YnetNews, Jan. 30, 2010
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3841505,00.html
Yoram Ettinger, Executive Director "Second Thought"
The exclusion of the Arab-Israeli conflict from President Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address reflects a US order of priorities and, possibly, a concern that mediation in the Arab-Israeli conflict does not advance – but undermines – Obama's domestic standing. In fact, Jerusalem should impress upon the US to reduce its mediation profile, minimize tension between Israel and the American broker, while enhancing strategic cooperation between Israel and its American ally. Obama's address focused on the US economy in general, and on the 26 year record-unemployment and the 65 year record-budget deficit, in particular. Thus, Obama highlighted a national order of priorities, underlining domestic issues, which preoccupy the public mind and tend to determine the fate of an American President and his political party for success or oblivion. Therefore, the global agenda – and even counterterrorism – were marginalized by Obama's address.
Washington's international agenda does not consider the Arab-Israeli conflict to be a top priority. Obama devoted the few minutes, which were allotted to the international arena, to his commitments to evacuate Iraq, to reinforce troops in Afghanistan, to constrain the North Korean nuclear threat, to prevent Iran's nuclearization, to reduce the nuclear arms race, to combat terrorism, to sustain engagement with rivals and enemies and to continue seeking multilateralism in general and with Moslems, in particular. The Avoidance of any reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict was intentional.
President Obama's involvement with the Arab-Israeli conflict has diverted his attention from issues which are much more important to vital US interests. The pressure exerted on Israel has eroded Obama's support among the American people, which have systematically accorded Israel high levels of support (66%-70%), compared with Obama's free fall in public opinion polls (from 65% in January, 2009 to 47% in January, 2010). Obama's pressure on Israel has also complicated his relations with friends of Israel on Capitol Hill, whose support is critical to Obama's legislative agenda. He realized Israel's solid support on the Hill when 334 House Members (76% of the House of Representatives) co-singed a letter condemning the "Goldstone Report," compared with only 57 Members (13%) co-signing a letter calling "to lift the closure on Gaza." In fact, President Clinton's precedent suggests that even a live-telecast of Clinton's participation in signing the Israel-Jordan peace treaty – a week before the November 1994 election – was overshadowed by domestic US politics, which devastated the Democratic Party in the mid-term election.
A lowered US profile in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict would enhance US-Israel relations and the respective interests of both countries. The more involved the US is as a broker, the less involved it is as a unique ally of the Jewish State. The more preoccupied the US is with mediation, the more it is inclined to be swept into disagreements and finger-pointing matches with Israel. The more entangled the US is in attempts to bridge Israeli-Arab gaps, the more attention is paid to that which causes separation between the US and Israel, rather than that which bonds them.
These observations are accentuated by the lead mediation role played by the State Department – which opposed the establishment of Israel and systematically supports the Arab position – and the CIA and the National Security Council, which tend to embrace Foggy Bottom's position on the Arab-Israeli conflict. President Obama's world view has exacerbated matters, clarifying the direction of US mediation: "Islam has always been part of the American story;" Israel is not a strategic asset and possibly a liability; Israel belongs to the exploiting West and the Arabs belong to the exploited Third World; engagement and not confrontation with rogue regimes; terrorism is primarily a law enforcement challenge; there is no Islamic terrorism, but Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorism; the UN and Europe are key quarterbacks of international relations; the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict consists of a withdrawal to the 1949/67 ceasefire lines, repartitioning of Jerusalem, uprooting of Jewish settlements, negotiating the return of the 1948 Arab refugees and possibly exchanging land.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is not the axis of US-Israel relations, which are based on a much more solid foundation of shared values, joint interests and mutual threats. Therefore, the unbridgeable US-Israel gap over the Secretary of State Rogers' 1970 peace plan could not derail the substantial upgrading of strategic US-Israel cooperation, due to Israel's deterrence of a pro-Soviet Syrian invasion of pro-US Jordan. Furthermore, the Bush-Baker hostility toward the Jewish State and the severe US-Israel tension over the First Intifada, the Reagan Peace Plan and the First Lebanon War could not stop a series of US-Israel memoranda of strategic understanding and the legislation of a substantially expanded US-Israel strategic cooperation, which were derived from Israel's unique contribution to the US posture of deterrence and its battle against terrorism and ballistic missiles.
The Middle East is a constant source of violently unpredictable challenges, which threaten vital US and Israeli interests. In order to effectively face such critical developments, it behooves the US and the Jewish State to maximize the utility of their mutually beneficial strategic common denominator and minimize involvement – such as US mediation in the Arab-Israeli conflict – which erodes the unique bonds between the two countries.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Is Obama Repeating the Mistake of 1937?
Bruce Bartlett|Jan
Is Obama Repeating the Mistake of 1937?With the announcement that Obama plans to freeze non-defense discretionary spending in his new budget, I can safely predict a blizzard of liberal attacks drawing a comparison to 1937, when Franklin Roosevelt sharply tightened fiscal policy and brought on an economic downturn. In anticipation of something like this, I wrote a Forbes column two weeks ago on this very topic, which I reprint below.
According to press reports, the Obama administration plans to put forward a budget on Feb. 1 containing significant deficit reduction measures. Some liberal economists are warning that it is grossly premature to implement deficit reduction. Indeed, they believe that additional fiscal stimulus is necessary to prevent a double-dip recession. They argue that there is a danger we will make the same mistake that Franklin Roosevelt made in 1937, which crippled the economy’s recovery.To evaluate the relevancy of 1937 to current economic and fiscal conditions we first need to review a little history of the Great Depression. First of all, it’s important to remember that what we call the Great Depression was not a continuous downturn; it was really two back-to-back recessions. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the first ran from August 1929 to March 1933 and the second from May 1937 to June 1938.
According to current Commerce Department data, real gross domestic product fell sharply in 1930, 1931 and 1932, and modestly in 1933. But GDP rebounded strongly in 1934, growing 10.9% that year, 8.9% in 1935, 13% in 1936 and 5.1% in 1937. But in 1938, real GDP fell 3.4%.
For many years, economists thought this “secondary recession” was inherent in the nature of the business cycle. Today, however, economists generally believe that the only thing that caused the 1937-38 downturn was disastrously bad government policy.
Although right-wingers like to portray FDR as a giddy big spender whose profligate ways made the depression worse, the truth is that he was by nature quite conservative, fiscally. Indeed, when running against Herbert Hoover in 1932 Roosevelt was unsparing in his criticism of Hoover’s spending and deficits. As he put it in an Oct. 19, 1932 speech:
“I regard reduction in federal spending as one of the most important issues of this campaign. In my opinion it is the most direct and effective contribution that government can make to business. In accordance with this fundamental policy it is equally necessary to eliminate from federal budget-making during this emergency all new items except such as relate to direct relief of unemployment.”
Roosevelt vowed that every member of his cabinet would be required to support the economic plank of the Democratic Party’s 1932 platform, which said, “We advocate an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than 25% in the cost of the federal government.”
While it is true that spending and deficits rose sharply once Roosevelt took office, the fact is that they never rose sufficiently to offset the fall in private spending that was at the heart of the Great Depression. This was proven to the satisfaction of most economists in a 1956 article by economist E. Carey Brown, “Fiscal Policy in the Thirties: A Reappraisal.” According to my calculations, the deficits of the 1930s should have been at least five times larger than they were.
Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, in particular, was always disturbed by the deficits. Rather than promote recovery, as most economists believed, he thought that they retarded it by sapping business confidence. As historian John Morton Blum explains, Morgenthau “was sure that private investors would not risk their capital when economic conditions were uncertain. He was sure that federal deficits created uncertainty by causing fears of immediate inflation and future taxation.”
In early 1937, Roosevelt was preparing his budget for the next fiscal year, which began on July 1 in those days. Strong growth in the economy and tax increases over the previous three years, especially the institution of a new payroll tax for Social Security, had caused tax receipts to almost double from 2.8% of GDP in 1932 to 5% in 1936. Projections showed that budget balance was within reach with only a modest reduction of spending.
Roosevelt was also concerned about the reemergence of inflation. After falling 24% between 1929 and 1933, the Consumer Price Index rose by a total of 7% over the next three years and signs pointed to even higher prices in 1937. Indeed, the CPI rose 3.6% that year.
Rather than viewing this as a sign of progress, which had caused the stock market to almost double between 1935 and 1936, Roosevelt and the inflation hawks of the day were determined to pop what they viewed as a stock market bubble and nip inflation in the bud. Balancing the budget was an important step in this regard, but so was Federal Reserve policy, which tightened sharply through higher reserve requirements for banks. Between August 1936 and May 1937 reserve requirements doubled.
During 1937, Roosevelt pressed ahead with fiscal tightening despite the obvious downturn in economic activity. The budget deficit fell from 5.5% of GDP in 1936 to 2.5% in 1937 and the budget was virtually balanced in fiscal year 1938, with a deficit of just $89 million.
The result was a huge economic setback, with GDP falling and unemployment rising. For this reason, Obama’s economic advisers have been warning for some time that stimulus must be continued until full employment has returned. As Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer wrote in The Economist last June:
“The 1937 episode provides a cautionary tale. The urge to declare victory and get back to normal policy after an economic crisis is strong. That urge needs to be resisted until the economy is again approaching full employment.”
More recently, economist Paul Krugman warned that the Fed’s talk of an early “exit strategy” from easy money sounds suspiciously like that which led it to tighten prematurely in 1936. He believes that the good economic news of recent months does not yet constitute proof that a sustainable recovery is underway and that the danger of a relapse this year is strong as stimulus spending wanes.
Nevertheless, the pressure to at least begin the process of normalization is overwhelming. The Fed has talked openly about new procedures to soak up the bank reserves it has created even as those reserves remain largely idle and unlent. And even Democrats and organizations affiliated with them are urging Obama to get the budget on a sustainable path as soon as possible. John Podesta and Michael Ettlinger of the liberal Center for American Progress recently argued that the primary budget (spending less interest on the debt) should be balanced as soon as 2014, with full balance by 2020.
I’m not terribly worried that Congress will reduce the deficit too quickly; too much of the budget is on automatic pilot or effectively off-limits. Entitlement programs like Medicare will continue to grow for years to come and there is no way that defense spending can be reined in as long as we continue to fight two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the likelihood of new domestic security spending in the wake of an aborted terrorist attack on Christmas day. And it’s far more likely that Congress will appropriate new stimulus measures than cut back on those already enacted.
Moreover, the possibility of a tax increase at this point is very remote indeed. Republicans will fight any such an effort even more intensely than they fought health reform, and it’s hard to see any Democrats leading the fight for higher taxes with the party already looking at electoral losses in November. The administration is even backpedaling on plans to allow some of the Bush tax cuts to expire this year. Yet there is no plausible way of significantly reducing deficits in the near term without higher revenues.
For these reasons, I don’t see any possibility of fiscal tightening beyond that which will occur naturally as economic growth automatically reduces spending a bit, and causes revenues to rise as corporate profits revive. I think there is a greater danger of the Fed tightening too much, too soon or that Congress may go overboard with new financial regulations, but hopefully those dangers can be avoided.
One way to achieve fiscal tightening without endangering the recovery would be to enact entitlement reforms now that won’t take effect for some years. Anything meaningful, such as raising the normal retirement age, will have to be phased in over many years anyway. Since entitlements have to be reformed at some point, doing so now would demonstrate resolve to get the budget under control while avoiding near-term fiscal tightening that might be premature.
http://wallstreetpit.com/15263-is-obama-repeating-the-mistake-of-1937
Iraq should pay war reparations to Iran from joint oil field profits
TEHRAN, Jan. 3 (MNA) - Former deputy oil minister Mohammad Nejad-Hosseinian says Iran should develop the oil fields it shares with Iraq as a way to obtain reparations for the damage inflicted on Iran by Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.
In three to four years, when Iraq starts producing oil from these joint oil fields, its oil production will increase by 1.5 million barrels per day, and the migration of Iran’s oil to Iraq would be a great loss for the Islamic Republic, he added. Nejad-Hosseinian, who is currently the secretary general of the Asian Parliamentary Assembly, made the remarks in an interview with the Tehran Times and the Mehr News Agency conducted on Wednesday.
Following is the text of the interview with Nejad-Hosseinian:
Q: After Iraq awarded development contracts to a number of international companies for the development of its oil fields, you warned Iranian officials about the possibility that Iranian oil from the joint oil fields will migrate to Iraq. How many joint oil fields are there and is there an estimate of the amount of oil reserves in those fields?
A: So far around 20 oil and gas fields have been identified on the borders of Iran and Iraq, and most of those fields are joint fields between the two countries. There is no precise estimate of the amount of oil reserves in those fields but they are certainly among Iran’s largest.
Q: What measures should Iranian officials take to prevent the migration of Iranian oil from the joint oil fields to Iraq?
A: I think it is necessary for both countries to start operating the joint oil fields simultaneously. But even this measure will not resolve the issue entirely.
When there is more than one operator for a joint oil field, each one attempts to produce the maximum amount of oil and gas within its own geographical scope in the shortest possible period. Under such circumstances, the main focus is on maximizing production while less attention is paid to properly maintaining the oil field and optimizing production.
Such a policy would damage the entire field, to the detriment of the interests of both countries.
Q: What should be done to prevent such a situation and to prevent the migration of Iranian oil to Iraq?
A: Well, the option that seems most feasible is the joint development of such fields. In other words, the development and exploitation of the field should be done through an integrated system. This means that a contractor is put in charge of development of the entire joint field while optimal exploitation of the joint oil field is carried out by a joint organization. Finally, the income accrued should be paid to each party.
