policy team has often argued that the reason for tension and conflict with nations such as North Korea and Iran is a lack of adequate American engagement -- which is absurd, and which has raised absurdly high expectations.
During the 2008 campaign, for example, Obama adviser P.J. Crowley (now State Department spokesman) argued, "Hard-liners on both sides have dominated that relationship and made it very difficult for the United States and Iran to come together and have a serious conversation." But can the lack of a serious conversation with Iran -- or with North Korea -- now credibly be blamed on the previous administration? Obama's diplomatic hand has been extended for a while now. Fists remain clenched. This is not because some magical diplomatic words remain unspoken. It is because of the nature of oppressive regimes themselves.
Such regimes are often internally preoccupied. Precisely because they lack genuine legitimacy, they spend large amounts of time and effort maintaining their fragile authority, consolidating power and managing undemocratic transitions. North Korea confronts a succession crisis. Iran deals with growing dissent and clerical division. Both tend to make calculations based on internal power struggles, not some rational calculation of their external image and interests. They are so inwardly focused that they do not have, as Clinton said, "any capacity" to respond to engagement. It is questionable in these cases whether we currently have any serious negotiating partners at all.
And the inherent instability of oppressive regimes also leads them to tighten control by invoking threats from abroad -- particularly from the United States. Because anti-Americanism is a central commitment of North Korean and Iranian ideologies, any softening of this resentment requires a kind of voluntary regime change. Pyongyang and Tehran would need to find a new source of legitimacy -- a new prop for their power -- other than hatred for America. Not easy or likely.
The Obama administration's public campaign of engaging enemies is headed toward an entirely unintended consequence. Eventually it will raise expectations for action. As the extended hand is slapped again and again, the goals of North Korea and Iran will be fully revealed and the cost to American credibility will rise. Already the administration has given Iran a September deadline to respond to the offer of talks and has threatened "crippling action" if Iran achieves nuclear capabilities. Congress is preparing sanctions on Iranian refined petroleum, which would escalate tensions significantly.
This is the paradox of the Obama doctrine. By attempting to engage North Korea and Iran so visibly, Obama is dramatically exposing the limits of engagement -- and building the case for confrontation.
mgerson@globalengage.org
Building Freeze in Jerusalem - PM Breaks His Promise?
Maayana Miskin
A7 News
Despite his stated support for permanent Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently froze a major construction project in the capital city as a diplomatic gesture to the United States. So reported Channel 10 news correspondent Raviv Drucker, citing testimony from Jerusalem city officials.
Netanyahu has denied the report. According to Drucker, Netanyahu ordered a halt to a construction project in Pisgat Zeev, a major Jewish neighborhood that is home to more than 40,000 Israelis. The project was to provide another 900 housing units in the area.
Netanyahu's order was given shortly after American officials asked Israel to freeze building in Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and all parts of Jerusalem demanded by the Palestinian Authority. The PA has laid claim to all Jerusalem neighborhoods that were occupied by Jordan between the years of 1948 and 1967, including Pisgat Zeev.
Several senior officials in the Olmert administration indicated that they would be willing to give the PA some Jerusalem neighborhoods, but all insisted on maintaining Israeli sovereignty over majority-Jewish areas such as the French Hill – Pisgat Zeev – Neve Yaakov bloc of neighborhoods in the northern part of the city.
Recently, Netanyahu expressed support for Israeli sovereignty not only in majority-Jewish parts of the capital, but in all of Jerusalem, when he rejected an American demand to cease construction of a Jewish-owned structure in the majority-Muslim neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Netanyahu reportedly said at the time, “What is [Oba thinking? After I built 20,000 housing units in Har Homa despite all the pressure, I'll freeze construction of 20 housing units?”
"Despite Netanyahu's statement to his cabinet, according to which he refuses to negotiate over Jerusalem, he has decided to freeze building in Pisgat Zeev – a neighborhood in east Jerusalem, but one that has always been considered a part of the city,” Drucker said.
Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, are willing to go along with America's demand for a building freeze for a limited period of time only, Drucker added. The two have agreed to give in to a construction freeze in Jewish areas for six months while negotiations take place.
Russia: The Chechen Cease-fire
Stratfor
Summary
Under a new peace treaty that will take effect in Chechnya on Aug. 1, fighters loyal to exiled militant leader Akhmed Zakayev will lay down their arms and recognize the authority of Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, a Kremlin favorite. While Russia has fought long and hard to end the insurgency in Chechnya, the cease-fire could create a whole new set of problems for the Kremlin, including the possibility of an independent Kadyrov.Analysis
A new peace treaty will take effect in Chechnya on Aug. 1 requiring fighters faithful to exiled militant leader Akhmed Zakayev to lay down their arms against Chechen authorities and recognize Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov’s legitimacy. The move comes after more than a week of negotiations between Zakayev and Kadyrov’s representative parliamentarian, Dukuvakha Abdurakhmanov, in Oslo. Zakayev and Kadyrov’s factions have held such negotiations for years, but this round of talks came as the very last of Kadyrov’s enemies are being eliminated at home and abroad, leaving very little room for the president’s opponents to hide.
Chechnya’s Militant Groups
Zakayev and Kadyrov were a part of a broader militant movement at the start of the Chechen wars, which lasted from 1994-1996 and from 1999-2009. At the beginning of the first war, the Soviet Union had just fallen, and Chechnya collapsed into a civil war among its various clans. But from that struggle emerged the Chechens’ fight for independence from Russia, which united many of the Chechen groups against a common Russian foe. There were still competing forces among the Chechen militant groups, especially between those that considered themselves Chechen nationalists and those with an Islamist/jihadist ideology tied to a trans-Caucasian agenda. The confrontation with Russia however, necessitated the pragmatic formation of alliances between clans with their various nationalist and Islamist agendas and the subordination of those differences for the common cause of independence.
The strained harmony among the groups during the first war was shattered during the second war, when Moscow split the factions, leading them to fight each other again. This Kremlin tactic of taking advantage of the differences between the clans was masterminded by then-Russian President Vladimir Putin’s right-hand man, Vladislav Surkov — who is half Chechen.
The fracturing became more obvious as the second war continued. Various Islamists — like
Shamil Basayev, Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev and Dzhokhar Dudayev — adopted more extremist methods of guerrilla warfare. The nationalists split into two factions — one that, like Aslan Maskhadov, still fought for the nationalist cause, and one that surrendered the cause to work for the Russian side — such as Kadyrov, his father, and other clans like the Yamadayev brothers.
The tactic seemed to be working by 2004, when many of the Islamist leaders began to be picked off after staging a series of high-profile attacks such as the Beslan school massacre and the Moscow theater siege. The last of the true nationalists, like Maskhadov, also met their end. But those nationalist groups that survived tied their loyalty to Moscow and were rewarded. The Yamadayevs took over security in Chechnya, and the Kadyrovs took the Chechen political helm. Of course, since then, Kadyrov has consolidated all nationalist groups under him.
This left a hodgepodge of Islamists and a few nationalist groups without a leader since Basayev, Maskhadov, Yandarbiyev and Dudayev were all killed. However, there has been one remaining uniting force for these groups: Zakayev, Maskhadov’s former spokesman who lives in exile in the United Kingdom.
Shadow Islamists
Zakayev considers himself a nationalist and not an Islamist, though he has had to learn to work with the Islamist side since his former leader, Maskhadov, was killed. Now he calls himself a “spokesman” for all factions aligned against Kadyrov and Moscow. It is rumored that Maskhadov sent Zakayev to the United Kingdom in 2002, during the wave of killings of Islamist and nationalist militant leaders. London’s harboring of the Chechen has triggered years of spats with Moscow, which has requested Zakayev’s extradition. Moscow believes that Zakayev was sent to the United Kingdom to manipulate foreign connections to raise money, arms and support for the remaining Islamists in Chechnya.
Zakayev, one of the few non-Kadyrov loyalist leaders left, became the voice of Chechen militants against Kadyrov and the Kremlin while receiving political protection from British politicians and celebrities. Being outside the republic, Zakayev had more contact with Islamist Chechens than with nationalists, since the Islamists are the ones who fled (most nationalists eventually joined Kadyrov).
But the tide has been turning back in Chechnya. Kadyrov has eliminated any opposition within the pro-nationalist forces and organized a 40,000-strong Chechen military. He also has the Kremlin’s full support. Kadyrov feels so secure in his power that he has even on occasion deployed his forces outside Chechnya to the restive neighboring region of Ingushetia and to the Georgian separatist region of South Ossetia.
Chechnya is far from quiet; attacks occur daily in the republic, but these attacks are nothing that can rival the ruling power in the country. The cease-fire can change the overall threat in the republic, since Zakayev’s pacification will cut the flow of money and arms from abroad. Zakayev has been closely watching Kadyrov’s consolidation of power — though he is against it — and has seen Kadyrov start to eliminate the remainder of his enemies hiding in foreign lands. Zakayev knows that his days could be numbered. It is also becoming increasingly dangerous for foreign groups to continue funding the Islamists or lingering anti-Kadyrov nationalists in Chechnya — something Moscow has accused the United States, United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia of doing in the past. Russia is not afraid to strike at locations important to those foreign groups continuing to fund Chechen Islamists.
Kadyrov has also reportedly extended an invitation to Zakayev to return to Chechnya, meaning the Chechen president plans on making him a symbol of transformation from Islamism toward pro-nationalism — and make it easier to clamp down on Zakayev. This will be one of the last major accomplishments for the pro-Kremlin Kadyrov in his quest to eliminate or pacify Islamist militant leaders and their foreign connections.
The Future of the Russian Caucasus
The next step for the Caucasus will involve pan-regional power consolidation and then balance — heavy tasks for the Kremlin.
Kadyrov has proven that he has Chechnya nearly under control. But there are still quite a few other neighboring regions, like Ingushetia and Dagestan, which are still dealing with Islamists and foreign influence. Kadyrov is willing to expand his totalitarian control by deploying forces to these regions and has even proposed merging one of more of these regions with Chechnya for him to oversee. With Russian forces pulling further back due to the end of the Chechen wars, it will be up to Chechnya’s Kremlin-backed forces to ensure the old ways and conflicts do not seep back into the region.
But this is where things get tricky.
Many within Moscow fear that once Kadyrov is left to his own devices and has no Chechen enemies to fight, he will cease depending on and listening to the Kremlin. Moscow also fears that Kadyrov has designs to create eventually an even more consolidated and dangerous anti-Russian Caucasus movement than has been seen before — one that depends not on Islamist fundamentalism, but on the age-old independent streak in the Caucasus, for consolidation.
Previously, Russia fought a fractured, unorganized and mostly untrained group of guerrilla fighters. Then, the Russians helped to organize, train and arm the Chechen forces and gave incredible monetary support to Kadyrov. As the Chechen president expands his influence across the Caucasus, the possibility of backlash from other regions is expected — but the potential for Kadyrov to create a pan-Caucasus movement in Russia is what really worries the Kremlin.
Don’t just stand there, do something
Ted Belman
The talk of the town, Jerusalem that is, is that Mitchell, Gates, Ross and a whole US team are in discussions for the sought-after freeze among other things.
One Israeli diplomat commented on Israel’s position,
“The Americans now understand that if they get anything from us on the settlement issue, it will only be in the broader context of some kind of Arab return,”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to confirm this in a policy speech two days after Obama’s White House meeting with the Jewish representatives.
“Progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States - or Israel - alone,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations. “Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region.” The Arabs are being asked to allow overflights by Israeli planes and to open trade missions and the like. I personally don’t like where this is going.
Sharon chose to withdraw from Gaza unilaterally but did negotiate with the Bush administrations for two commitments namely that settlement blocks would remain part of Israel and that Arab refugees would not be returned to Israel. Obama shredded these understandings.
Since the bain of Israel’s existence is the constant pressure by the US on Israel to make concessions, at a minimum, Israel should require the US to commit in writing in the form of a treaty to what settlements will remain in Israel. Only then, and providing that the US allows Israel’s retention of all the settlement blocks including Maaleh Adumin and Ariel, should Israel agree to a freeze in the rest. Thus there would be no reason to freeze settlements in the parts being retained. That is the only acceptable quid pro quo for the freeze.
Many would argue, particularly the Arabs, that the US has no right to commit on their behalf. True enough but she does have the right to commit on her own behalf. And while we are at it, she should get the EU, if not the whole Quartet, to agree to the deal. Who cares what the Arabs think. The Arabs are nothing without the US support.
The gestures being asked of the Arabs are of little value. Better to get them to amend the Saudi Plan in a meaningful way for the gestures to have any meaning. It could be amended to exclude the right of return and to commit to normalization of relations during the peace process. As it is, they will only work toward normalization, whatever that is, after Israel withdraws. Perhaps a Roadmap is required for the normalization process to proceed along with the peace process. This isn’t about to happen.
While I am on it, I would remind readers that Israel never agreed to the Saudi Plan. When Powell added it to the Roadmap in a surprise move, Sharon objected to its inclusion and Powell rejected the rejection arguing the Roadmap was only a process.
Nevertheless the Res 242 was over-ridden as the basis of a settlement with this wording in the preamble,
A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations on the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah - endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit - calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement. This initiative is a vital element of international efforts to promote a comprehensive peace on all tracks, including the Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli tracks.
Prior to that time Israel had not agreed to the inclusion of the Saudi Plan nor to the creation of a Palestinian state, and certainly not to the idea that it must be viable or contiguous.
As for the settlements, it provided
* GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
* Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
Three months ago I asked What settlement freeze commitment? and pointed out that the freeze to be consistent with the Mitchell report required have required as a pre-condition
1) (PA) should immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.
2) that negotiations “must, in our view, manifest a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and partnership,”
I concluded that “Since the Arabs did not end the violence and incitement, there is no imperative for Israel to freeze settlement activity.”
In 2003 I wrote Reject the Road Map:Its worse than a Trojan horse, its a time bomb.
The Road Map will prove Israel’s undoing. There is nothing good in it for Israel. No basis for hope.
I could write another couple of pages to illustrate how bad it is for Israel. Suffice it so say that it castrates Israel. They are to be forced to accept a multilateral process at the expense of its own sovereignty. The Quartet will decide if the Palestinians are doing enough to end terror, on the right of return, on the rights of a Palestinian State, on where the borders are and what is to become of Jerusalem. I say this even when the Road Map provides that all issues are to be negotiated.
It is an unmitigated disaster for Israel. It is worse than a Trojan horse, it is a time bomb. Israel should stand its ground now and fight diplomatically before they are burdened with the implications of having accepted it. At the moment Israel has accepted the Bush vision of two states with all the preconditions. They should never accept any other guiding principle as presently in the Road Map, such as the Saudi Peace Plan, or that Israel must cooperate to make the state “viable”, or that the Quartet will decide anything. It is bad enough that they have accepted the vision of a two state solution. I would have preferred that only when borders are agreed upon, to Israel’s liking, would they agree to a state.
All this is ignored.
For that matter, neither is the US going to commit to such a deal as I have suggested.
Netanyahu’s position, backed by a national consensus is that the Arabs must agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, to be unmilitarized, and to accept Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. He made no mention of settlements or borders specifically but I believe that the settlements blocks in the land previously annexed by Israel would remain in Israel along with the rest of Jerusalem as part of his consensus.
To believe that the Arabs will accept this deal is as delusional as the left’s belief in the inevitability of peace.
So why is everyone going through the motions. Better to appear to be doing something rather than nothing.
Don’t just stand there, do something.
Ted Belman
Jerusalem
The talk of the town, Jerusalem that is, is that Mitchell, Gates, Ross and a whole US team are in discussions for the sought-after freeze among other things.
One Israeli diplomat commented on Israel’s position,
“The Americans now understand that if they get anything from us on the settlement issue, it will only be in the broader context of some kind of Arab return,”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to confirm this in a policy speech two days after Obama’s White House meeting with the Jewish representatives.
“Progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States - or Israel - alone,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations. “Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region.” The Arabs are being asked to allow overflights by Israeli planes and to open trade missions and the like. I personally don’t like where this is going.
Sharon chose to withdraw from Gaza unilaterally but did negotiate with the Bush administrations for two commitments namely that settlement blocks would remain part of Israel and that Arab refugees would not be returned to Israel. Obama shredded these understandings.