Q: Do you really think the idea is practical?
A: Iranian officials should negotiate with their Iraqi counterparts in order to convince them that this policy is in (both countries’) best interests.
I think Baghdad should be reminded of the fact that it is not possible that the current situation will continue. The Tehran-Baghdad disputes on the range of the joint oil fields and the related border disputes could endanger the security of the region.
Iraq knows that security is the main prerequisite for the operations of foreign companies.
Security concerns would deter most foreign contractors from operating in a risky environment. In my opinion, if Tehran and Baghdad could reach an agreement in that regard, Iraq could ask any winning bidder to extend its operations to the entire joint field. Any extra costs borne by the operating contractor should be paid by Iraq as part of the war reparations for the Iran-Iraq war.
After the commencement of the operation of the joint fields, the outstanding reparations for the war should be paid in proportion to the amount of oil production.
Q: But Iraq has not accepted the fact that it is liable to pay reparations to Iran.
A: The issue of war reparations is one of the important issues in Tehran-Baghdad relations that seems to have been forgotten for no specific reason. Based on international law, Iraq is obligated to compensate Iran for war damages incurred during Saddam’s war against Iran.
Some officials who were opposed to Saddam currently hold various posts, from the presidency to the lower ranks. When Saddam was in power, these people visited Iran and repeatedly condemned Iraq’s invasion of Iran.
There is also ample evidence and documents to condemn Iraq’s invasion of Iran. If the Iranian government fails to seek reparations for the war now, then it will have far less success in achieving anything in the future.
Thus, I think the time is ripe for convincing the Iraqis to agree to a deal to adopt the policy of integrated development of such oil fields jointly for ensuring the maintenance of the fields. This policy… will serve to enhance the security of the borders on the one hand and on the other hand will help Iraq compensate Iran for the war damages.
Q: How can this idea be actualized?
A: As I mentioned, it is not too difficult to implement. If Tehran and Baghdad reach an agreement in that regard, Iraq could ask those who won the bids for the oil fields to extend the area of their operations to the entire joint oil and gas field. Iran’s share in the joint oil field development would be paid as part of the reparations for the war damages.
With the start of operations in the oil field, a percentage of the oil produced should be delivered to Iran for the outstanding war reparations in addition to Iran’s legal share in the partnership.
Q: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently issued an order calling for an estimate to be made of the amount of damages Allied Forces inflicted on Iran in World War II. Shouldn’t seeking war reparations from Iraq be more of a priority now?
A: I think it is a priority since there was an estimated amount of damage inflicted on Iran during the war. Moreover, Iraq is blessed with an abundance of God-given natural resources. Therefore, compensating Iran for the war should not be that much of a problem for the country’s economy. Thus, I hope that seeking war reparations from Iraq will be placed on the agenda of Iranian officials.
MH/HG
END
MNA
http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1010114
In three to four years, when Iraq starts producing oil from these joint oil fields, its oil production will increase by 1.5 million barrels per day, and the migration of Iran’s oil to Iraq would be a great loss for the Islamic Republic, he added. Nejad-Hosseinian, who is currently the secretary general of the Asian Parliamentary Assembly, made the remarks in an interview with the Tehran Times and the Mehr News Agency conducted on Wednesday.
Following is the text of the interview with Nejad-Hosseinian:
Q: After Iraq awarded development contracts to a number of international companies for the development of its oil fields, you warned Iranian officials about the possibility that Iranian oil from the joint oil fields will migrate to Iraq. How many joint oil fields are there and is there an estimate of the amount of oil reserves in those fields?
A: So far around 20 oil and gas fields have been identified on the borders of Iran and Iraq, and most of those fields are joint fields between the two countries. There is no precise estimate of the amount of oil reserves in those fields but they are certainly among Iran’s largest.
Q: What measures should Iranian officials take to prevent the migration of Iranian oil from the joint oil fields to Iraq?
A: I think it is necessary for both countries to start operating the joint oil fields simultaneously. But even this measure will not resolve the issue entirely.
When there is more than one operator for a joint oil field, each one attempts to produce the maximum amount of oil and gas within its own geographical scope in the shortest possible period. Under such circumstances, the main focus is on maximizing production while less attention is paid to properly maintaining the oil field and optimizing production.
Such a policy would damage the entire field, to the detriment of the interests of both countries.
Q: What should be done to prevent such a situation and to prevent the migration of Iranian oil to Iraq?
A: Well, the option that seems most feasible is the joint development of such fields. In other words, the development and exploitation of the field should be done through an integrated system. This means that a contractor is put in charge of development of the entire joint field while optimal exploitation of the joint oil field is carried out by a joint organization. Finally, the income accrued should be paid to each party.
Q: Do you really think the idea is practical?
A: Iranian officials should negotiate with their Iraqi counterparts in order to convince them that this policy is in (both countries’) best interests.
I think Baghdad should be reminded of the fact that it is not possible that the current situation will continue. The Tehran-Baghdad disputes on the range of the joint oil fields and the related border disputes could endanger the security of the region.
Iraq knows that security is the main prerequisite for the operations of foreign companies.
Security concerns would deter most foreign contractors from operating in a risky environment. In my opinion, if Tehran and Baghdad could reach an agreement in that regard, Iraq could ask any winning bidder to extend its operations to the entire joint field. Any extra costs borne by the operating contractor should be paid by Iraq as part of the war reparations for the Iran-Iraq war.
After the commencement of the operation of the joint fields, the outstanding reparations for the war should be paid in proportion to the amount of oil production.
Q: But Iraq has not accepted the fact that it is liable to pay reparations to Iran.
A: The issue of war reparations is one of the important issues in Tehran-Baghdad relations that seems to have been forgotten for no specific reason. Based on international law, Iraq is obligated to compensate Iran for war damages incurred during Saddam’s war against Iran.
Some officials who were opposed to Saddam currently hold various posts, from the presidency to the lower ranks. When Saddam was in power, these people visited Iran and repeatedly condemned Iraq’s invasion of Iran.
There is also ample evidence and documents to condemn Iraq’s invasion of Iran. If the Iranian government fails to seek reparations for the war now, then it will have far less success in achieving anything in the future.
Thus, I think the time is ripe for convincing the Iraqis to agree to a deal to adopt the policy of integrated development of such oil fields jointly for ensuring the maintenance of the fields. This policy… will serve to enhance the security of the borders on the one hand and on the other hand will help Iraq compensate Iran for the war damages.
Q: How can this idea be actualized?
A: As I mentioned, it is not too difficult to implement. If Tehran and Baghdad reach an agreement in that regard, Iraq could ask those who won the bids for the oil fields to extend the area of their operations to the entire joint oil and gas field. Iran’s share in the joint oil field development would be paid as part of the reparations for the war damages.
With the start of operations in the oil field, a percentage of the oil produced should be delivered to Iran for the outstanding war reparations in addition to Iran’s legal share in the partnership.
Q: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently issued an order calling for an estimate to be made of the amount of damages Allied Forces inflicted on Iran in World War II. Shouldn’t seeking war reparations from Iraq be more of a priority now?
A: I think it is a priority since there was an estimated amount of damage inflicted on Iran during the war. Moreover, Iraq is blessed with an abundance of God-given natural resources. Therefore, compensating Iran for the war should not be that much of a problem for the country’s economy. Thus, I hope that seeking war reparations from Iraq will be placed on the agenda of Iranian officials.
MH/HG
END
MNA
http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1010114
Obama Turns On the N.Y. Banks
Jeffrey R. Carter
After getting soundly pummeled three elections in a row, President Obama has aimed his bully pulpit at the bankers of Wall Street. What better target when the nation is hurting financially? Most of the banking world is so abstruse that Obama can use simple rhetoric to make his point and win the debate. With the backing of former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, President Obama proposed a ban on proprietary trading by Wall Street investment banks. However, as is the custom of our president, the words he utters are quite different from the policy that will come from them. Obama is targeting the proprietary activities where banks invest in private equity and hedge funds. He is not going after the real area where banks rig the market: the proprietary trading activities where they use their capital to trade against their own customers in the marketplace. Less than 10% of the banks' profit comes from the activities Obama is targeting. The policy switch Obama is proposing will do nothing to prevent another meltdown. He is using a peashooter while giving the impression of using a cannon.
If this proposal were designed to change the way financial institutions interact with markets and make both work better for the American people, Obama would target the anti-competitive proprietary trading cartels. The president would make regulatory changes based on function and not structure. Bills that have come out of the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd committees in the House and Senate simply add another layer of bureaucracy and do nothing to prevent another financial meltdown.
Functional regulation takes into account the role an entity plays in the marketplace. A publicly traded company like Goldman Sachs should be held to higher and different standards when compared to a privately held one, like Citadel. Functional regulation would eliminate conflicts of interest. Banks would no longer be allowed to engage in dual trade. Customer orders would be brought to a public marketplace to be transacted, not internalized to a back office or shoved into a dark pool of liquidity. Goldman Sachs even sent out a letter to their customers apologizing for the practice. Functional regulation would force markets to be more transparent.
Today, a large percentage of financial trading takes place away from the broad markets like the NYSE. Banks try to keep as much information away from the market as they can so that their proprietary trading desks can use it to their advantage. The general public gets taken for a ride every time they submit an order. So do a lot of the big mutual funds the public and pension funds invest in.
The banks did a gross disservice to customers by selling them packages of junk. But they really damaged the market by the way they traded in the unregulated over-the-counter (OTC) marketplace. The resulting market was so muddled that none of the counter-parties knew who was holding the bag, or even who owed whom money. AIG was the dumping ground for Goldman and others, and it carried the lion's share of OTC risk on its books. This kept risk profiles away from the eyes of any regulators. More importantly, AIG shielded the broader market from imposing any "invisible hand" market discipline. In the aftermath, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner saw fit to repay the big OTC players 100% of their losses from AIG. This increases the likelihood of a repeat disaster. So the chance of another debacle has increased, not decreased, in the last year.
Does the government have the intestinal fortitude to actually do something about the problem? Government needs to be smarter with the tools it already has. Currently, agencies like the SEC use antique structural regulation that doesn't work. All it would take is a direct order to change the way they look at things and rewrite current regulation accordingly.
It is hard to comprehend what happens in the marketplace if you are a novice. Imagine yourself at a poker table. You are able to see all the cards, and you know how much money all of the players have to wager. You can see the cards in the deck that are about to be dealt. There isn't a lot that you don't know. Plus, you also own the house and the dealer, and you are actively playing in the game. With all this information, it would be virtually impossible to lose money. That's what a big bank does with its proprietary trading. It rarely if ever loses money. As every experienced trader knows, it is virtually impossible to increase trading profits every year. Profits are variable and volatile.
What has changed in our financial system since the Long Term Capital Management debacle in 1998? Banks that were private have gone public. The world financial system is more interconnected. Capitalism has brought new and growing international economic powers. But on the regulatory side, much has gone unchanged. The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, but just reenacting it is too simplistic and the wrong regulatory approach. Bringing the act back would simply separate some functions, but it wouldn't do anything to make the underlying marketplace more transparent or competitive.
Reenactment wouldn't free up markets to utilize internal checks and balances. Plus, it was designed for a banking industry in 1930, not 2010.
It is important to understand why we had a financial disaster. The meltdown has its roots in Federal Reserve Policy and policy with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Alt-A and subprime loans from 2001-2007 escalated in percentage of the real estate loan market from less than 10% to close to 36% of the market. The N.Y. banks took advantage of this largess and sold to their own customers packages rated AAA that were really subprime, low-grade debt. Meanwhile, the private ratings agencies didn't do their homework and rated the products incorrectly. Bank customers didn't undertake necessary due diligence before investing money in the risky packages. The perfect storm for a financial meltdown came together. Neither Obama nor the related congressional committees have proposed anything that would not stop this from occurring again.
Obama is correct in proposing an end to "proprietary trading." If he targets the type of proprietary trading that bleeds the marketplace of information and order flow and exponentially increases market risk, he is hunting in the right field. Currently, though, Obama is paying lip service to real change and highlighting bank investments in hedge funds, venture capital, and private equity. Regulation in these areas will only make things tougher on the general public.
If the administration continues down this path, nothing will change. More bubbles will occur, and a boom-and-bust economic cycle will resume. Boom-and-bust has been in place since the late 1990s, but the steady growth cycle from 1983-1996 is preferable. No matter which political horse you ride, you should be indignant about what happened and the reaction to it. Without properly functioning transparent competitive markets, the economic environment in America will continue to limp along.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/obama_turns_on_the_ny_banks.html at January 30, 2010 - 10:17:14 AM CST
After getting soundly pummeled three elections in a row, President Obama has aimed his bully pulpit at the bankers of Wall Street. What better target when the nation is hurting financially? Most of the banking world is so abstruse that Obama can use simple rhetoric to make his point and win the debate. With the backing of former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, President Obama proposed a ban on proprietary trading by Wall Street investment banks. However, as is the custom of our president, the words he utters are quite different from the policy that will come from them. Obama is targeting the proprietary activities where banks invest in private equity and hedge funds. He is not going after the real area where banks rig the market: the proprietary trading activities where they use their capital to trade against their own customers in the marketplace. Less than 10% of the banks' profit comes from the activities Obama is targeting. The policy switch Obama is proposing will do nothing to prevent another meltdown. He is using a peashooter while giving the impression of using a cannon.
If this proposal were designed to change the way financial institutions interact with markets and make both work better for the American people, Obama would target the anti-competitive proprietary trading cartels. The president would make regulatory changes based on function and not structure. Bills that have come out of the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd committees in the House and Senate simply add another layer of bureaucracy and do nothing to prevent another financial meltdown.
Functional regulation takes into account the role an entity plays in the marketplace. A publicly traded company like Goldman Sachs should be held to higher and different standards when compared to a privately held one, like Citadel. Functional regulation would eliminate conflicts of interest. Banks would no longer be allowed to engage in dual trade. Customer orders would be brought to a public marketplace to be transacted, not internalized to a back office or shoved into a dark pool of liquidity. Goldman Sachs even sent out a letter to their customers apologizing for the practice. Functional regulation would force markets to be more transparent.
Today, a large percentage of financial trading takes place away from the broad markets like the NYSE. Banks try to keep as much information away from the market as they can so that their proprietary trading desks can use it to their advantage. The general public gets taken for a ride every time they submit an order. So do a lot of the big mutual funds the public and pension funds invest in.
The banks did a gross disservice to customers by selling them packages of junk. But they really damaged the market by the way they traded in the unregulated over-the-counter (OTC) marketplace. The resulting market was so muddled that none of the counter-parties knew who was holding the bag, or even who owed whom money. AIG was the dumping ground for Goldman and others, and it carried the lion's share of OTC risk on its books. This kept risk profiles away from the eyes of any regulators. More importantly, AIG shielded the broader market from imposing any "invisible hand" market discipline. In the aftermath, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner saw fit to repay the big OTC players 100% of their losses from AIG. This increases the likelihood of a repeat disaster. So the chance of another debacle has increased, not decreased, in the last year.
Does the government have the intestinal fortitude to actually do something about the problem? Government needs to be smarter with the tools it already has. Currently, agencies like the SEC use antique structural regulation that doesn't work. All it would take is a direct order to change the way they look at things and rewrite current regulation accordingly.
It is hard to comprehend what happens in the marketplace if you are a novice. Imagine yourself at a poker table. You are able to see all the cards, and you know how much money all of the players have to wager. You can see the cards in the deck that are about to be dealt. There isn't a lot that you don't know. Plus, you also own the house and the dealer, and you are actively playing in the game. With all this information, it would be virtually impossible to lose money. That's what a big bank does with its proprietary trading. It rarely if ever loses money. As every experienced trader knows, it is virtually impossible to increase trading profits every year. Profits are variable and volatile.
What has changed in our financial system since the Long Term Capital Management debacle in 1998? Banks that were private have gone public. The world financial system is more interconnected. Capitalism has brought new and growing international economic powers. But on the regulatory side, much has gone unchanged. The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, but just reenacting it is too simplistic and the wrong regulatory approach. Bringing the act back would simply separate some functions, but it wouldn't do anything to make the underlying marketplace more transparent or competitive.
Reenactment wouldn't free up markets to utilize internal checks and balances. Plus, it was designed for a banking industry in 1930, not 2010.
It is important to understand why we had a financial disaster. The meltdown has its roots in Federal Reserve Policy and policy with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Alt-A and subprime loans from 2001-2007 escalated in percentage of the real estate loan market from less than 10% to close to 36% of the market. The N.Y. banks took advantage of this largess and sold to their own customers packages rated AAA that were really subprime, low-grade debt. Meanwhile, the private ratings agencies didn't do their homework and rated the products incorrectly. Bank customers didn't undertake necessary due diligence before investing money in the risky packages. The perfect storm for a financial meltdown came together. Neither Obama nor the related congressional committees have proposed anything that would not stop this from occurring again.
Obama is correct in proposing an end to "proprietary trading." If he targets the type of proprietary trading that bleeds the marketplace of information and order flow and exponentially increases market risk, he is hunting in the right field. Currently, though, Obama is paying lip service to real change and highlighting bank investments in hedge funds, venture capital, and private equity. Regulation in these areas will only make things tougher on the general public.
If the administration continues down this path, nothing will change. More bubbles will occur, and a boom-and-bust economic cycle will resume. Boom-and-bust has been in place since the late 1990s, but the steady growth cycle from 1983-1996 is preferable. No matter which political horse you ride, you should be indignant about what happened and the reaction to it. Without properly functioning transparent competitive markets, the economic environment in America will continue to limp along.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/obama_turns_on_the_ny_banks.html at January 30, 2010 - 10:17:14 AM CST
Ahmadinejad: Whoever controls ME controls world's 'wealth'
Iranian president quoted as telling Teheran audience “In terms of economic issues, the world hegemonic system ... is no longer powerful from the military aspect."
Whoever controls the controls the world’s “energy and wealth,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying Saturday.
Ahmadinejad told an audience in Teheran, “Many countries have, unsuccessfully, tried during the past years to become a superpower in the region but they failed as they play no role at the international equations.”
“It is now clear that whoever dominates the can rule the entire world too,” he added. According to the Iranian official news agency, Ahmadinejad also predicted the end of the world hegemonic system, as international problems had not been resolved.
“In terms of economic issues, the world hegemonic system reached a deadline while regarding political events, it failed to solve the existing problems and is no longer powerful from the military aspect,” he was quoted as saying.
In related news, meanwhile, put 16 opposition supporters detained during anti-government protests last month on trial Saturday on charges of rioting and conspiring against the ruling system, according to 's state media.
The official IRNA news agency and state Press TV said the defendants face charges ranging from plotting against the establishment to violating security regulations. Five of those on trial, including two women, were accused of "moharebeh," or defying God, a charge that could carry the death penalty, the semiofficial ISNA news agency reported.
The new prosecutions, coupled with the execution on Thursday of two men accused of involvement in anti-government groups, could mark an attempt by Iran's hardline leaders to intimidate the opposition ahead of a new round of street demonstrations expected in February.
Those who stood trial Saturday — including a follower of the Bahai faith, an alleged communist and a student activist — were detained during anti-government demonstrations on December 27, when at least eight people were killed and hundreds more were arrested after clashes between opposition activists and security forces. The violence was the worst since authorities launched a harsh crackdown immediately after 's disputed presidential election in June.
The protesters have presented 's cleric-led establishment with its biggest challenge since the 1979 revolution despite a brutal crackdown that has left hundreds imprisoned.
IRNA quoted a prosecutor identified only by the last name of Farahani as saying in court that some of the defendants had confessed to spying, planning bomb attacks and damaging public and private properties. He also said some of the defendants had sent videos on the clashes between protesters and Iranian police to the "foreign hostile networks," IRNA reported.
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=167303
Spreading a Culture of Fear Among Palestinian Journalists
Kifah Ziboun
Asharq Alawsat
Ramallah, Asharq Al-Awsat - The security apparatus in the West Bank goes after any journalist suspected of belonging to Hamas or suspected of being close to it or working for its media. The security apparatus seems to be friendlier with other journalists.
The difference between the Hamas authority in the Gaza Strip and Fatah in the West Bank is that the former grants freedom to Hamas journalists and has engaged itself in many battles with the media, even international media, there. As for the latter, it has tried to avoid an open battle with most of the media and targets the media of Hamas. In any case, all journalists have become one of many targets of the internal conflict. Media expert Khalil Shahin told Asharq Al-Awsat, “The attempt to use the media as a tool of instigation and defamation between the two sides of the conflict, Hamas and Fatah, was one of the reasons that freedom of the press has been subjected to serious violations in the Palestinian Territories.”
The Independent Commission for Human Rights explained that these formed an unprecedented violation of the freedom of media work in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and is reflective of the depth of the internal political division and its dangerous consequences on all fundamental rights and freedoms.
The Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA) pinpointed 257 violations of press freedom in the Palestinian Territories in 2008; 147 committed by the Israeli occupation forces and settlers, and 110 were committed by Palestinian security apparatus and armed Palestinian groups in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Shahin stated that journalists are subjected to arrest and being pursued in an illegal manner, some newspapers are prevented from being published and distributed, press institutions are fired upon, and lawsuits are filed and rulings are issued against journalists on the pretext of defamation and instigation.
Electronic news sites were blocked on the orders of the Attorney General of the Palestinian Authority and he banned rallies and public gatherings from taking place and prevented journalists from covering them and covering other internal events. In addition, the Arab media was accused of not being neutral and the licenses of other media institutions were revoked and many [of their offices] were raided.
Hamas states that the PA attacked public freedoms in the West Bank. Recently, the Ministry of Information of the Hamas government issued a statement saying that it condemned “the dangerous practices that journalists are being subjected to at the hands of Abbas’ militia,” accusing the PA of making “the issue of arresting journalists and being aggressive towards them and taking them to court a systematic policy.”
The Ministry statement said that the PA has detained 11 journalists including Mohammed Ishtawi, the director of the [Siraj] Al Aqsa satellite television channel affiliated to Hamas. The Ministry also believes that the difficult situation that journalists in the West Bank are facing is not getting any easier, and believes there is now a good opportunity for local and international organizations concerned with media issues to prove the extent to which they are genuine and serious about working for freedom of the press and protecting the rights of journalists and media figures and to prove their objectivity towards all Palestinian parties.
Hasan Abu Hashish, who heads the Hamas government’s media bureau in Gaza told Asharq Al-Awsat, “You write about press freedoms in Gaza…I do not have one single journalist under arrest, but there are 11 arrested in the West Bank, so write about the West Bank where you won’t find any freedom or press.”
The head of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Muna Mansour (Hamas), said that the fierce attack on freedoms in the West Bank is targeting the media, the mouthpiece for the reality on the ground.
Journalists in the West Bank believe that the security apparatus is targeting anybody affiliated to Hamas. Jihad al Quwasimi, a reporter for the local Al Quds newspaper and the Qatari Al Sharq newspaper admitted that the internal conflict between Hamas and Fatah has cost some journalists, affiliated to either side, a great deal. Jihad, a spokesperson for Fatah in Hebron, told Asharq Al-Awsat “Personally, I have not been questioned about any of my work as a journalist but some have paid a heavy price.”
The Palestinian Authority denies that it has detained any journalists as a result of their work. Brigadier Adnan al Dhamiri, the police commissioner in the West Bank told Asharq Al-Awsat “We do not arrest people because of their profession but because we suspect [them of] security issues.”
Awad al Rajoub, a reporter for Al Jazeera Net, which has been attacked in the West Bank, told Asharq Al-Awsat that he was arrested once and summoned [to court] another time because of his press reports and his communication with Hamas officials. His arrest was a “red line” for him. He said, “After having been arrested, I no longer write like I used to…The political and social situation might be resolved but this is not possible with regards to the security issues; it is a red line.” He added, “The ceiling of freedoms in the West Bank is not very high.” Al Rajoub agrees that his “own life story” might have been the main reason for his arrest and he said, “If I were a member of Fatah for example, the situation would have been different and I would have been backed.”
There is no doubt that the security apparatus is now unrestrained to the degree that, according to Khalil Shahin, it is allowed to “interfere” in targeting journalists as a result of one’s political viewpoint. Shahin said, “This has led to the spread of a culture of fear amongst those working in the media, in light of the weakness of protection available to them and the absence of a role for the Journalists’ Syndicate.”
Shahin added, “The negative results of this state (of fear) can be seen in keeping away from dealing with what can be described as contributing to weakening the Palestinian Authority in its internal conflict with the Hamas movement.”
Shahin, who also works as an editor at the local Al Ayyam newspaper, explained that “there is a disregard for publishing news about the arrest of journalists in most cases, or publishing news and reports and investigations about the phenomena of corruption in public institutions, and sometimes in the private sector. These are issues that official and economic levels have put pressure [on journalists] not to engage with, and journalists have also been subject to threats and terrorism for their attempts to shed light on some issues of corruption and official collusion in covering this up.”
On the evening of Eid al Adha, MADA condemned the arrests of journalists, and requested that this is stopped and that all journalists are released, as it considers this practice a blatant violation of the freedom of expression.
In a statement, MADA said, “Human history has proven that oppression of freedoms, and freedom of the press in particular, only caused more disasters to nations. The Palestinian nation, which has suffered different kinds of oppression over the past few decades, deserves to enjoy all freedoms granted by the Palestinian Basic Law and publishing law.”
It added, “It is sad for us to see that many journalists are being honored and being given international and regional awards whilst at the same time many of them are being pursued and arrested by Palestinian security apparatus in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”
The PA in Ramallah has banned the distribution of the Felesteen [Palestine] and Al Risala newspapers, which are both affiliated to Hamas, and has banned working for any media institution affiliated to the movement and this applies primarily to the [Siraj] Al Aqsa satellite channel.
Reporters from the [Siraj] Al Aqsa channel and others have been arrested a number of times and the court rulings for some of them to be released have not been implemented.
During a meeting with Brigadier Adnan al Dhamiri in Nablus, journalists asked him about one of their colleagues and he answered, “He has been arrested on charges of transporting weapons, not because of his journalistic work.” Security apparatus in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip arrested 60 journalists last year, half of whom were arrested in the West Bank.
The Independent Human Rights Commission confirmed that the arrests of journalists lack the security of legal procedures, as well as guarantees to a fair trial. The PA even took measures against Arab media, as four months ago the government shut down the Al Jazeera channel in protest of it broadcasting the accusations cast by Fatah’s leading figure Farouq al Qaddoumi against President Mahmoud Abbas “of being involved in an Israeli conspiracy to assassinate the late Yasser Arafat during the siege.” But the closure did not last long, as the government yielded to calls and pressures from rights’ groups and journalists who rejected the decision. Government officials came out to reject the decision to close [the station] and so did the Fatah movement.
However, it cannot be said that journalists always fear political parties, as journalists subject themselves to censorship sometimes for other reasons. Yahya Nafi, a journalist who works for Watan TV and Radio Ajyal, said, “We can criticize the President, but we cannot write about the major issue of corruption…we could be killed [for that].”