Since the bain of Israel’s existence is the constant pressure by the US on Israel to make concessions, at a minimum, Israel should require the US to commit in writing in the form of a treaty to what settlements will remain in Israel. Only then, and providing that the US allows Israel’s retention of all the settlement blocks including Maaleh Adumin and Ariel, should Israel agree to a freeze in the rest. Thus there would be no reason to freeze settlements in the parts being retained. That is the only acceptable quid pro quo for the freeze.
Many would argue, particularly the Arabs, that the US has no right to commit on their behalf. True enough but she does have the right to commit on her own behalf. And while we are at it, she should get the EU, if not the whole Quartet, to agree to the deal. Who cares what the Arabs think. The Arabs are nothing without the US support.
The gestures being asked of the Arabs are of little value. Better to get them to amend the Saudi Plan in a meaningful way for the gestures to have any meaning. It could be amended to exclude the right of return and to commit to normalization of relations during the peace process. As it is, they will only work toward normalization, whatever that is, after Israel withdraws. Perhaps a Roadmap is required for the normalization process to proceed along with the peace process. This isn’t about to happen.
While I am on it, I would remind readers that Israel never agreed to the Saudi Plan. When Powell added it to the Roadmap in a surprise move, Sharon objected to its inclusion and Powell rejected the rejection arguing the Roadmap was only a process.
Nevertheless the Res 242 was over-ridden as the basis of a settlement with this wording in the preamble,
A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations on the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah - endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit - calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement. This initiative is a vital element of international efforts to promote a comprehensive peace on all tracks, including the Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli tracks.
Prior to that time Israel had not agreed to the inclusion of the Saudi Plan nor to the creation of a Palestinian state, and certainly not to the idea that it must be viable or contiguous.
As for the settlements, it provided
* GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
* Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
Three months ago I asked What settlement freeze commitment? and pointed out that the freeze to be consistent with the Mitchell report required have required as a pre-condition
1) (PA) should immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.
2) that negotiations “must, in our view, manifest a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and partnership,”
I concluded that “Since the Arabs did not end the violence and incitement, there is no imperative for Israel to freeze settlement activity.”
In 2003 I wrote Reject the Road Map:Its worse than a Trojan horse, its a time bomb.
The Road Map will prove Israel’s undoing. There is nothing good in it for Israel. No basis for hope.
I could write another couple of pages to illustrate how bad it is for Israel. Suffice it so say that it castrates Israel. They are to be forced to accept a multilateral process at the expense of its own sovereignty. The Quartet will decide if the Palestinians are doing enough to end terror, on the right of return, on the rights of a Palestinian State, on where the borders are and what is to become of Jerusalem. I say this even when the Road Map provides that all issues are to be negotiated.
It is an unmitigated disaster for Israel. It is worse than a Trojan horse, it is a time bomb. Israel should stand its ground now and fight diplomatically before they are burdened with the implications of having accepted it. At the moment Israel has accepted the Bush vision of two states with all the preconditions. They should never accept any other guiding principle as presently in the Road Map, such as the Saudi Peace Plan, or that Israel must cooperate to make the state “viable”, or that the Quartet will decide anything. It is bad enough that they have accepted the vision of a two state solution. I would have preferred that only when borders are agreed upon, to Israel’s liking, would they agree to a state.
All this is ignored.
For that matter, neither is the US going to commit to such a deal as I have suggested.
Netanyahu’s position, backed by a national consensus is that the Arabs must agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, to be unmilitarized, and to accept Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. He made no mention of settlements or borders specifically but I believe that the settlements blocks in the land previously annexed by Israel would remain in Israel along with the rest of Jerusalem as part of his consensus.
To believe that the Arabs will accept this deal is as delusional as the left’s belief in the inevitability of peace.
So why is everyone going through the motions. Better to appear to be doing something rather than nothing.
Don’t just stand there, do something.
Ted Belman
Jerusalem
Mousavi prevented from attending memorial for victims
Jul. 30, 2009
jpost.com staff and ap , THE JERUSALEM POST
Iranian police prevented hundreds of people who gathered at a Teheran cemetery Thursday from holding an event to commemorate those killed in the violent clashes with the regime last month.
Witnesses said officers dispersed the crowds, and opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi was prevented from approaching the graveside of Neda Agha Soltan, who has become a symbol of the protests against the country's election results. Hundreds of police surrounded Mousavi and forced him to leave Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, they said.
Some of those gathered reportedly chanted Mousavi's name and "Death to the dictator."
The event was held in defiance of a government ban, and it was believed that the opposition may also try to stage rallies along major roundabouts and squares in the capital at the same time as the memorial.
Mousavi's Web site said the gathering would be held at the graveside of Soltan, shot to death during protests on June 20. Thursday is the end of the 40-day mourning period for the young woman, whose dying moments were caught on video that became one of the iconic images of the upheaval.
Authorities say some 20 protesters have been killed in the crackdown, although rights groups say the number is probably far higher. The opposition says Iranian authorities have pressured families of slain protesters not to mourn publicly out of fear the gatherings could spark the kind of demonstrations that followed the disputed vote.
Massive protests and deadly clashes erupted in the days and weeks after electoral authorities declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of last month's vote by a landslide. But Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard and its allied Basij militia have adopted a zero-tolerance policy that has largely thwarted protests over the past month. Nevertheless, demonstrators have still turned out on the streets.
Mousavi and fellow pro-reform leader Mahdi Karroubi decided to hold the ceremony in Behesht-e Zahra - the large cemetery on Teheran's southern outskirts where some slain protesters have been buried - after authorities rejected their request to hold it at Teheran's main Mosalla mosque.
The two leaders sent a request Sunday to the Interior Ministry asking permission for the ceremony. They said the gathering would "be held without any speeches and will be limited to the reciting of the Quran and moments of silence" to mark the 40-day period since 10 people died, including Soltan, during the June 20 protests.
Interior Ministry official Mahmoud Abbaszadeh Meshkini was quoted by the state IRNA news agency as saying Wednesday the ministry had not issued "any permission for any gathering."
"So far, it's unprecedented that someone asks permission for a memorial service from the Interior Ministry," Meshkini said, adding sarcastically: "Unless the applicant has other particular political intentions."
The deaths of protesters during the 1979 Islamic Revolution fueled a 40-day cycle of mourning marches, and shootings of mourners, that contributed to the overthrow of the US-backed dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The election unrest has given rise to rare criticism of Iran's leadership from the country's top clerics and even conservative supporters who have complained about prison abuses, including reports of detainee deaths and the brutal beatings of protesters.
The government announced that first trials of detained opposition supporters will begin Saturday, with the prosecution of around 20 protesters. They also include some accused of sending images of the unrest to the media while top pro-reform politicians will be tried later for allegedly ordering riots.
The opposition has said detainees were tortured to extract false confessions for the courts.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277934278&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
'US misstepped regarding settlements'
Jul. 30, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
The current tensions between Israel and the United States, most recently demonstrated by a poll which showed America's public image on the decline in the Jewish state, might have been avoided had US President Barack Obama not taken such a harsh stance against settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, the Washington Post's Thursday editorial stated. While acknowledging that confrontation over steps needed to achieve peace was inevitable between the US administration and the various regional players in the Middle East, the editorial maintained that Obama should have accepted initial Israeli concessions, and should have avoided the demand for a total settlement freeze.
"Rather than pocketing [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu's initial concessions - he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous US administrations - Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement 'freeze,'" the editorial stated. "Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the 'confidence-building' concessions to Israel that the administration seeks."
In addition, the paper maintained that Netanyahu's government earned critical public support due to what Israelis perceived as unfair treatment from Washington.
"Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu," the editorial said. "And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume."
The piece went on to predict that an eventual compromise between the US and Israel over settlements, which would see some building projects completed with others temporarily halted, would inevitably draw more criticism from Arab states than it would have had the issue not been escalated in the first place.
"If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him," the paper stated, adding that he must also "be tough on more than one country."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277930352&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Iran: Ahmadinejad's Hard-line Opposition
July 29, 2009 | 1946 GMT
Stratfor
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei named Hojatoleslam Mohammad Sadegh Larijani to become Iran’s new judiciary chief effective Aug. 16, Mehr news agency reported July 28, citing a senior judiciary official. Larijani is the younger brother of Iran’s powerful parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani. The younger Larijani has served as one of the 12 members of the powerful Guardians Council, and replaces Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, who held the position for a decade. A key senior ayatollah within the Iranian leadership, Shahroudi could well succeed Khamenei as supreme leader in the event of the latter’s death.