In this regard, Khalil Shahin stated, “Even though journalists can criticize the PA and its political officials, they neglect the issues of investigating various matters.” He returns to the matter of what he calls “self-censorship,” adding, “This censorship is consolidated by the existence of the occupation, and the internal political conflict, employers in the media institutions and those with large commercial interests, some ideas and traditions of conservative society, centers of power on the street, and conservative powers, and the PA and its apparatus,” all of which encourage the lack of a solid and rich culture that believes in the importance of freedom.
Asharq Alawsat
Ramallah, Asharq Al-Awsat - The security apparatus in the West Bank goes after any journalist suspected of belonging to Hamas or suspected of being close to it or working for its media. The security apparatus seems to be friendlier with other journalists.
The difference between the Hamas authority in the Gaza Strip and Fatah in the West Bank is that the former grants freedom to Hamas journalists and has engaged itself in many battles with the media, even international media, there. As for the latter, it has tried to avoid an open battle with most of the media and targets the media of Hamas. In any case, all journalists have become one of many targets of the internal conflict. Media expert Khalil Shahin told Asharq Al-Awsat, “The attempt to use the media as a tool of instigation and defamation between the two sides of the conflict, Hamas and Fatah, was one of the reasons that freedom of the press has been subjected to serious violations in the Palestinian Territories.”
The Independent Commission for Human Rights explained that these formed an unprecedented violation of the freedom of media work in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and is reflective of the depth of the internal political division and its dangerous consequences on all fundamental rights and freedoms.
The Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA) pinpointed 257 violations of press freedom in the Palestinian Territories in 2008; 147 committed by the Israeli occupation forces and settlers, and 110 were committed by Palestinian security apparatus and armed Palestinian groups in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Shahin stated that journalists are subjected to arrest and being pursued in an illegal manner, some newspapers are prevented from being published and distributed, press institutions are fired upon, and lawsuits are filed and rulings are issued against journalists on the pretext of defamation and instigation.
Electronic news sites were blocked on the orders of the Attorney General of the Palestinian Authority and he banned rallies and public gatherings from taking place and prevented journalists from covering them and covering other internal events. In addition, the Arab media was accused of not being neutral and the licenses of other media institutions were revoked and many [of their offices] were raided.
Hamas states that the PA attacked public freedoms in the West Bank. Recently, the Ministry of Information of the Hamas government issued a statement saying that it condemned “the dangerous practices that journalists are being subjected to at the hands of Abbas’ militia,” accusing the PA of making “the issue of arresting journalists and being aggressive towards them and taking them to court a systematic policy.”
The Ministry statement said that the PA has detained 11 journalists including Mohammed Ishtawi, the director of the [Siraj] Al Aqsa satellite television channel affiliated to Hamas. The Ministry also believes that the difficult situation that journalists in the West Bank are facing is not getting any easier, and believes there is now a good opportunity for local and international organizations concerned with media issues to prove the extent to which they are genuine and serious about working for freedom of the press and protecting the rights of journalists and media figures and to prove their objectivity towards all Palestinian parties.
Hasan Abu Hashish, who heads the Hamas government’s media bureau in Gaza told Asharq Al-Awsat, “You write about press freedoms in Gaza…I do not have one single journalist under arrest, but there are 11 arrested in the West Bank, so write about the West Bank where you won’t find any freedom or press.”
The head of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Muna Mansour (Hamas), said that the fierce attack on freedoms in the West Bank is targeting the media, the mouthpiece for the reality on the ground.
Journalists in the West Bank believe that the security apparatus is targeting anybody affiliated to Hamas. Jihad al Quwasimi, a reporter for the local Al Quds newspaper and the Qatari Al Sharq newspaper admitted that the internal conflict between Hamas and Fatah has cost some journalists, affiliated to either side, a great deal. Jihad, a spokesperson for Fatah in Hebron, told Asharq Al-Awsat “Personally, I have not been questioned about any of my work as a journalist but some have paid a heavy price.”
The Palestinian Authority denies that it has detained any journalists as a result of their work. Brigadier Adnan al Dhamiri, the police commissioner in the West Bank told Asharq Al-Awsat “We do not arrest people because of their profession but because we suspect [them of] security issues.”
Awad al Rajoub, a reporter for Al Jazeera Net, which has been attacked in the West Bank, told Asharq Al-Awsat that he was arrested once and summoned [to court] another time because of his press reports and his communication with Hamas officials. His arrest was a “red line” for him. He said, “After having been arrested, I no longer write like I used to…The political and social situation might be resolved but this is not possible with regards to the security issues; it is a red line.” He added, “The ceiling of freedoms in the West Bank is not very high.” Al Rajoub agrees that his “own life story” might have been the main reason for his arrest and he said, “If I were a member of Fatah for example, the situation would have been different and I would have been backed.”
There is no doubt that the security apparatus is now unrestrained to the degree that, according to Khalil Shahin, it is allowed to “interfere” in targeting journalists as a result of one’s political viewpoint. Shahin said, “This has led to the spread of a culture of fear amongst those working in the media, in light of the weakness of protection available to them and the absence of a role for the Journalists’ Syndicate.”
Shahin added, “The negative results of this state (of fear) can be seen in keeping away from dealing with what can be described as contributing to weakening the Palestinian Authority in its internal conflict with the Hamas movement.”
Shahin, who also works as an editor at the local Al Ayyam newspaper, explained that “there is a disregard for publishing news about the arrest of journalists in most cases, or publishing news and reports and investigations about the phenomena of corruption in public institutions, and sometimes in the private sector. These are issues that official and economic levels have put pressure [on journalists] not to engage with, and journalists have also been subject to threats and terrorism for their attempts to shed light on some issues of corruption and official collusion in covering this up.”
On the evening of Eid al Adha, MADA condemned the arrests of journalists, and requested that this is stopped and that all journalists are released, as it considers this practice a blatant violation of the freedom of expression.
In a statement, MADA said, “Human history has proven that oppression of freedoms, and freedom of the press in particular, only caused more disasters to nations. The Palestinian nation, which has suffered different kinds of oppression over the past few decades, deserves to enjoy all freedoms granted by the Palestinian Basic Law and publishing law.”
It added, “It is sad for us to see that many journalists are being honored and being given international and regional awards whilst at the same time many of them are being pursued and arrested by Palestinian security apparatus in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”
The PA in Ramallah has banned the distribution of the Felesteen [Palestine] and Al Risala newspapers, which are both affiliated to Hamas, and has banned working for any media institution affiliated to the movement and this applies primarily to the [Siraj] Al Aqsa satellite channel.
Reporters from the [Siraj] Al Aqsa channel and others have been arrested a number of times and the court rulings for some of them to be released have not been implemented.
During a meeting with Brigadier Adnan al Dhamiri in Nablus, journalists asked him about one of their colleagues and he answered, “He has been arrested on charges of transporting weapons, not because of his journalistic work.” Security apparatus in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip arrested 60 journalists last year, half of whom were arrested in the West Bank.
The Independent Human Rights Commission confirmed that the arrests of journalists lack the security of legal procedures, as well as guarantees to a fair trial. The PA even took measures against Arab media, as four months ago the government shut down the Al Jazeera channel in protest of it broadcasting the accusations cast by Fatah’s leading figure Farouq al Qaddoumi against President Mahmoud Abbas “of being involved in an Israeli conspiracy to assassinate the late Yasser Arafat during the siege.” But the closure did not last long, as the government yielded to calls and pressures from rights’ groups and journalists who rejected the decision. Government officials came out to reject the decision to close [the station] and so did the Fatah movement.
However, it cannot be said that journalists always fear political parties, as journalists subject themselves to censorship sometimes for other reasons. Yahya Nafi, a journalist who works for Watan TV and Radio Ajyal, said, “We can criticize the President, but we cannot write about the major issue of corruption…we could be killed [for that].”
In this regard, Khalil Shahin stated, “Even though journalists can criticize the PA and its political officials, they neglect the issues of investigating various matters.” He returns to the matter of what he calls “self-censorship,” adding, “This censorship is consolidated by the existence of the occupation, and the internal political conflict, employers in the media institutions and those with large commercial interests, some ideas and traditions of conservative society, centers of power on the street, and conservative powers, and the PA and its apparatus,” all of which encourage the lack of a solid and rich culture that believes in the importance of freedom.
Honor killing: "Abuses like these are not exclusive to Islam but in no other culture these days are they actually upheld by authorities citing formal
Melik Kaylan
And yet the denial from Islamic spokesmen in the West is all-pervasive and never challenged by the mainstream media -- which only ensures that more women will be victimized. "No More Honor Killings," by Melik Kaylan for Forbes, January 29: The news from Bangladesh is that a teenage girl was recently punished with 101 lashes after she was raped and impregnated. Village elders apparently decide such matters in rural Bangladesh where Sharia law prevails. The girl's family quickly married her off but when the pregnancy emerged her husband demanded a divorce and reparations. So the elders issued a series of fatwas against the girl's family, fining the father and expelling the family from the village. Oh, and they pardoned the rapist.
You may feel that we have no business worrying about what happens in remotest Bangladesh, but since we are at war on multiple fronts against such people, or rather they are with us, we'd do well to know our enemy. Why do these outrages occur so consistently in the Muslim world, you might ask, and does it tell us some ineradicable truth about the nature of Islam? Abuses like these are not exclusive to Islam but in no other culture these days are they actually upheld by authorities citing formal tenets of justice.
Turn it up, down or sideways, you may find it hard to discern any hint of moral symmetry in the judgment. You may wish to blame it on the universally evident wonkiness of Islamic scriptural law or even the absence of such in a remote village. But let us try for a moment to follow the logic. The girl kept the rape a secret, it seems, because she was terrified. Perhaps her family colluded with her silence. The quickly married husband felt duped. Fair enough. But 101 lashes for the girl whose life was ruined? How about sympathy and support? And by what code of social or divine casuistry do they pardon the rapist? [...]
In Syria, as elsewhere, many conservative Muslims--including women--see any creeping sympathy for rape victims as the beginnings of westernization by stealth, the tip of the iceberg of feminism. In plenty of Muslim countries--Morroco, Yemen, Bangladesh--honor killings are often not punishable by law if they're deemed "justified," and not infrequently the rapist benefits from customary codes of mercy in place of the victim. This is especially true where a weak central state gives way to tribal law in remote regions or even in overcrowded and unpolicable urban areas. In some places the problem barely exists--in Iran,for example, and in Turkey outside of the Kurdish areas. But everywhere this central principle applies: tribalism equals Islamic conservativism equals bad news for women. [...]
A strange truth often prevails in such cases: the more innocent the girl, the greater the need to martyr her, for at a certain point appearance is everything--the shame has spread so far and deep that nothing else will suffice but the harshest display of public purgation. One can imagine that in the Darwinian conditions of Arabian life where Islam first prevailed and then was later repeatedly reinforced, by other warrior races from elsewhere down the centuries, right up to Saudi Wahhabism, rumors of females running loose denoted weakness in the tribe. And soon, no doubt, other tribes might begin to probe for those weaknesses--an invitation to disaster. Without going into the nuances of Suras, Hadiths, Fiqh, Adat and the like, we can safely say that a large chunk of Islamic scripture explicitly cites custom and tradition as a perfectly valid, often the only, authority in matters of jurisprudence. It was always done this way, and anyone trying to effect a change is contravening the divine scheme.
Sure there's a contradiction here, because Islam also teaches that before the Prophet's message the world lived in Jahilliya, a profane state of ignorance, so what about traditions that Islam inherited? Let us leave such perplexities for the Imams to fight over. In talking about honor killings, we are talking about customs so ancient they predate the scriptural religions of our era, indeed to a time of pagan or animist superstitions. Ancient civilizations often believed that undue attention from the gods invited catastrophe, not least as provoked by the form of a beautiful daughter. The male gods were forever zooming down to copulate with a mortal girl, from which there followed inevitable myriad disasters. Back in the 1990s when I collected an antique textile from the Caucasus, a Kaytak, I took a trip into Daghestan and found that Kaytaks were used to cover the faces of infants in order to keep them from attracting negative attention from the gods. In ancient times there was no greater curse than the arbitrary curse of the gods who suddenly singled you out for ineffable reasons of their own.
And so we get to Islam and the honor killing of innocents. A much older code than Islam is at work here, one that Islam doesn't entirely repudiate as it tries to accommodate and sanctify tribal tradition. The more innocent the victim, the more she must be sacrificed because the curse is all the more palpably divine for being arbitrary. Muslim conservatives often try to retro-justify the situation by assertions that the girl no doubt behaved lewdly or failed to follow parental rules. Even if true, what law was the rapist following? The answer you will get, literally, is this: He was following the law of nature. He was possessed with desire, spontaneously and irretrievably, couldn't curb himself, shouldn't be blamed. In effect, he was possessed by the gods, or the Djinns, and became their instrument. He deserves merciful understanding. Muslims will argue, accurately, that the incidence of rape is higher in Western countries than in Islam, where women are more comprehensively protected. Policed is probably the better word--policed by their male counterparts. Which is why a female relative victim of rape reflects so acutely on the males. It reveals their weakness and negligence. We all know the conditions of such protection: marriage to cousins, forced marriages, childhood betrothals, sheep-like herding of female peasants in the fields, lifelong propagation of multiple children--all of which leads to overlapping tribal frictions and ultimately to endless warfare.
As we dig ourselves in and out of Islamic tribal regions such as Somalia and Yemen and Iraq and Afghanistan, we should understand what we're up against; how much change we can hope to effect. In the meantime, we are doing the right thing at least in this regard--by combating ancient codes of shame with our own media-backed modern counterpart. In short, by paying attention to abuses in remotest Bangladesh.
Melik Kaylan, a writer based in New York, writes a weekly column for Forbes. His story "Georgia in the Time of Misha" is featured in The Best American Travel Writing 2008.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/28/honor-killings-islam-women-rape-opinions-columnists-melik-kaylan.html?boxes=opinionschannellighttop
Thanks Jihad Watch
Another honor killing in modern, moderate Jordan
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." "Jordanian jailed for sister's 'honour killing,'" from AFP, January 29 (thanks to Maxwell):
AMMAN (AFP) - A Jordanian court sentenced a 19-year-old man to 10 years in jail for stabbing his sister to death in order to "cleanse the family honour," a judicial official said on Friday.
The defendant turned himself in to police after killing his 22-year-old sister last year for many unexplained absences from home, said the official who requested anonymity.
"The court sentenced the defendant to 15 years in prison for premeditated murder, but reduced the sentence to 10 years after the family dropped any legal claims" against him, the source said.
"The defendant killed his sister with knife stabs on April 5, 2009 to cleanse the family honour, because of her many absences from home," the official said. "He then turned himself over to the police."
Murder is punishable by death in Jordan but in so-called "honour" cases a court sometimes commutes or reduces sentences, particularly if the victim's family urges leniency.
Between 15 and 20 women are murdered in honour killings each year in Jordan despite government efforts to fight such crimes. In September last year, the US-based Human Rights Watch urged Jordan to reform its penal code, which it says condones the murder of women as "honour crimes."
AMMAN (AFP) - A Jordanian court sentenced a 19-year-old man to 10 years in jail for stabbing his sister to death in order to "cleanse the family honour," a judicial official said on Friday.
The defendant turned himself in to police after killing his 22-year-old sister last year for many unexplained absences from home, said the official who requested anonymity.
"The court sentenced the defendant to 15 years in prison for premeditated murder, but reduced the sentence to 10 years after the family dropped any legal claims" against him, the source said.
"The defendant killed his sister with knife stabs on April 5, 2009 to cleanse the family honour, because of her many absences from home," the official said. "He then turned himself over to the police."
Murder is punishable by death in Jordan but in so-called "honour" cases a court sometimes commutes or reduces sentences, particularly if the victim's family urges leniency.
Between 15 and 20 women are murdered in honour killings each year in Jordan despite government efforts to fight such crimes. In September last year, the US-based Human Rights Watch urged Jordan to reform its penal code, which it says condones the murder of women as "honour crimes."
Ex-Muslim Rifqa Bary in peril: Muslim parents call off deal protecting her
Jihad Watch
And they are using her unwise guilty plea to a charge of being "unruly" against her now. "Agreement between Rifqa Bary, parents to settle conflict short-lived," by Meredith "Hijab" Heagney for the Columbus Dispatch, January 29 (thanks to Pamela): The agreement between Rifqa Bary and her parents to settle their conflict through counseling has ended without a single meeting between the parents and their daughter, according to a motion filed in Franklin County Juvenile Court.
The parents - Mohamed and Aysha Bary - are withdrawing their consent to resolve the case. Rifqa and her parents agreed on Jan. 19 that she would stay in foster care and they would undergo counseling instead of beginning a dependency trial to determine where the 17-year-old should live. Rifqa turns 18 in August.
The motion says "the parents now believe the entire deal should be thrown out because of misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement." It adds that the Barys now object to all decisions made on Jan. 19 and want a trial on the dependency case.
Rifqa ran away in July, saying her father abused her and threatened to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity. Authorities could not find any credible threats to her safety.
Flaws in their investigation noted here.
Franklin County Children Services promised it would protect Rifqa from the people who helped her run away and are trying to exploit her, but she's being allowed to talk to Blake and Beverly Lorenz, according to the motion filed yesterday by Omar Tarazi, attorney for the parents. The Lorenzes are the Florida pastor couple who housed Rifqa for more than two weeks after she ran away.
Classic Islamic supremacist projection from a CAIR attorney. Rifqa doesn't need to be protected from the Lorenzes. She needs to be protected from her parents and other Muslims who believe in the death penalty for apostates and have threatened her life.
The motion says she is being allowed to attend "the very church that targeted her in the first place," but it does not name the church.
"Targeted her." Note once again the inversion of reality.
Tarazi also wrote that Angela Lloyd, an attorney for Rifqa, knew or should have known of the contents of a "happy birthday, Daddy" card that she sent to Blake Lorenz on behalf of Rifqa. The motion says Rifqa has yet to talk to her parents.
Two separate motions ask the court to remove Lloyd as Rifqa's counsel and Bonnie Vangeloff as her guardian ad litem.
Tarazi also filed an emergency motion that all contact between Rifqa and those who "assisted in her unruly behavior" be prohibited because of a pending criminal investigation.
Tarazi is pushing for the isolation of the female apostate, in accord with Sharia.
Pamela has much more -- including some unsavory self-serving dealing by Rifqa's disastrous Florida attorney, John Stemberger.
RIFQA BARY BETRAYED: PARENTS AND CAIR-APPOINTED ATTORNEY RENEGE, PURSUE SHARIA PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY, BACK TO COURT
Rifqa Bary's parents and their CAIR-appointed attorney have reneged on the deal for dependency and instead want to go to trial.
As I long suspected, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front CAIR had no intention of allowing an apostate from Islam to live freely as a glowing example to other Muslims dying to leave Islam.
An anonymous source tells me Rifqa wasn't told of the terrible development from her lawyers. She had to read the hijabed Heagney's account. I contend, yet again, that Rifqa is ill represented by an uninformed counsel chosen by John Stemberger. But I hear Stemberger inked his first book deal .... on Rifqa.
They are reopening the case, Rifqa should ask for a continuance and start fresh with knowledgeable legal counsel experienced in sharia law.
The CAIR appointed attorney knows where Rifqa lives; have they moved her to another foster home yet?
Agreement between Rifqa Bary, parents to settle conflict short-lived Meredith Hijab
The parents - Mohamed and Aysha Bary - are withdrawing their consent to resolve the case. Rifqa and her parents agreed on Jan. 19 that she would stay in foster care and they would undergo counseling instead of beginning a dependency trial to determine where the 17-year-old should live. Rifqa turns 18 in August.
The motion says "the parents now believe the entire deal should be thrown out because of misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement." It adds that the Barys now object to all decisions made on Jan. 19 and want a trial on the dependency case.
Rifqa ran away in July, saying her father abused her and threatened to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity. Authorities could not find any credible threats to her safety.
Franklin County Children Services promised it would protect Rifqa from the people who helped her run away and are trying to exploit her, but she's being allowed to talk to Blake and Beverly Lorenz, according to the motion filed yesterday by Omar Tarazi, attorney for the parents. The Lorenzes are the Florida pastor couple who housed Rifqa for more than two weeks after she ran away.
The motion says she is being allowed to attend "the very church that targeted her in the first place," but it does not name the church.
Islam says NO CHURCH!
Tarazi also wrote that Angela Lloyd, an attorney for Rifqa, knew or should have known of the contents of a "happy birthday, Daddy" card that she sent to Blake Lorenz on behalf of Rifqa. The motion says Rifqa has yet to talk to her parents.
Who the hell is that jihadi to tell a Christian girl she can't sent a birthday card to people she loves? Wake up, America. Islam is eating you alive. This from the Lorenz affadavit:
To my knowledge, Brian Smith is the only one who continues to have access to the post office box of Global Revolution Church. He has opened mail addressed to me personally. Instead of forwarding the mail to me without opening it, or even after opening it, he has apparently sent my mail to the attorneys for the father of Rifqa Bary in Ohio. Again, Brian Smith has done so without my consent. He has acted in a manner that is both untruthful, in filing many false statements in his affidavit, and in a manner to intentionally harm me, the reasons for which I can only speculate stem from concern that I had over his job while he worked at Global Revolution Church.
CAIR accomplice Brian Smith is under indictment for allegedly stealing her legal defense donations. He is facing embezzlement, mail tampering and illegal wiretapping charges.
Two separate motions ask the court to remove Lloyd as Rifqa's counsel and Bonnie Vangeloff as her guardian ad litem.
Tarazi also filed an emergency motion that all contact between Rifqa and those who "assisted in her unruly behavior" be prohibited because of a pending criminal investigation.
This is sharia law in America..
And they are using her unwise guilty plea to a charge of being "unruly" against her now. "Agreement between Rifqa Bary, parents to settle conflict short-lived," by Meredith "Hijab" Heagney for the Columbus Dispatch, January 29 (thanks to Pamela): The agreement between Rifqa Bary and her parents to settle their conflict through counseling has ended without a single meeting between the parents and their daughter, according to a motion filed in Franklin County Juvenile Court.
The parents - Mohamed and Aysha Bary - are withdrawing their consent to resolve the case. Rifqa and her parents agreed on Jan. 19 that she would stay in foster care and they would undergo counseling instead of beginning a dependency trial to determine where the 17-year-old should live. Rifqa turns 18 in August.
The motion says "the parents now believe the entire deal should be thrown out because of misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement." It adds that the Barys now object to all decisions made on Jan. 19 and want a trial on the dependency case.
Rifqa ran away in July, saying her father abused her and threatened to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity. Authorities could not find any credible threats to her safety.
Flaws in their investigation noted here.
Franklin County Children Services promised it would protect Rifqa from the people who helped her run away and are trying to exploit her, but she's being allowed to talk to Blake and Beverly Lorenz, according to the motion filed yesterday by Omar Tarazi, attorney for the parents. The Lorenzes are the Florida pastor couple who housed Rifqa for more than two weeks after she ran away.
Classic Islamic supremacist projection from a CAIR attorney. Rifqa doesn't need to be protected from the Lorenzes. She needs to be protected from her parents and other Muslims who believe in the death penalty for apostates and have threatened her life.
The motion says she is being allowed to attend "the very church that targeted her in the first place," but it does not name the church.
"Targeted her." Note once again the inversion of reality.
Tarazi also wrote that Angela Lloyd, an attorney for Rifqa, knew or should have known of the contents of a "happy birthday, Daddy" card that she sent to Blake Lorenz on behalf of Rifqa. The motion says Rifqa has yet to talk to her parents.
Two separate motions ask the court to remove Lloyd as Rifqa's counsel and Bonnie Vangeloff as her guardian ad litem.
Tarazi also filed an emergency motion that all contact between Rifqa and those who "assisted in her unruly behavior" be prohibited because of a pending criminal investigation.
Tarazi is pushing for the isolation of the female apostate, in accord with Sharia.
Pamela has much more -- including some unsavory self-serving dealing by Rifqa's disastrous Florida attorney, John Stemberger.
RIFQA BARY BETRAYED: PARENTS AND CAIR-APPOINTED ATTORNEY RENEGE, PURSUE SHARIA PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY, BACK TO COURT
Rifqa Bary's parents and their CAIR-appointed attorney have reneged on the deal for dependency and instead want to go to trial.
As I long suspected, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front CAIR had no intention of allowing an apostate from Islam to live freely as a glowing example to other Muslims dying to leave Islam.
An anonymous source tells me Rifqa wasn't told of the terrible development from her lawyers. She had to read the hijabed Heagney's account. I contend, yet again, that Rifqa is ill represented by an uninformed counsel chosen by John Stemberger. But I hear Stemberger inked his first book deal .... on Rifqa.
They are reopening the case, Rifqa should ask for a continuance and start fresh with knowledgeable legal counsel experienced in sharia law.
The CAIR appointed attorney knows where Rifqa lives; have they moved her to another foster home yet?
Agreement between Rifqa Bary, parents to settle conflict short-lived Meredith Hijab
The parents - Mohamed and Aysha Bary - are withdrawing their consent to resolve the case. Rifqa and her parents agreed on Jan. 19 that she would stay in foster care and they would undergo counseling instead of beginning a dependency trial to determine where the 17-year-old should live. Rifqa turns 18 in August.
The motion says "the parents now believe the entire deal should be thrown out because of misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement." It adds that the Barys now object to all decisions made on Jan. 19 and want a trial on the dependency case.
Rifqa ran away in July, saying her father abused her and threatened to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity. Authorities could not find any credible threats to her safety.
Franklin County Children Services promised it would protect Rifqa from the people who helped her run away and are trying to exploit her, but she's being allowed to talk to Blake and Beverly Lorenz, according to the motion filed yesterday by Omar Tarazi, attorney for the parents. The Lorenzes are the Florida pastor couple who housed Rifqa for more than two weeks after she ran away.
The motion says she is being allowed to attend "the very church that targeted her in the first place," but it does not name the church.
Islam says NO CHURCH!
Tarazi also wrote that Angela Lloyd, an attorney for Rifqa, knew or should have known of the contents of a "happy birthday, Daddy" card that she sent to Blake Lorenz on behalf of Rifqa. The motion says Rifqa has yet to talk to her parents.
Who the hell is that jihadi to tell a Christian girl she can't sent a birthday card to people she loves? Wake up, America. Islam is eating you alive. This from the Lorenz affadavit:
To my knowledge, Brian Smith is the only one who continues to have access to the post office box of Global Revolution Church. He has opened mail addressed to me personally. Instead of forwarding the mail to me without opening it, or even after opening it, he has apparently sent my mail to the attorneys for the father of Rifqa Bary in Ohio. Again, Brian Smith has done so without my consent. He has acted in a manner that is both untruthful, in filing many false statements in his affidavit, and in a manner to intentionally harm me, the reasons for which I can only speculate stem from concern that I had over his job while he worked at Global Revolution Church.