The judiciary chief shuffle stands out as typically such a senior position within the system would go to an ayatollah, not lesser cleric like a hojatoleslam. It also stands out as the Larijani brothers now control the legislative and judicial branches of the tripart Iranian government, posing a major challenge for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And the move represents part of Khamenei’s efforts to rein in the Iranian president, an intriguing change given that Khamenei came out in full support of the president during the election fiasco just weeks ago.
Ahmadinejad now faces opposition not just from former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s pragmatic conservative and reformist camp, but from within his own hard-line faction. The hard-line opposition emerged after Ahmadinejad made Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie an adviser and head of the presidential office. Mashaie, the Iranian president’s friend and the father-in-law of his son, had been serving as first vice president, but Khamenei wrote Ahmadinejad urging the president to remove the vice president. Ahmadinejad eventually did remove Mashaie, but only after seven days had passed since Khamenei’s letter.
Ahmadinejad has stirred up more trouble by firing his intelligence chief, Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, another key hard-liner. The termination occurred after the president and the then-intelligence chief had a shouting match during a July 22 Cabinet meeting regarding the vice presidency controversy; Iran’s culture minister resigned in the wake of this conflict. Both a powerful hard-line cleric and Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami warned Ahmadinejad against disobeying the supreme leader after the spat with the intelligence chief. And 210 out of 290 members of parliament issued a statement supporting Mohseni-Ejei.
With Iran’s political balance, and Ahmadinejad’s own faction, facing increasing disarray, the possibility of sudden and stark changes in Iranian policy looms large. And between the United States trying to alter its deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan on one hand and Russia searching for a way to unbalance U.S. posture on the other, Iran faces an extremely rough ride.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Iraq: The Raid on the MeK
Stratfor
July 29, 2009 | 1630 GMT
Summary
Fighting continued July 29 in Iraq’s eastern Diyala province at Camp Ashraf, the home of 3,360 members of the Iranian exile group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK). Reportedly, six people have been killed and hundreds of others have been injured, although these claims have not been confirmed.Analysis
Clashes continued July 29 at Camp Ashraf in Iraq’s eastern province of Diyala after hundreds of Iraqi police and soldiers raided the army base that houses some 3,360 members of an exiled Iranian opposition group. The opposition group, a Marxist-based Islamist group called the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK), claims that six people have been killed and hundreds injured, though these claims have not been verified.
The reasons for the raid remain unclear, but it is likely that Iran may have directly prompted the raid or that the United States gently prodded the Iraqis to conduct the raid to affect domestic Iranian developments.
Members of the MeK have been holed up in Camp Ashraf since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The MeK has long been a thorn in Iran’s side; the group began an armed campaign against the clerical regime in 1965 and has since awaited an opportunity to bring down the mullahs. The MeK found a natural ally next door in Iraq, where then-leader Saddam Hussein welcomed the chance to pressure its Persian neighbor during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. When Hussein became an American target in 2003, the MeK had a plan to launch a major offensive against Iran — an operation called “The Black Phase.” At the time, however, the United States decided it needed Iran’s support in conducting the invasion of Iraq, and, in back-channel negotiations, agreed to disarm the MeK and keep them contained at Camp Ashraf under the watch of U.S. soldiers and private security contractors. As Iran’s tumultuous negotiations with the United States continued on and off over the past six years, the MeK card developed into a useful bargaining chip for Washington. As far as Iran was concerned, the United States had a hardcore anti-Iranian militant asset that could be used in covert action schemes against Iran should Washington think it necessary to rattle the clerical regime.
In a confidence-building measure, however, the United States and Iran reached a behind-the-scenes deal around September 2008 in which Washington agreed it would hand over the camp to Iraqi authorities within six months. From there, it would be mostly up to Baghdad to decide the MeK’s fate. Extraditing the MeK members to Iran would be tantamount to sentencing them to death, but staying in Iraq is not much of an option either. Iraq’s Shiite and Kurdish populations have deeply resented the MeK for its participation in crackdowns during the Hussein era. Moreover, Iraq’s now Shite-dominated Interior Ministry — which is flooded with allies of Iran — has an obligation to Tehran to ensure the MeK is stamped out for good.
When the United States finally handed over control of Camp Ashraf to Iraqi authorities three months ago, it was bracing for such a conflagration. The process to extradite the MeK members to Europe has been slow, and tensions have been building in Diyala over the MeK’s continued presence. However, this latest raid is unlikely to have been a completely spontaneous event.
Iraqi security authorities claim that according to the Status of Forces Agreement signed between Washington and Baghdad, it was fully within their rights to storm the camp. An unlikely coincidence, the raid occurred the same day U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates paid a visit to Iraq to discuss the next steps in the U.S. withdrawal and to highlight the endurance of the United States’ defense relationship with the Iraqis. Soon thereafter, Iranian Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani — a powerful figure within the Iranian ruling elite — said July 29 that Iran welcomed the move by Iraqi authorities to clear Iraqi territory of “terrorists,” even if the move came late.
We see two possible paths that could have led to this event, and they are not mutually exclusive.
First, the Iranians could very well have had a direct hand in prompting the raid. Larijani’s statement appears to have been a calibrated move to remind Washington of the leverage Tehran holds in Baghdad to neutralize threats across its border. U.S. and Israeli saber-rattling against Iran has increased since the June Iranian election crisis, and Tehran is under increasing pressure to demonstrate to the United States that it has the levers in place to seriously complicate the U.S. position in Iraq if sufficiently provoked. At the same time, the United States has a pressing need to take a step back from Iraq and focus on competing threats farther east in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Gates even announced July 29 that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could be accelerated this year to leave 11 instead of 12 brigades in place ahead of the January 2010 parliamentary elections. Iran can clearly see the U.S. urgency to reduce its commitment to Iraq, but in looking out for its own security, the Iranians appear to be signaling through the MeK clashes that Washington’s timetable for the withdrawal is still contingent on Iranian cooperation.
But despite Iran’s very real influence in Iraq, it is a stretch to think that the Americans could not have stopped the raid if desired. Statements from the State Department were pointedly calm, with spokesman Ian Kelly saying little more than that Washington was “watching” and “monitoring” events. This brings us to the second possibility: that the United States actually nudged the Iraqis to launch the raid in an effort to influence internal Iranian developments.
Larijani is part of the Iranian faction led by Expediency Council chief Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the most powerful clerics in Iran. Rafsanjani has emerged as the primary counterweight to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the two are locked in a struggle over the leadership of the country. Ahmadinejad appears to be moving toward aligning with Russia, and a Russian-Iranian alliance would be one that poses a much more serious threat to U.S. interests than anything that Iran could muster by itself. Rafsanjani is attempting to convince fence-sitters in Iran that the United States cannot tolerate such an alignment as it would force the Americans to take steps to neutralize Iran (i.e. war), and that a different path needs to be followed. In this light, the Americans’ allowing the drubbing of the MeK could simply be the granting of a card to Rafsanjani’s faction to be used in Iran’s internal debates: proof that the United States is willing to offer carrots (in this case, partial liquidation of the MeK) as well as sticks.
Obama Administration, meet Middle East Reality; Middle East Reality, meet Obama administration
RubinReports
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-administration-meet-middle-east.html
Barry Rubin
Hints have been dropped in the media and by U.S. officials visiting Israel that President Barack Obama's Middle East policy has altered somewhat. Now the spin is that Israel isn't just being asked to make a unilateral concession to stop construction on settlements (about 4000 to 5000 apartment units a year) but that such a concession would coincide with some Arab confidence-building measures. In principle, this is a good thing. But let's begin by recognizing that it is a shift. Administrations like to deny they ever make a mistake or that they ever alter course. Journalists, academics, and analysts have the job of pointing out: they were wrong, now they see that--in part at least--and are making a change.
At the same time, the slightly revised strategy is just as foolish from a U.S. policy standpoint. Let's review:
Scene One: Without prior consultation with Israel, the U.S. government demands in an insulting and public manner that it make a big concession. It throws out old commitments, insists that Israel will get nothing in exchange, and makes no demand on the other side that it needs to do anything.
Underlying U.S Strategy: Israel makes a big concession and then the United States goes to the Arabs, asks them to do something. Meanwhile, these Arab countries will supposedly be so pleased by American success on the construction freeze that they will give the United States more help in constraining Iran and in other policy goals.
This concept has nothing to do with the Middle East as it actually exists.
At least, thank goodness, the United States has not actually done anything to pressure Israel: no aid cutbacks, no denunciations at the UN, and no sanctions on weapons' deliveries. This point is widely misunderstood. So far the U.S. "offensive" has all been words.
Moreover, the problem is not that Obama hates Israel or wants to destroy it. His administration has simply put forth a very silly, unworkable strategy based on a profound misunderstanding of Israel, Arab regimes, the Palestinian movement, Iran, and the proper American role in the region.
Scene Two, the new development: Recognizing at least in part that it has dug a big hole for itself and jumped into it, the administration now modifies the policy. Presumably this is supposed to make Israel more attracted to the idea of making a big concession. More emphasis is put on getting Arab states to make some gesture toward Israel at the same time. Instead of unilateral concession it would be mutual, simultaneous concession.
Now what the administration should be doing instead is to push for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to stop incitement to murder Israelis in its media, schools and mosques and stop telling its people that the goal is to wipe Israel off the map. That would really impress Israelis. And since the United States has just given the PA another $200 million it might have some real leverage there.
But no, instead the administration is going to Saudi Arabia, other Gulf Arab countries, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and perhaps others saying: Do something.
And of course they won't do anything. So the policy still fails but now it fails on two fronts instead of one.
Special mention here should be devoted to the meaning of the word "pressure." Some administration officials in background interviews and also reporters are now saying that the administration is putting "pressure" on Arab states to do something. This is not true. It is all letter-writing and "please" and "wouldn't it be nice if you...."
That's not pressure, that's begging.
Of course, something similar could be said about what the administration is doing to Israel, but at least there has been public criticism and very vague hints of punishment. Let's call this "verbal pressure" at most. One might say, however: That's not pressure, that's nagging.
Now, a minor course adjustment is being made. But the basic strategy is still wrong. Either more adjustments must be made or bigger failures will follow.
What is most important, however, is that the administration's basic concept of how the Middle East works--what its issues are; what it means if Iran gets nuclear weapons; how Syria's regime will inevitably oppose U.S. interests and stay allied with Tehran; how a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is decades off; the need to bring down the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip; the necessity of backing moderate forces in Lebanon in a serious manner; and similar such things--come into line with reality.
In other words, we are now in Act 1, Scene 2, but what we really need is for the U.S. government to move into Act 2.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Click here: To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles or to order books.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-administration-meet-middle-east.html
Barry Rubin
Hints have been dropped in the media and by U.S. officials visiting Israel that President Barack Obama's Middle East policy has altered somewhat. Now the spin is that Israel isn't just being asked to make a unilateral concession to stop construction on settlements (about 4000 to 5000 apartment units a year) but that such a concession would coincide with some Arab confidence-building measures. In principle, this is a good thing. But let's begin by recognizing that it is a shift. Administrations like to deny they ever make a mistake or that they ever alter course. Journalists, academics, and analysts have the job of pointing out: they were wrong, now they see that--in part at least--and are making a change.
At the same time, the slightly revised strategy is just as foolish from a U.S. policy standpoint. Let's review:
Scene One: Without prior consultation with Israel, the U.S. government demands in an insulting and public manner that it make a big concession. It throws out old commitments, insists that Israel will get nothing in exchange, and makes no demand on the other side that it needs to do anything.
Underlying U.S Strategy: Israel makes a big concession and then the United States goes to the Arabs, asks them to do something. Meanwhile, these Arab countries will supposedly be so pleased by American success on the construction freeze that they will give the United States more help in constraining Iran and in other policy goals.
This concept has nothing to do with the Middle East as it actually exists.
At least, thank goodness, the United States has not actually done anything to pressure Israel: no aid cutbacks, no denunciations at the UN, and no sanctions on weapons' deliveries. This point is widely misunderstood. So far the U.S. "offensive" has all been words.
Moreover, the problem is not that Obama hates Israel or wants to destroy it. His administration has simply put forth a very silly, unworkable strategy based on a profound misunderstanding of Israel, Arab regimes, the Palestinian movement, Iran, and the proper American role in the region.
Scene Two, the new development: Recognizing at least in part that it has dug a big hole for itself and jumped into it, the administration now modifies the policy. Presumably this is supposed to make Israel more attracted to the idea of making a big concession. More emphasis is put on getting Arab states to make some gesture toward Israel at the same time. Instead of unilateral concession it would be mutual, simultaneous concession.
Now what the administration should be doing instead is to push for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to stop incitement to murder Israelis in its media, schools and mosques and stop telling its people that the goal is to wipe Israel off the map. That would really impress Israelis. And since the United States has just given the PA another $200 million it might have some real leverage there.
But no, instead the administration is going to Saudi Arabia, other Gulf Arab countries, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and perhaps others saying: Do something.
And of course they won't do anything. So the policy still fails but now it fails on two fronts instead of one.
Special mention here should be devoted to the meaning of the word "pressure." Some administration officials in background interviews and also reporters are now saying that the administration is putting "pressure" on Arab states to do something. This is not true. It is all letter-writing and "please" and "wouldn't it be nice if you...."
That's not pressure, that's begging.
Of course, something similar could be said about what the administration is doing to Israel, but at least there has been public criticism and very vague hints of punishment. Let's call this "verbal pressure" at most. One might say, however: That's not pressure, that's nagging.
Now, a minor course adjustment is being made. But the basic strategy is still wrong. Either more adjustments must be made or bigger failures will follow.
What is most important, however, is that the administration's basic concept of how the Middle East works--what its issues are; what it means if Iran gets nuclear weapons; how Syria's regime will inevitably oppose U.S. interests and stay allied with Tehran; how a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is decades off; the need to bring down the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip; the necessity of backing moderate forces in Lebanon in a serious manner; and similar such things--come into line with reality.
In other words, we are now in Act 1, Scene 2, but what we really need is for the U.S. government to move into Act 2.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Click here: To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles or to order books.
Speech by PM Benjamin Netanyahu at Knesset Special Session
"Regarding the area of security, prior to the elections I said and continue to say now, and not only in this forum, that our main problem is the threat which Iran presents for us, for the region and for peace. During the government's tenure, something happened here which in my opinion has long-term significance, and that is the exposure of the Iranian regime's true colors. This is a brutal regime which oppresses the Iranian people. We have no struggle or conflict with the Iranian people, with whom we had deep ties of friendship. I believe that this nation wants to be liberated from the yoke of tyranny, and if it were to be liberated, in turn this would also liberate many forces for development, progress and peace in our region."I want to sum up, in a succinct and decisive manner, the government's lines of activity, policy and deeds in the areas of security, the economy and policy.
Regarding the area of security, prior to the elections I said and continue to say now, and not only in this forum, that our main problem is the threat which Iran presents for us, for the region and for peace. During the government's tenure, something happened here which in my opinion has long-term significance, and that is the exposure of the Iranian regime's true colors. This is a brutal regime which oppresses the Iranian people. We have no struggle or conflict with the Iranian people, with whom we had deep ties of friendship. I believe that this nation wants to be liberated from the yoke of tyranny, and if it were to be liberated, in turn this would also liberate many forces for development, progress and peace in our region.
Have no doubt: I am aware of who supported this regime. Hardly anyone among the international community supported this regime, but there were exceptions. Incidentally, not in the Arab world - with the exception of one country called Syria and two movements: Hamas and Hizbullah. They sent praise, encouragement and support. One day, I will be able to tell you what else they sent there during the oppression.
This is definitely part of the same method, part of the same tyranny, this is part of the same hypocrisy, which in an instant, unmasked its true nature, and this is a matter of importance.
It is our policy to enlist an international front against Iran in order to increase the sanctions against it, and preserve the State of Israel's uppermost security interests. I sense that there is a certain toughening in the international position, including that of the Americans, against this regime. I think that we need to recognize that they have not changed their intention, their purpose or their plans. I have discussed this topic, and we are in touch with President Obama's Administration and also with the heads of the European states.