CAIR accomplice Brian Smith is under indictment for allegedly stealing her legal defense donations. He is facing embezzlement, mail tampering and illegal wiretapping charges.
Two separate motions ask the court to remove Lloyd as Rifqa's counsel and Bonnie Vangeloff as her guardian ad litem.
Tarazi also filed an emergency motion that all contact between Rifqa and those who "assisted in her unruly behavior" be prohibited because of a pending criminal investigation.
This is sharia law in America..
The Sun Also Flares
Clifford D. May
If we get hit with a once-in-a-century solar storm, we’re history.
Had the earthquake that hit Haiti shaken Florida instead, the death toll would not have been so tragically high — over 150,000 at last count. In Haiti, as in other impoverished countries, buildings are often shoddily constructed, infrastructure is weak, and governance is incompetent. The primary response to disaster: Wait for help from abroad.
It’s a well established rule: Rich nations endure natural disasters better than poor nations. But there may be an exception. Stay with me for a moment and you’ll see what I mean. In recent years, Americans have become dependent not just on electricity but on computers, microchips, and satellites. The infrastructure that supports all this has become increasingly sophisticated — but not more resilient. On the contrary, as this infrastructure has become more complex, it also has become more fragile and therefore more vulnerable — an Achilles’ heel.
That is why, in 2001, the U.S. government established a commission to “assess the threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack.” Such an attack would involve the detonation of a nuclear warhead at high altitude over the American mainland, producing a shockwave powerful enough to knock out electrical power, electronics, communications, transportation, refrigeration, water-pumping stations, sewage systems, and much more. Think of a blackout, but one of indefinite duration — because we have no plan for recovery and could expect little or no help from abroad.
Historian William R. Forstchen researched what America would be like in the aftermath of an EMP attack for his novel One Second After. I don’t think I’m spoiling the experience for prospective readers by telling you that Forstchen is convinced the result would be millions of deaths from starvation and disease, a catastrophe from which America would never fully recover.
The EMP commission also reported that Iran — which is feverishly working to acquire nuclear weapons — has conducted tests in which it launched missiles and exploded warheads at high altitudes. The CIA has translated Iranian military journals in which EMP attacks against the U.S. are explicitly discussed.
Might Iran’s rulers orchestrate such an attack if and when they acquire nuclear capability? That is a heated debate among defense experts. But what is almost never discussed is the threat of a naturally occurring EMP event.
I first learned about this possibility a few months ago at a conference organized by Empact America, a bipartisan, non-profit organization concerned exclusively with the EMP challenge. Scientists there explained “severe space weather” — in particular, storms on the surface of the sun that could trigger an EMP event.
The strongest solar storm on record is the Carrington Event of 1859, named after Richard Carrington, an astronomer who witnessed the super solar flare that set off the event as he was projecting an image of the sun onto a white screen. In those days, of course, there was nothing much to damage. A high-intensity burst of electromagnetic energy shot through telegraph lines, disrupting communications, shocking technicians, and setting their papers on fire. Northern Lights were visible as far south as Cuba and Hawaii. But otherwise life went on as normal.
The same would not be true were a solar storm of similar magnitude to erupt today. Instead, the infrastructure we depend on would be wiped out. Most of us would not adapt well to this sudden return to a pre-industrial age.
How likely is a repeat of the Carrington Event? Scientists say it is not only possible — it is inevitable. What they don’t know is when. The best estimates suggest that super solar storms occur once every 100 years — which means we are 50 years overdue.
Both the EMP Commission and a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) call for a response: hardening the electrical grid and other components of the infrastructure to increase the chances they would survive, as well as pre-positioning spares of essential, complex components of the electrical grid and other infrastructure critical to communications and emergency public services.
And it would certainly help if scientists could learn to forecast solar storms reliably. If we know one is coming, there are steps that can be taken to reduce the destruction. In particular, the electrical grid could be shut down; planes could be grounded (Air Force One is designed to withstand an EMP attack, but other planes would fall from the sky); citizens could be instructed not to leave home — in particular, to stay out of their cars, which would stop working — until the storm subsided.
President Obama has pledged $100 million to help Haiti recover from its recent earthquake. By coincidence, that’s precisely the amount that the NAS recommends be spent on measures that could limit by 60 to 70 percent the damage resulting from an EMP event. When you consider that such an event — whether naturally occurring or a “man-caused disaster” — could cause trillions of dollars in damage and claim more lives than were lost in World War II, that sounds like a reasonably priced investment.
— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism.
http://article.nationalreview.com/422973/the-sun-also-flares/clifford-d-may
If we get hit with a once-in-a-century solar storm, we’re history.
Had the earthquake that hit Haiti shaken Florida instead, the death toll would not have been so tragically high — over 150,000 at last count. In Haiti, as in other impoverished countries, buildings are often shoddily constructed, infrastructure is weak, and governance is incompetent. The primary response to disaster: Wait for help from abroad.
It’s a well established rule: Rich nations endure natural disasters better than poor nations. But there may be an exception. Stay with me for a moment and you’ll see what I mean. In recent years, Americans have become dependent not just on electricity but on computers, microchips, and satellites. The infrastructure that supports all this has become increasingly sophisticated — but not more resilient. On the contrary, as this infrastructure has become more complex, it also has become more fragile and therefore more vulnerable — an Achilles’ heel.
That is why, in 2001, the U.S. government established a commission to “assess the threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack.” Such an attack would involve the detonation of a nuclear warhead at high altitude over the American mainland, producing a shockwave powerful enough to knock out electrical power, electronics, communications, transportation, refrigeration, water-pumping stations, sewage systems, and much more. Think of a blackout, but one of indefinite duration — because we have no plan for recovery and could expect little or no help from abroad.
Historian William R. Forstchen researched what America would be like in the aftermath of an EMP attack for his novel One Second After. I don’t think I’m spoiling the experience for prospective readers by telling you that Forstchen is convinced the result would be millions of deaths from starvation and disease, a catastrophe from which America would never fully recover.
The EMP commission also reported that Iran — which is feverishly working to acquire nuclear weapons — has conducted tests in which it launched missiles and exploded warheads at high altitudes. The CIA has translated Iranian military journals in which EMP attacks against the U.S. are explicitly discussed.
Might Iran’s rulers orchestrate such an attack if and when they acquire nuclear capability? That is a heated debate among defense experts. But what is almost never discussed is the threat of a naturally occurring EMP event.
I first learned about this possibility a few months ago at a conference organized by Empact America, a bipartisan, non-profit organization concerned exclusively with the EMP challenge. Scientists there explained “severe space weather” — in particular, storms on the surface of the sun that could trigger an EMP event.
The strongest solar storm on record is the Carrington Event of 1859, named after Richard Carrington, an astronomer who witnessed the super solar flare that set off the event as he was projecting an image of the sun onto a white screen. In those days, of course, there was nothing much to damage. A high-intensity burst of electromagnetic energy shot through telegraph lines, disrupting communications, shocking technicians, and setting their papers on fire. Northern Lights were visible as far south as Cuba and Hawaii. But otherwise life went on as normal.
The same would not be true were a solar storm of similar magnitude to erupt today. Instead, the infrastructure we depend on would be wiped out. Most of us would not adapt well to this sudden return to a pre-industrial age.
How likely is a repeat of the Carrington Event? Scientists say it is not only possible — it is inevitable. What they don’t know is when. The best estimates suggest that super solar storms occur once every 100 years — which means we are 50 years overdue.
Both the EMP Commission and a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) call for a response: hardening the electrical grid and other components of the infrastructure to increase the chances they would survive, as well as pre-positioning spares of essential, complex components of the electrical grid and other infrastructure critical to communications and emergency public services.
And it would certainly help if scientists could learn to forecast solar storms reliably. If we know one is coming, there are steps that can be taken to reduce the destruction. In particular, the electrical grid could be shut down; planes could be grounded (Air Force One is designed to withstand an EMP attack, but other planes would fall from the sky); citizens could be instructed not to leave home — in particular, to stay out of their cars, which would stop working — until the storm subsided.
President Obama has pledged $100 million to help Haiti recover from its recent earthquake. By coincidence, that’s precisely the amount that the NAS recommends be spent on measures that could limit by 60 to 70 percent the damage resulting from an EMP event. When you consider that such an event — whether naturally occurring or a “man-caused disaster” — could cause trillions of dollars in damage and claim more lives than were lost in World War II, that sounds like a reasonably priced investment.
— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism.
http://article.nationalreview.com/422973/the-sun-also-flares/clifford-d-may
Is Sharia Banking Safe for Canada?
DAN VERBIN
Published: January 29th 2010
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
Pic: NULL
With the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation releasing a report this week that may pave the way for widespread availability of Islamic financial instruments in Canada – including Sharia-compliant mortgages – an expert on Islamic banking is cautioning that Canadians should examine the implications of implementing the report’s recommendations. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York-based author who specializes in financial issues related to terrorism, told Shalom Life that Sharia-compliant mortgages often contain a myriad of hidden fees, inherent in the Islamic banking system. Since the Koran prohibits interest, Sharia-based banks create derivatives, which include fees that most borrowers are not told about upfront. Some of the fees go for zakat (the Third Pillar of Islam, between 2.5 per cent for individuals to 20 per cent “tax” for foreign business). Others have an imbedded “purification” process for “unislamic” cash flows. Both are sent to major depositories in the Middle East and Malaysia and then distributed to Islamic charities for the welfare of Muslims and the promotion of Islam.
“Where is the money being sent and how is it the money used?” Ehrenfeld asked.
For instance, Ehrenfeld explained that the Islamic version of the bond – called sukuk – has qualifications embedded in it to purify the portion of the fund that does not meet Islamic standards. In other words, the wealth created by the corporations that a Sharia-compliant fund may invest in inevitably contains some form of interest, which is against Islamic law. A corresponding per cent of the bond is therefore donated to charity. Clients are not told of the specific purifications – or the names of the charitable organizations on the receiving end the allotment – since the financial instruments are sent to central auditing houses to be purified.
The 88-page report, compiled by law firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, concluded that Sharia financing would be compatible with Canadian banking regulations and accounting standards if implemented. It noted that Islamic banking measures are offered worldwide, though they generally account for only a small percentage of financial traffic in Muslim countries.
Ehrenfeld questioned whether the introduction of Sharia-compliant banking into Canada and Western countries – according to the Mail Online, assets held by Britain’s $18 billion Islamic banking system tower over Muslim states such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt – is not a backdoor method to gradually legitimize the introduction of wider Sharia law into liberal democracies.
“You agree to this, why don’t you agree to the rest? Sharia controls all aspects of life,” she said. “Why should anybody in the West have to abide by Islamic rules?”
She stressed that the most troubling aspect of Sharia banking is how little is actually known about what goes on internally and questioned why a system with so many pertinent questions left unanswered should be allowed to operate in Western countries.
“Sharia banking is a made up thing. It’s not written in the Koran. It has been developed by the Muslim Brotherhood,” she said. “People know very little about it and the so-called Sharia-experts are making up the rules along the way. This is not safe. This is not transparent and people should not allow it.”
Ehrenfeld sees a real possibility that Sharia banking is an attempt by Islamists to “penetrate the Western financial system” with the aim of “destabilizing the West.”
“The Ummah is what the Muslim Brotherhood wants,” she said. “What better way to do it then penetrate and corrupt the economy?”
One thing is clear – there are too many questions. Unfortunately, the implications of Sharia banking’s introduction into Canadian society is not something that is on the media’s radar these days.
Ehrenfeld thinks she knows why.
“Because (the media) is P.C., as are most Western governments.” But, “There are many issues that are not ‘kosher’ in Islamic banking.”
http://www.womenagainstshariah.com/
Published: January 29th 2010
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
Pic: NULL
With the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation releasing a report this week that may pave the way for widespread availability of Islamic financial instruments in Canada – including Sharia-compliant mortgages – an expert on Islamic banking is cautioning that Canadians should examine the implications of implementing the report’s recommendations. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York-based author who specializes in financial issues related to terrorism, told Shalom Life that Sharia-compliant mortgages often contain a myriad of hidden fees, inherent in the Islamic banking system. Since the Koran prohibits interest, Sharia-based banks create derivatives, which include fees that most borrowers are not told about upfront. Some of the fees go for zakat (the Third Pillar of Islam, between 2.5 per cent for individuals to 20 per cent “tax” for foreign business). Others have an imbedded “purification” process for “unislamic” cash flows. Both are sent to major depositories in the Middle East and Malaysia and then distributed to Islamic charities for the welfare of Muslims and the promotion of Islam.
“Where is the money being sent and how is it the money used?” Ehrenfeld asked.
For instance, Ehrenfeld explained that the Islamic version of the bond – called sukuk – has qualifications embedded in it to purify the portion of the fund that does not meet Islamic standards. In other words, the wealth created by the corporations that a Sharia-compliant fund may invest in inevitably contains some form of interest, which is against Islamic law. A corresponding per cent of the bond is therefore donated to charity. Clients are not told of the specific purifications – or the names of the charitable organizations on the receiving end the allotment – since the financial instruments are sent to central auditing houses to be purified.
The 88-page report, compiled by law firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, concluded that Sharia financing would be compatible with Canadian banking regulations and accounting standards if implemented. It noted that Islamic banking measures are offered worldwide, though they generally account for only a small percentage of financial traffic in Muslim countries.
Ehrenfeld questioned whether the introduction of Sharia-compliant banking into Canada and Western countries – according to the Mail Online, assets held by Britain’s $18 billion Islamic banking system tower over Muslim states such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt – is not a backdoor method to gradually legitimize the introduction of wider Sharia law into liberal democracies.
“You agree to this, why don’t you agree to the rest? Sharia controls all aspects of life,” she said. “Why should anybody in the West have to abide by Islamic rules?”
She stressed that the most troubling aspect of Sharia banking is how little is actually known about what goes on internally and questioned why a system with so many pertinent questions left unanswered should be allowed to operate in Western countries.
“Sharia banking is a made up thing. It’s not written in the Koran. It has been developed by the Muslim Brotherhood,” she said. “People know very little about it and the so-called Sharia-experts are making up the rules along the way. This is not safe. This is not transparent and people should not allow it.”
Ehrenfeld sees a real possibility that Sharia banking is an attempt by Islamists to “penetrate the Western financial system” with the aim of “destabilizing the West.”
“The Ummah is what the Muslim Brotherhood wants,” she said. “What better way to do it then penetrate and corrupt the economy?”
One thing is clear – there are too many questions. Unfortunately, the implications of Sharia banking’s introduction into Canadian society is not something that is on the media’s radar these days.
Ehrenfeld thinks she knows why.
“Because (the media) is P.C., as are most Western governments.” But, “There are many issues that are not ‘kosher’ in Islamic banking.”
http://www.womenagainstshariah.com/
How to inflame the Jews of Newton, Massachusetts
HILLARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT
28/01/2010 22:26
Invite a released Guantanamo inmate to move in.
WASHINGTON – Angry residents of a heavily Jewish Boston suburb are demanding an apology or else the resignation of two city officials, after they sponsored a resolution inviting a Guantanamo inmate to move to the town upon his anticipated release.
The resolution was unanimously approved by a subcommittee of the Board of Aldermen before sparking a public outcry once community members learned of the proposal. It ended up being dismissed by the full board at a meeting last Tuesday, but many residents are still furious that the issue got as far as it did. “I think an apology would be nice, but I think the damage has already been done,” said Kerry Hurwitz, who got e-mails from friends, pro-Israel organizations and her synagogue when news of the resolution’s impending vote came out.
Her first reaction was, “This is a terrible idea. It’s putting our children at risk.”
Following the full board’s unanimous decision to take “no action” on the resolution she said, “I felt relieved but also a little bit angry that this happened at all,” adding, “This is crazy. What were they thinking?”
The resolution itself cites Abdul Aziz Naji’s local connections – he is represented pro bono by two Newton-based lawyers – in expressing a willingness to “welcome this cleared detainee into our community” as soon as Congress repealed the ban on settling released Guantanamo prisoners in the US, which the resolution also urged.
“Newton has historically welcomed refugees from a variety of countries and under many circumstances,” the resolution also stated.
“Newton’s history of supporting human rights makes it fitting that our community provide safe resettlement to a man who has been unjustly imprisoned by the US government at Guantanamo Bay.”
Stephen Linsky, one of the two cosponsors of the resolution, explained that to implement a repeal of the ban – something he supports – communities would have to accept detainees, and he wanted his support to be more than empty words.
“This isn’t about rewarding any individual. It’s about aiding US interests, and how we can help,” he said. “It means raising our hand to do our part.”
But when another alderman, Charlie Shapiro, heard about the resolution, he thought it was far from being in Newton’s interest, let alone the country’s.
“Under normal circumstances I would have been the first to welcome immigrants to the City of Newton, but I draw the line at anyone who is associated with terrorism in any way, shape or form,” said Shapiro.
He called an emergency meeting to let locals speak out on the issue, which otherwise wouldn’t have gotten a public hearing before the scheduled vote.
Typically, hearings aren’t held on resolutions because they’re non-controversial, according to Shapiro.
“Generally speaking you’d be recognizing the librarian for 50 years of community service,” he explained. “This was a totally different category.”
Thirty people ended up coming to the hastily arranged meeting – an unheard-of turnout – with one in favor and 29 opposed.
“The resolution was completely unacceptable, and most of the people who showed up at the meeting I held thought it was outrageous,” said Shapiro.
At the full board meeting on Tuesday some 80 people came, a “highly unusual” number in the words of Shapiro, who noted, “There’s usually zero.”
Though the public was not able to speak at that meeting, many of those who came held signs saying “Recall clueless aldermen” and “No Jihadis in Newton.”
The key organizer behind the effort, Charles Jacobs, welcomed the 24-0 board vote of “no action” on the resolution, but has continued to push for action to be taken again Linsky and his cosponsor, Ted Hess-Mahan.
“I think they owe the citizens an apology,” he charged.
Naji has been cleared for release from Guantanamo but has admitted to working for the charitable arm of Lashkar-e-Taibe, the organization behind the terror attack in Mumbai that included the murder of two Chabad emissaries.
According press accounts and the research Jacobs conducts as head of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, a group devoted to exposing Islamic extremism, before receiving his lawyers Naji told his US interrogators he pledged to fight in Lashkar-e-Taibe’s jihad against India and was given mine-laying training in the group’s camps.
Linsky, however, said that Naji posed no threat to Newton residents.
“If I had ever felt that, of course, I never would have engaged in the resolution,” he said, though he added, “I understand where people were coming from.”
He did, however, acknowledge that it was clear that the process hadn’t provided enough opportunity for public input and debate.
“We really needed to afford more time for that,” he said.
He said the strong reaction “reflected that there is certainly a diversity of opinion in our community” and he cast his vote for “no action” to give a greater opportunity for the debate to continue.
He noted that while opponents of the measure have been “extremely vocal,” he’s heard from many others that have been “very supportive.”
In response to the calls for an apology, he offered to sit down personally with anyone who wanted to share their concerns.
“We had the beginning of the conversation. I don’t know that a lot of people feel that it was bad to raise it,” Linsky said, noting that the issue might be taken up again later, likely after the board had dealt with the budget.
Jacobs did come up with one reason he thought it would be good for the resolution to someday pass, and allow a former Guantanamo inmate take up residency in the affluent and politically liberal Boston suburb.
“Why don’t you bring them, because that will be the real torture,” he quipped about Naji. “He’ll have to see assertive feminists and happy gays and Jews and Christians who are free ... all living happily together.”
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=167174
Clinton: China risks isolation over Iran
Risks of Iranian bomb include "producing an arms race" in the Persian Gulf, which is "incredibly dangerous", says US Secretary of State.
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned on Friday it risks diplomatic isolation and disruption to its energy supplies unless it helps keep from developing nuclear weapons.
Speaking in , said she and others who support additional sanctions on for refusing to prove it has peaceful nuclear intentions are lobbying to back new UN penalties on the Iranian government. She said she understood 's reluctance to impose new penalties on , its third-largest supplier of oil. But she stressed that a nuclear-armed would destabilize the Persian Gulf and imperil oil shipments gets from other Arab states in the region.
There is a new push for sanctions at the UN because of 's continued refusal to engage on the matter with the five permanent members of the Security Council — , , , and the — and .
Administration officials have invited new talks with , but with no sign that wants to do business, the focus has turned to penalties.
"As we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the result that some had hoped for, and move forward on the pressure and sanctions track, China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supplies," Clinton said.
The is the most visible leader in the new push for UN Security Council sanctions, and spent much of her time in this week lobbying major powers whose support she needs to pass and enforce new economic penalties. Some of the additional measures that will be proposed target elements of 's powerful militia structure, US officials said.
The Obama administration has said appears bent on developing nuclear weapons, although claims its nuclear work is peaceful. is thought to have stockpiled more than enough nuclear material to manufacture a single bomb, and more is being made daily.
The risks of an Iranian bomb are manifold, said.
"It will produce an arms race," in the Persian Gulf, and will feel its very existence threatened, said in response to a question from an audience member during a speech at a French military academy. "All of that is incredibly dangerous."
The has cautioned publicly against a pre-emptive strike on 's known nuclear facilities, arguing that such an attack would invite an arms race and retaliation.
has traditionally resisted UN Security Council sanctions, saying they are counterproductive and harm efforts to persuade to prove its claim that the nuclear program is peaceful.
met Thursday in with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi to make the case to move ahead with sanctions at the United Nations. US officials said Yang's response was noncommittal.
In , said her message to the Chinese had been this: "We understand that right now it seems counterproductive to you to sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs. But think about the longer-term implications."
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=167261
Friday, January 29, 2010
The handling of the Christmas Day bombing suspect: the scandal grows
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 29, 2010; A23
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803511.html?
The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane -- that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration -- but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government. After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.
We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).
The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama's own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration's new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
Perhaps you hadn't heard the term. Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism. In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.
Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case? Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had been conceived for use only abroad. Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?
It gets worse. Blair later had to explain that the HIG was not deployed because it does not yet exist. After a year! I suppose this administration was so busy deploying scores of the country's best lawyerly minds on finding the most rapid way to release Gitmo miscreants that it could not be bothered to establish a single operational HIG team to interrogate at-large miscreants with actionable intelligence that might save American lives.
Travesties of this magnitude are not lost on the American people. One of the reasons Scott Brown won in Massachusetts was his focus on the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.
Of course, this case is just a reflection of a larger problem: an administration that insists on treating Islamist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. Which is why the Justice Department's other egregious terror decision, granting Khalid Sheik Mohammed a civilian trial in New York, is now the subject of a letter from six senators -- three Republicans, two Democrats and Joe Lieberman -- asking Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision.
Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins had written an earlier letter asking for Abdulmutallab to be turned over to the military for renewed interrogation. The problem is, it's hard to see how that decision gets reversed. Once you've read a man Miranda rights, what do you say? We are idiots? On second thought . . .
Hence the agitation over the KSM trial. This one can be reversed, and it's a good surrogate for this administration's insistence upon criminalizing -- and therefore trivializing -- a war on terror that has now struck three times in one year within the United States, twice with effect (the Arkansas killer and the Fort Hood shooter) and once with a shockingly near miss (Abdulmutallab).
On the KSM civilian trial, sentiment is widespread that it is quite insane to spend $200 million a year to give the killer of 3,000 innocents the largest propaganda platform on earth, while at the same time granting civilian rights of cross-examination and discovery that risk betraying U.S. intelligence sources and methods.
Accordingly, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Frank Wolf have gone beyond appeals to the administration and are planning to introduce a bill to block funding for the trial. It's an important measure. It makes flesh an otherwise abstract issue -- should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants? The vote will force members of Congress to declare themselves. There will be no hiding from the question.
Congress may not be able to roll back the Abdulmutallab travesty. But there will be future Abdulmutallabs. By cutting off funding for the KSM trial, Congress can send Obama a clear message: The Constitution is neither a safety net for illegal enemy combatants nor a suicide pact for us.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Friday, January 29, 2010; A23
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803511.html?
The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane -- that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration -- but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government. After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.
We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).
The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama's own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration's new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
Perhaps you hadn't heard the term. Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism. In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.
Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case? Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had been conceived for use only abroad. Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?
It gets worse. Blair later had to explain that the HIG was not deployed because it does not yet exist. After a year! I suppose this administration was so busy deploying scores of the country's best lawyerly minds on finding the most rapid way to release Gitmo miscreants that it could not be bothered to establish a single operational HIG team to interrogate at-large miscreants with actionable intelligence that might save American lives.
Travesties of this magnitude are not lost on the American people. One of the reasons Scott Brown won in Massachusetts was his focus on the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.
Of course, this case is just a reflection of a larger problem: an administration that insists on treating Islamist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. Which is why the Justice Department's other egregious terror decision, granting Khalid Sheik Mohammed a civilian trial in New York, is now the subject of a letter from six senators -- three Republicans, two Democrats and Joe Lieberman -- asking Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision.
Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins had written an earlier letter asking for Abdulmutallab to be turned over to the military for renewed interrogation. The problem is, it's hard to see how that decision gets reversed. Once you've read a man Miranda rights, what do you say? We are idiots? On second thought . . .
Hence the agitation over the KSM trial. This one can be reversed, and it's a good surrogate for this administration's insistence upon criminalizing -- and therefore trivializing -- a war on terror that has now struck three times in one year within the United States, twice with effect (the Arkansas killer and the Fort Hood shooter) and once with a shockingly near miss (Abdulmutallab).
On the KSM civilian trial, sentiment is widespread that it is quite insane to spend $200 million a year to give the killer of 3,000 innocents the largest propaganda platform on earth, while at the same time granting civilian rights of cross-examination and discovery that risk betraying U.S. intelligence sources and methods.
Accordingly, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Frank Wolf have gone beyond appeals to the administration and are planning to introduce a bill to block funding for the trial. It's an important measure. It makes flesh an otherwise abstract issue -- should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants? The vote will force members of Congress to declare themselves. There will be no hiding from the question.
Congress may not be able to roll back the Abdulmutallab travesty. But there will be future Abdulmutallabs. By cutting off funding for the KSM trial, Congress can send Obama a clear message: The Constitution is neither a safety net for illegal enemy combatants nor a suicide pact for us.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Obama’s State of the Union Message Tells Us Far More About the State of Obama
RubinReports
Barry Rubin
Significantly, President Barack Obama’s discussion of foreign policy came only at the end of his State of the Union message. Obviously, domestic matters and especially the economy come first. Yet international affairs are not only vital but often have been the issues on which administrations are judged, no matter how unlikely that seemed at the time.
It is apparently considered impolite to point out that Obama has no previous experience and little knowledge of international affairs. And yet that fact affects the fate of the globe every day. The really interesting question is whether the State of the Union message showed any growth in his ability after one year in office.. Sadly, the answer is “no.”