During the first few days of this government's tenure, we ratified, or more precisely, America and its President, ratified important strategic understandings which we reached in the area of strategy.
We know that we are not only facing a distant threat, the Iranians, but also face a much closer threat. The policy which we implemented against the firing of missiles, Kassams and any other type of rocket, is that we are not prepared to hold back in such instances. We are not prepared to hold back against a trickle of rockets and missiles. In the past, they didn't react in order not to allow things to deteriorate, so they continued to increase, until you reach a situation where you have no choice but to carry out acts of a much wider scope. This is not the policy of my government.
My government has instituted a different policy, and this different policy states that we are not prepared to tolerate rockets and missiles being fired into Israel's territory. Mr. Speaker, we are not adopting a trickle policy, restraint, an increased trickle, firing upon our communities, and then a response. This is not the policy of my government. We will respond to every firing without fail. Before the elections, there were several without a response, but not since the elections.
Every result has a reaction. From the moment that I became Prime Minister, there has been a reaction to every shooting, which has been and will continue to be our policy. The public can precisely judge the results of the three months or the month prior to the elections and the months which have since passed. I think that this is the correct policy. We cannot take it for granted - I have never thought that we should take the firing of missiles on Israeli cities for granted. I have now outlined the second component.
What has changed is that it is now possible to go to Sderot, Ashkelon and Beersheva, where our Government meeting took place a week ago, and it is possible to see what has changed. I am not taking credit away from anyone. I clarify, everyone here is fighting for credit. Take the credit. I am talking about security. Leave the security as that is what is important. The credit is not interesting. What is interesting is the security. Our policy is that we are not prepared to accept the firing of missiles upon our citizens.
I have visited many countries and many statesmen have visited here and told us that they don't understand how a situation like this could arise, whereby missiles are fired on your cities. The same statesman said: I know what we would have done, and that is what we are doing. If you fire one missile on Israeli communities, there will be a reaction. I am not saying that this is a simple thing - I am not saying that there won't be disagreements. I am simply stating to the Knesset what my government's policy is.
The third component: I heard statements about the security fence. I supported the construction of the fence. As Minister of Finance, I said to the Prime Minister at that time, Ariel Sharon, even though we were in a very difficult financial crisis, I told him: “Arik, there won't be any problems with the budget for the fence, the budget will always precede the construction”. And this is how I acted, I promised and came through.
I also clarified that this is a security partition, it always has been and remains so, but the main thing is that it is of vital importance for maintaining our security. I hear today that there are those who say that because it is quiet, we can remove the fence. My friends, the opposite is true, because there is a fence, there is quiet. This, and of course, the activities of the IDF and other security forces operating on the other side of the fence. I must add, and I say this cautiously and objectively, that there is also an improvement. There is also a certain improvement in the functioning of the Palestinian security forces and we welcome and support this. But the fence is important - the fence is a central component of our security, in our defense against a certain type of terror, and therefore the fence is here to stay, and will not be dismantled.
Still on the topic of security, a clear policy which also has results in the field, which was also instituted by my government, is that of where possible easing the movement of Palestinians. We have removed a large number of roadblocks, check points and dirt barriers. I have instructed to expand or lengthen the crossing hours for goods at the Allenby Bridge. We are doing this in consultation with the security forces, with the aim of easing them, where possible, without taking too great a risk.
I was asked whether this was done as part of a government policy, and the answer is yes. There are always those who will disagree with this. Within the IDF, there are different ranks of command, but gentlemen, we decide on policy. This is the policy of the government - where possible, to ease the movement of people and goods, and this has left its mark, and I think that it is welcomed. It has also made its mark in a fairly impressive economic growth. In my opinion, it has not reached its potential, even though there are international bodies who estimate that growth in the Palestinian Authority in the coming year will be close to 7%, although in my opinion, it could be a lot higher.
I head a committee whose activities are prepared by Minister Silvan Shalom, and we are going through project by project, and removing a lot of obstacles. The project in Bethlehem, the project next to Jenin, the project in Jericho.
So this is our government's policy - clear and immediate security assertiveness in response to missile fire. Activities relating to Iran on which I don't see any point in going into more detail, but I think that we have a certain change in the international climate relating to Iran. Leaving the fence in place and filling up the breaches is of course important, but so is easing the security restrictions or easing movement for the Palestinians where possible, removing blocks in both senses of the word, and this is something that is already having an effect.
I spoke about this with Tony Blair on several occasions before the elections, and I said that people are having a hard time understanding the speed with which the economy responds to the removal of obstacles. This is true in general, and within the Palestinian economy, even more so. The per capita income is not high, and therefore the growth can be very, very impressive. I won't quote him, but I think that he is different from many in that he saw and continues to see the potential, and we are discussing additional topics. We will continue in this direction.
I now wish to relate to the government's policy in the economic field.
Removing obstacles is also our objective in the area of the economy. First of all, I wish to thank the Members of Knesset, even those who voted against, but certainly those who voted for passing the budget. We needed a guiding hand for the budget. We did not have a budget for a long time, which has also left its mark on the economy.
Today, we don't just have any old budget, but a biennial budget, and I must tell you, people are interested in it. Some have suggested that we make this a permanent thing, but I was not pulled into it, or carried away, but only for a year and a half. If we hadn't passed this, Members of Knesset, we would have started in the summer. Member of Knesset Bar-On knows this - he is nodding his head in agreement, we would have started immediately on the budget for 2010.
I think that it is important to know that there is a biennial budget. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing and passing this budget, which is of course, based on agreement within the economy, which is something that we have not had for 25 years. This package deal prevents strikes and also enables us to make progress in the reforms. I know that there are differing opinions on reforms, which I would like to present, because we have already started to make progress in them, within the range of 3-4 months as we said. It takes time. Today, we will decide on one of them.
I want to clearly outline what we are doing and what we are going to do:
The first thing that we are going to do is pass a reform in the Israel Land Administration. First of all, this reform will transfer the ownership of hundreds of thousands of apartments to the citizens of Israel. How can it be that people lease their apartments and need to deal with the Israel Land Administration bureaucracy? We are getting rid of a third of the Israel Land Administration's bureaucracy.
We are going to continue. Firstly, I hope that we will pass this reform today, but within the next two weeks, we are going to assemble the same committee which prepared this reform in order to simplify and reduce the processes of the Planning and Building Committees. We live in one of the last places in the world where it takes years to plan a house, to construct a factory, to pave a road. Too many years. I expect that the Members of Knesset, instead of objecting to these changes that will release the lands, simplify and reduce the planning process, I expect them to support this, as the vast majority will indeed do.
The third component, in addition to reforming the Israel Land Administration and Planning and Building Committees, is of course the paving of transportation routes. The day before yesterday, the Minister of Transportation and I attended the opening of a new interchange, the new section of Highway 6. I have been following this project since the first time I was Prime Minister. I inaugurated the first interchange at the Ben Shemen Junction, and two years later, the interchange at the Kessem Junction. Of course, as Minister of Finance, I allocated funds for this.
Other people have also been involved with this - prime ministers, ministers of finance and transportation, all of whom deserve credit. I must just say that my involvement in this, and I am sure all of your involvement as well, stems from the recognition that we cannot continue living in the State of Hadera - Gadera. We need to break into the transportation routes, both trains and the fast roads to the Galilee and the Negev.
We made the decision to pave the “Fork of the North”, which is two new highways exiting from Yokneam. Highway No. 6 will go up to Nahariya and we will build interchanges on the north-east route at the Golani Junction, at the Amihud Junction, and at upper and lower passages in order to actually enable an express road to Kiryat Shmonah. As soon as the Galilee has these two roads, and one is able to travel north directly to Nahariya, or north-east to Rosh Pinah, and of course to Tiberias and then on to Safed and Kiryat Shmonah, we will change the face of the country.
We are connecting the periphery, and to a large degree abolishing it. I call this the “Connect Israel” road, which is exactly what it will be. However, this will not be the only project. We must “take Israel out of the traffic-jam” which will be carried out with greater vigor during the period of this government, out of a deep commitment to land reforms, to making the building processes more efficient, to paving roads, as this is something which really provides news, provides places to live, reduces the prices of apartments for young couples and soldiers, and simply enables them to live.
I wish to conclude with an outline of the government's policy on the diplomatic front:
In the first 100 days of this government, we formulated national agreement for the foundations of peace. In the speech which I gave at Bar-Ilan University, I outlined the 5 principles which, in my opinion, unite the vast majority of the public in Israel, and I believe, also the vast majority of international organizations who want real peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors.
1. The first one is something which should obvious, but which isn't: that the Palestinians who ask us to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
2. A derivative of this simple principle is that the refugee problem won't be resolved within the borders of the Jewish state.
3. The third thing derived from this is that when we sign a peace agreement, there will be no further claims against the State of Israel, not regarding the entrance of refugees, nor regarding territory or geographic regions in the State of Israel. An end to the conflict is an end to claims. If these things are so simple and obvious, why do they arouse such opposition, and who can really oppose such a thing. If we truly want peace, we must state these demands, which anchor the State of Israel's permanent legitimacy, in the clearest way possible, and this is exactly what we have done.
4. The fourth and fifth principles relate to security. We don't want to repeat the mistakes and tragedies of Gaza. We don't want another Hamastan and we don't want another Hizbullahstan. The main thing, in addition to questions of legitimacy and recognition, is demilitarization.
The demilitarization which we are seeking is an effective demilitarization: not demilitarization on paper, not a demilitarization which doesn't withstand the test of reality, not demilitarization arrangements which we see collapsing in Lebanon and in Gaza. We want effective demilitarization arrangements, which guarantee that there won't be a foreign army west of the Jordan. The airspace won't be transferred into enemy hands. Rockets and missiles, tanks or any other types of weapon won't penetrate this territory. These are basic tenets which I assume that not everyone, but the vast majority of MKs, almost all the MKs will agree with.
5. Demilitarization consists of two components: one component is effective security arrangements on the ground, and the second component is international recognition for these arrangements. I want to clarify that we are not asking international organizations to carry out these demilitarization arrangements, but we are seeking international recognition for these arrangements because we are being asked to take steps, to make concessions. We want to ensure that the State of Israel will be secure, and such security requires that there will be international recognition for effective demilitarization arrangements. Therefore, in response to the question of what will happen in case of a violation, it will be totally clear who has violated these arrangements, and who has honored them.
I think that it is possible to reach such understandings, or such arrangements if we insist on them. In general, all the things I said are not things which have not been said before. They have been said! But we assembled them and placed them at the front of the stage not as an excuse or trick, but because this is the most fundamental thing to do. Without this, there really can be no peace. I speak differently - I say things as they are.
I wish to reiterate the five principles: recognition of a Jewish state, refugees outside the State of Israel, an end to the conflict, effective demilitarization arrangements, and international recognition of these arrangements. These are the foundations for the national agreement for peace. I welcome the support which I have received from many, many, many citizens of Israel, because they know that this is just, and apart from the momentary polemics, you also know that this is just and necessary.
Mr. Speaker, Members of Knesset,
I thank you for this opportunity to present the principles of our actions and our policies in the first 100 days. Adhering to these principles is important, even if sometimes it is unpleasant to hear.
Certainly, the Palestinians oppose them, but I think that if someone were to objectively examine the principles I raised here, and not only here, if someone were to examine the actions we took to stabilize the economy, to pass the budget, to pass fundamental reforms - if someone were to objectively examine the policies we have adopted in the fields of national security and the State of Israel's continuous security - they can say that this government operates in a clear, vigorous and definite manner to ensure the future of the State of Israel.
Thank you.
עד כאן.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
29 יולי 2009
Regarding the area of security, prior to the elections I said and continue to say now, and not only in this forum, that our main problem is the threat which Iran presents for us, for the region and for peace. During the government's tenure, something happened here which in my opinion has long-term significance, and that is the exposure of the Iranian regime's true colors. This is a brutal regime which oppresses the Iranian people. We have no struggle or conflict with the Iranian people, with whom we had deep ties of friendship. I believe that this nation wants to be liberated from the yoke of tyranny, and if it were to be liberated, in turn this would also liberate many forces for development, progress and peace in our region.
Have no doubt: I am aware of who supported this regime. Hardly anyone among the international community supported this regime, but there were exceptions. Incidentally, not in the Arab world - with the exception of one country called Syria and two movements: Hamas and Hizbullah. They sent praise, encouragement and support. One day, I will be able to tell you what else they sent there during the oppression.
This is definitely part of the same method, part of the same tyranny, this is part of the same hypocrisy, which in an instant, unmasked its true nature, and this is a matter of importance.
It is our policy to enlist an international front against Iran in order to increase the sanctions against it, and preserve the State of Israel's uppermost security interests. I sense that there is a certain toughening in the international position, including that of the Americans, against this regime. I think that we need to recognize that they have not changed their intention, their purpose or their plans. I have discussed this topic, and we are in touch with President Obama's Administration and also with the heads of the European states.
During the first few days of this government's tenure, we ratified, or more precisely, America and its President, ratified important strategic understandings which we reached in the area of strategy.
We know that we are not only facing a distant threat, the Iranians, but also face a much closer threat. The policy which we implemented against the firing of missiles, Kassams and any other type of rocket, is that we are not prepared to hold back in such instances. We are not prepared to hold back against a trickle of rockets and missiles. In the past, they didn't react in order not to allow things to deteriorate, so they continued to increase, until you reach a situation where you have no choice but to carry out acts of a much wider scope. This is not the policy of my government.
My government has instituted a different policy, and this different policy states that we are not prepared to tolerate rockets and missiles being fired into Israel's territory. Mr. Speaker, we are not adopting a trickle policy, restraint, an increased trickle, firing upon our communities, and then a response. This is not the policy of my government. We will respond to every firing without fail. Before the elections, there were several without a response, but not since the elections.
Every result has a reaction. From the moment that I became Prime Minister, there has been a reaction to every shooting, which has been and will continue to be our policy. The public can precisely judge the results of the three months or the month prior to the elections and the months which have since passed. I think that this is the correct policy. We cannot take it for granted - I have never thought that we should take the firing of missiles on Israeli cities for granted. I have now outlined the second component.
What has changed is that it is now possible to go to Sderot, Ashkelon and Beersheva, where our Government meeting took place a week ago, and it is possible to see what has changed. I am not taking credit away from anyone. I clarify, everyone here is fighting for credit. Take the credit. I am talking about security. Leave the security as that is what is important. The credit is not interesting. What is interesting is the security. Our policy is that we are not prepared to accept the firing of missiles upon our citizens.
I have visited many countries and many statesmen have visited here and told us that they don't understand how a situation like this could arise, whereby missiles are fired on your cities. The same statesman said: I know what we would have done, and that is what we are doing. If you fire one missile on Israeli communities, there will be a reaction. I am not saying that this is a simple thing - I am not saying that there won't be disagreements. I am simply stating to the Knesset what my government's policy is.
The third component: I heard statements about the security fence. I supported the construction of the fence. As Minister of Finance, I said to the Prime Minister at that time, Ariel Sharon, even though we were in a very difficult financial crisis, I told him: “Arik, there won't be any problems with the budget for the fence, the budget will always precede the construction”. And this is how I acted, I promised and came through.
I also clarified that this is a security partition, it always has been and remains so, but the main thing is that it is of vital importance for maintaining our security. I hear today that there are those who say that because it is quiet, we can remove the fence. My friends, the opposite is true, because there is a fence, there is quiet. This, and of course, the activities of the IDF and other security forces operating on the other side of the fence. I must add, and I say this cautiously and objectively, that there is also an improvement. There is also a certain improvement in the functioning of the Palestinian security forces and we welcome and support this. But the fence is important - the fence is a central component of our security, in our defense against a certain type of terror, and therefore the fence is here to stay, and will not be dismantled.
Still on the topic of security, a clear policy which also has results in the field, which was also instituted by my government, is that of where possible easing the movement of Palestinians. We have removed a large number of roadblocks, check points and dirt barriers. I have instructed to expand or lengthen the crossing hours for goods at the Allenby Bridge. We are doing this in consultation with the security forces, with the aim of easing them, where possible, without taking too great a risk.
I was asked whether this was done as part of a government policy, and the answer is yes. There are always those who will disagree with this. Within the IDF, there are different ranks of command, but gentlemen, we decide on policy. This is the policy of the government - where possible, to ease the movement of people and goods, and this has left its mark, and I think that it is welcomed. It has also made its mark in a fairly impressive economic growth. In my opinion, it has not reached its potential, even though there are international bodies who estimate that growth in the Palestinian Authority in the coming year will be close to 7%, although in my opinion, it could be a lot higher.
I head a committee whose activities are prepared by Minister Silvan Shalom, and we are going through project by project, and removing a lot of obstacles. The project in Bethlehem, the project next to Jenin, the project in Jericho.
So this is our government's policy - clear and immediate security assertiveness in response to missile fire. Activities relating to Iran on which I don't see any point in going into more detail, but I think that we have a certain change in the international climate relating to Iran. Leaving the fence in place and filling up the breaches is of course important, but so is easing the security restrictions or easing movement for the Palestinians where possible, removing blocks in both senses of the word, and this is something that is already having an effect.
I spoke about this with Tony Blair on several occasions before the elections, and I said that people are having a hard time understanding the speed with which the economy responds to the removal of obstacles. This is true in general, and within the Palestinian economy, even more so. The per capita income is not high, and therefore the growth can be very, very impressive. I won't quote him, but I think that he is different from many in that he saw and continues to see the potential, and we are discussing additional topics. We will continue in this direction.
I now wish to relate to the government's policy in the economic field.
Removing obstacles is also our objective in the area of the economy. First of all, I wish to thank the Members of Knesset, even those who voted against, but certainly those who voted for passing the budget. We needed a guiding hand for the budget. We did not have a budget for a long time, which has also left its mark on the economy.
Today, we don't just have any old budget, but a biennial budget, and I must tell you, people are interested in it. Some have suggested that we make this a permanent thing, but I was not pulled into it, or carried away, but only for a year and a half. If we hadn't passed this, Members of Knesset, we would have started in the summer. Member of Knesset Bar-On knows this - he is nodding his head in agreement, we would have started immediately on the budget for 2010.
I think that it is important to know that there is a biennial budget. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing and passing this budget, which is of course, based on agreement within the economy, which is something that we have not had for 25 years. This package deal prevents strikes and also enables us to make progress in the reforms. I know that there are differing opinions on reforms, which I would like to present, because we have already started to make progress in them, within the range of 3-4 months as we said. It takes time. Today, we will decide on one of them.
I want to clearly outline what we are doing and what we are going to do:
The first thing that we are going to do is pass a reform in the Israel Land Administration. First of all, this reform will transfer the ownership of hundreds of thousands of apartments to the citizens of Israel. How can it be that people lease their apartments and need to deal with the Israel Land Administration bureaucracy? We are getting rid of a third of the Israel Land Administration's bureaucracy.
We are going to continue. Firstly, I hope that we will pass this reform today, but within the next two weeks, we are going to assemble the same committee which prepared this reform in order to simplify and reduce the processes of the Planning and Building Committees. We live in one of the last places in the world where it takes years to plan a house, to construct a factory, to pave a road. Too many years. I expect that the Members of Knesset, instead of objecting to these changes that will release the lands, simplify and reduce the planning process, I expect them to support this, as the vast majority will indeed do.
The third component, in addition to reforming the Israel Land Administration and Planning and Building Committees, is of course the paving of transportation routes. The day before yesterday, the Minister of Transportation and I attended the opening of a new interchange, the new section of Highway 6. I have been following this project since the first time I was Prime Minister. I inaugurated the first interchange at the Ben Shemen Junction, and two years later, the interchange at the Kessem Junction. Of course, as Minister of Finance, I allocated funds for this.
Other people have also been involved with this - prime ministers, ministers of finance and transportation, all of whom deserve credit. I must just say that my involvement in this, and I am sure all of your involvement as well, stems from the recognition that we cannot continue living in the State of Hadera - Gadera. We need to break into the transportation routes, both trains and the fast roads to the Galilee and the Negev.
We made the decision to pave the “Fork of the North”, which is two new highways exiting from Yokneam. Highway No. 6 will go up to Nahariya and we will build interchanges on the north-east route at the Golani Junction, at the Amihud Junction, and at upper and lower passages in order to actually enable an express road to Kiryat Shmonah. As soon as the Galilee has these two roads, and one is able to travel north directly to Nahariya, or north-east to Rosh Pinah, and of course to Tiberias and then on to Safed and Kiryat Shmonah, we will change the face of the country.
We are connecting the periphery, and to a large degree abolishing it. I call this the “Connect Israel” road, which is exactly what it will be. However, this will not be the only project. We must “take Israel out of the traffic-jam” which will be carried out with greater vigor during the period of this government, out of a deep commitment to land reforms, to making the building processes more efficient, to paving roads, as this is something which really provides news, provides places to live, reduces the prices of apartments for young couples and soldiers, and simply enables them to live.
I wish to conclude with an outline of the government's policy on the diplomatic front:
In the first 100 days of this government, we formulated national agreement for the foundations of peace. In the speech which I gave at Bar-Ilan University, I outlined the 5 principles which, in my opinion, unite the vast majority of the public in Israel, and I believe, also the vast majority of international organizations who want real peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors.
1. The first one is something which should obvious, but which isn't: that the Palestinians who ask us to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
2. A derivative of this simple principle is that the refugee problem won't be resolved within the borders of the Jewish state.
3. The third thing derived from this is that when we sign a peace agreement, there will be no further claims against the State of Israel, not regarding the entrance of refugees, nor regarding territory or geographic regions in the State of Israel. An end to the conflict is an end to claims. If these things are so simple and obvious, why do they arouse such opposition, and who can really oppose such a thing. If we truly want peace, we must state these demands, which anchor the State of Israel's permanent legitimacy, in the clearest way possible, and this is exactly what we have done.
4. The fourth and fifth principles relate to security. We don't want to repeat the mistakes and tragedies of Gaza. We don't want another Hamastan and we don't want another Hizbullahstan. The main thing, in addition to questions of legitimacy and recognition, is demilitarization.
The demilitarization which we are seeking is an effective demilitarization: not demilitarization on paper, not a demilitarization which doesn't withstand the test of reality, not demilitarization arrangements which we see collapsing in Lebanon and in Gaza. We want effective demilitarization arrangements, which guarantee that there won't be a foreign army west of the Jordan. The airspace won't be transferred into enemy hands. Rockets and missiles, tanks or any other types of weapon won't penetrate this territory. These are basic tenets which I assume that not everyone, but the vast majority of MKs, almost all the MKs will agree with.
5. Demilitarization consists of two components: one component is effective security arrangements on the ground, and the second component is international recognition for these arrangements. I want to clarify that we are not asking international organizations to carry out these demilitarization arrangements, but we are seeking international recognition for these arrangements because we are being asked to take steps, to make concessions. We want to ensure that the State of Israel will be secure, and such security requires that there will be international recognition for effective demilitarization arrangements. Therefore, in response to the question of what will happen in case of a violation, it will be totally clear who has violated these arrangements, and who has honored them.
I think that it is possible to reach such understandings, or such arrangements if we insist on them. In general, all the things I said are not things which have not been said before. They have been said! But we assembled them and placed them at the front of the stage not as an excuse or trick, but because this is the most fundamental thing to do. Without this, there really can be no peace. I speak differently - I say things as they are.
I wish to reiterate the five principles: recognition of a Jewish state, refugees outside the State of Israel, an end to the conflict, effective demilitarization arrangements, and international recognition of these arrangements. These are the foundations for the national agreement for peace. I welcome the support which I have received from many, many, many citizens of Israel, because they know that this is just, and apart from the momentary polemics, you also know that this is just and necessary.
Mr. Speaker, Members of Knesset,
I thank you for this opportunity to present the principles of our actions and our policies in the first 100 days. Adhering to these principles is important, even if sometimes it is unpleasant to hear.
Certainly, the Palestinians oppose them, but I think that if someone were to objectively examine the principles I raised here, and not only here, if someone were to examine the actions we took to stabilize the economy, to pass the budget, to pass fundamental reforms - if someone were to objectively examine the policies we have adopted in the fields of national security and the State of Israel's continuous security - they can say that this government operates in a clear, vigorous and definite manner to ensure the future of the State of Israel.
Thank you.
עד כאן.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
29 יולי 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)