Here are the themes he expressed.
First, he implies that it is all George W. Bush’s fault, having left him with two wars. Yet there is a strange point here that no one has noticed. These wars, except for Obama's long hesitation about making a decision on Afghanistan, have caused him little trouble or criticism in relative terms. On a list of administration failures during its first year, a long list of other items prevail which cannot be blamed on Bush: embarrassing gaffes, messing up on Iran and the “peace process,” subverting allies in Central Europe, apologizing and undermining U.S. credibility with dictators, mishandling the Islamist terrorist prisoners, and so on.
Second, he insists that he’s been doing a great job on security. Indeed, Obama suggests—in terms that would have brought a withering criticism of previous presidents—that no one should criticize him.
There is one sentence in this discussion that embodies much of what is wrong with Obama’s concept of international affairs. On the surface it is banal but it is really of the greatest importance: “So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough.”
This is part of Obama’s confusion between personal or social life and international politics that is so common to the amateur in foreign policy. During recess, boys act macho, ranking each other in a pecking order, challenging each other to fight or back down.
Obama genuinely views the way that international politics works as equally silly, meaningless, unnecessary. He wants to cut through all that and show that everyone is in the same boat, he has no macho feelings about power, and he’s ready to apologize and be part of the gang without leading the gang. It is a way to say: Why can't everyone just get along and be friends. I'll dispense with all these petty quarrels and start by renouncing all my own power.
This is sort of like the wimpy nerd coming up to a motorcycle gang and explaining his philosophy to them. Ok, that’s a very exaggerated image but it gets the point across. At first, Obama's listeners are puzzled. Why would the leader of the world’s greatest superpower talk like this? Perhaps it is a trick.
But then the reactions among foreign leaders and countries to Obama's policy can be divided into three groups:
Foes are not won over. On the contrary, the world's dictators and radical ideologies which are America's enenies conclude that some strange compulsion has paralyzed America so why not take advantage of it?
Dependents are frightened. If this man refuses to be strong or act tough who will protect me? I must give my lunch money to the bullies or somehow ingratiate myself with them or just defend myself as best I can.
Lazy friends are pleased. We love this man because either he won't demand that we do anything or if he does we can ignore him without consequences. But even some of them are starting to become concerned, like Britain, France, and Germany who want more action regarding Iran's nuclear program.
What Obama calls “schoolyard taunts” are what diplomatists for centuries have called power politics, leverage, containment, credibility, and so on.
Regarding security against terrorism, Obama speaks of “substantial investments,” “disrupted plots,” and filling “unacceptable gaps.” Never being able to resist some schoolyard taunts at Bush, he adds that he has captured more al-Qaida fighters than his predecessor. No problem, he says, everything is under control and don't worry about it.
Yet people still are worried—and with good reason. After all, Obama was also saying everything was fine before the "underpants" bomber came along. His bomb didn't destroy the aircraft but it did blow up confidence in Obama's counterterrorist strategy. There is no mention of his treating terrorism as a criminal problem, nor of his very narrow focus on al-Qaida as the only terrorist group of concern, nor of his plan to try captured terrorists at courts in the United States, nor of how terrorists he has released have returned to the battle. If he ignores all the concerns people have, no wonder he can say there is no problem.
Obama continues, “We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.” Has Obama strengthened partnerships? Well, if he means alliances that is truly doubtful. Leaving aside the question of his personal popularity in polls I cannot think of a single country whose material relations are stronger. Nominally, of course, Western Europe greatly prefers Obama to Bush. But has this led to any actual results in practical terms? Again, no.
He claims success in Afghanistan, preparing the army there so he can bring the troops home starting in July 2011. Curiously, there’s no mention of his own smaller version of a surge. U.S. combat troops in Iraq will all be out in August of this year. These are good steps and probably will be very popular at home.
Yet there is also that flash of utopian naiveté, a refusal to face up to the cost of doing so which bodes ill for the future: “We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans – men and women alike. “ Yeah, sure. And as with the misleading claim about his successes against al-Qaida, there is that fascinating Obama inability to resist the temptation to tell easily exposed lies, claiming that other countries have increased their commitments in Afghanistan when in fact they refused his request to do so.
One of the most remarkable elements is something not in the speech. The word “Israel” is not even mentioned. There is no commitment to its security expressed and nothing about the peace process. This is revealing in two ways.
First, Obama has admitted that he made a mistake on the issue, the only foreign policy mistake he has ever mentioned. His response now is to ignore the issue altogether, not in his government's daily activities but in terms of his main commitments. Remember that type of response for it might come to characterize other issues. For example, suppose Obama fails—as he clearly will—to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Will he then turn away from that problem as well, banishing it from his agenda?
Second, everyone knows that Obama’s commitment to Israel has been widely questioned. A good politician would go out of his way to say something to show—truly or falsely—how much he does care about it. That isn’t how Obama works. He is not the kind of president to whom other countries can turn to for a feeling of security and support. And that sense of worry is applying now to many other countries in Latin America, Central Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and elsewhere who know that they cannot rely on the president of the United States to protect them against their enemies.
If Obama were to be honest--and effective--he would admit that Israel did almost completely what he asked while the Palestinian Authority (PA) defied him. Israel froze all the construction on the West Bank (it has never defined east Jerusalem in that way) and expressed willingness to go to talks with the PA. The PA has refused to negotiate for five months after Obama asked it to do so. Yet for Obama to pressure the PA to go to the table--the normal route in such situations--is unthinkable for him. So he has no way out of his failure. And Israel's "reward" for its major concession? Not even to be acknowledged in Obama's main annual speech for the first time, I presume, in decades.
In contrast, what Obama is fond of, and spends more time—practically twice as much--on then any other foreign policy issue at all, is his vision of world nuclear disarmament. Even his treatment of the Iran issue comes in this context. Obama—and this is another weakness of his—gets lost when he thinks of something he feels is terribly clever. In this case, believing he can best deter Iran and North Korea by saying the United States should also give up its nuclear weapons.
Does anyone in the world take this seriously?
To hear him say it, America’s enemies are trembling:
“These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.”
In a sense, all he had to offer was a schoolyard taunt: You'll be sorry! After so many previous such statements, this comes across as a very empty threat indeed. A different kind of president would have used the State of the Union speech--the timing of it would have been perfect--as a platform to announce that America was switching gears from failed engagement to tough sanctions. The members in both parties would have roared approval. He would have a mandate and the message would have been clearly heard in Tehran. But such an approach would never have occurred to Obama.
And that's why America's enemies aren’t trembling but laughing and sneering.
This is the speech of a man who is arrogantly convinced of his own brilliance and who basically believes that no one has a right to criticize him. He thinks that he can ignore or rewrite the rules of international affairs. It reveals both a temperament and a set of ideas totally unsuited for dealing with the world as it is.
What I find most fascinating of all about Obama is that despite all the externals—his early personal history and skin color most obviously—used by himself and others to boast that he understands other peoples, Obama is altogether incapable of grasping that others in the world think and act differently from himself.
That’s partly due to his ideology but also to his mistaken belief—ignoring the fact that he is a Hawaii-raised, Harvard-educated member of a very insulated elite whose life has been largely one of uninterrupted rewards mostly showered onto him as gifts--that they are just like he is.
May he, and we all, be very lucky in the next few years.
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), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan)
Barry Rubin
Significantly, President Barack Obama’s discussion of foreign policy came only at the end of his State of the Union message. Obviously, domestic matters and especially the economy come first. Yet international affairs are not only vital but often have been the issues on which administrations are judged, no matter how unlikely that seemed at the time.
It is apparently considered impolite to point out that Obama has no previous experience and little knowledge of international affairs. And yet that fact affects the fate of the globe every day. The really interesting question is whether the State of the Union message showed any growth in his ability after one year in office.. Sadly, the answer is “no.”
Here are the themes he expressed.
First, he implies that it is all George W. Bush’s fault, having left him with two wars. Yet there is a strange point here that no one has noticed. These wars, except for Obama's long hesitation about making a decision on Afghanistan, have caused him little trouble or criticism in relative terms. On a list of administration failures during its first year, a long list of other items prevail which cannot be blamed on Bush: embarrassing gaffes, messing up on Iran and the “peace process,” subverting allies in Central Europe, apologizing and undermining U.S. credibility with dictators, mishandling the Islamist terrorist prisoners, and so on.
Second, he insists that he’s been doing a great job on security. Indeed, Obama suggests—in terms that would have brought a withering criticism of previous presidents—that no one should criticize him.
There is one sentence in this discussion that embodies much of what is wrong with Obama’s concept of international affairs. On the surface it is banal but it is really of the greatest importance: “So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough.”
This is part of Obama’s confusion between personal or social life and international politics that is so common to the amateur in foreign policy. During recess, boys act macho, ranking each other in a pecking order, challenging each other to fight or back down.
Obama genuinely views the way that international politics works as equally silly, meaningless, unnecessary. He wants to cut through all that and show that everyone is in the same boat, he has no macho feelings about power, and he’s ready to apologize and be part of the gang without leading the gang. It is a way to say: Why can't everyone just get along and be friends. I'll dispense with all these petty quarrels and start by renouncing all my own power.
This is sort of like the wimpy nerd coming up to a motorcycle gang and explaining his philosophy to them. Ok, that’s a very exaggerated image but it gets the point across. At first, Obama's listeners are puzzled. Why would the leader of the world’s greatest superpower talk like this? Perhaps it is a trick.
But then the reactions among foreign leaders and countries to Obama's policy can be divided into three groups:
Foes are not won over. On the contrary, the world's dictators and radical ideologies which are America's enenies conclude that some strange compulsion has paralyzed America so why not take advantage of it?
Dependents are frightened. If this man refuses to be strong or act tough who will protect me? I must give my lunch money to the bullies or somehow ingratiate myself with them or just defend myself as best I can.
Lazy friends are pleased. We love this man because either he won't demand that we do anything or if he does we can ignore him without consequences. But even some of them are starting to become concerned, like Britain, France, and Germany who want more action regarding Iran's nuclear program.
What Obama calls “schoolyard taunts” are what diplomatists for centuries have called power politics, leverage, containment, credibility, and so on.
Regarding security against terrorism, Obama speaks of “substantial investments,” “disrupted plots,” and filling “unacceptable gaps.” Never being able to resist some schoolyard taunts at Bush, he adds that he has captured more al-Qaida fighters than his predecessor. No problem, he says, everything is under control and don't worry about it.
Yet people still are worried—and with good reason. After all, Obama was also saying everything was fine before the "underpants" bomber came along. His bomb didn't destroy the aircraft but it did blow up confidence in Obama's counterterrorist strategy. There is no mention of his treating terrorism as a criminal problem, nor of his very narrow focus on al-Qaida as the only terrorist group of concern, nor of his plan to try captured terrorists at courts in the United States, nor of how terrorists he has released have returned to the battle. If he ignores all the concerns people have, no wonder he can say there is no problem.
Obama continues, “We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.” Has Obama strengthened partnerships? Well, if he means alliances that is truly doubtful. Leaving aside the question of his personal popularity in polls I cannot think of a single country whose material relations are stronger. Nominally, of course, Western Europe greatly prefers Obama to Bush. But has this led to any actual results in practical terms? Again, no.
He claims success in Afghanistan, preparing the army there so he can bring the troops home starting in July 2011. Curiously, there’s no mention of his own smaller version of a surge. U.S. combat troops in Iraq will all be out in August of this year. These are good steps and probably will be very popular at home.
Yet there is also that flash of utopian naiveté, a refusal to face up to the cost of doing so which bodes ill for the future: “We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans – men and women alike. “ Yeah, sure. And as with the misleading claim about his successes against al-Qaida, there is that fascinating Obama inability to resist the temptation to tell easily exposed lies, claiming that other countries have increased their commitments in Afghanistan when in fact they refused his request to do so.
One of the most remarkable elements is something not in the speech. The word “Israel” is not even mentioned. There is no commitment to its security expressed and nothing about the peace process. This is revealing in two ways.
First, Obama has admitted that he made a mistake on the issue, the only foreign policy mistake he has ever mentioned. His response now is to ignore the issue altogether, not in his government's daily activities but in terms of his main commitments. Remember that type of response for it might come to characterize other issues. For example, suppose Obama fails—as he clearly will—to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Will he then turn away from that problem as well, banishing it from his agenda?
Second, everyone knows that Obama’s commitment to Israel has been widely questioned. A good politician would go out of his way to say something to show—truly or falsely—how much he does care about it. That isn’t how Obama works. He is not the kind of president to whom other countries can turn to for a feeling of security and support. And that sense of worry is applying now to many other countries in Latin America, Central Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and elsewhere who know that they cannot rely on the president of the United States to protect them against their enemies.
If Obama were to be honest--and effective--he would admit that Israel did almost completely what he asked while the Palestinian Authority (PA) defied him. Israel froze all the construction on the West Bank (it has never defined east Jerusalem in that way) and expressed willingness to go to talks with the PA. The PA has refused to negotiate for five months after Obama asked it to do so. Yet for Obama to pressure the PA to go to the table--the normal route in such situations--is unthinkable for him. So he has no way out of his failure. And Israel's "reward" for its major concession? Not even to be acknowledged in Obama's main annual speech for the first time, I presume, in decades.
In contrast, what Obama is fond of, and spends more time—practically twice as much--on then any other foreign policy issue at all, is his vision of world nuclear disarmament. Even his treatment of the Iran issue comes in this context. Obama—and this is another weakness of his—gets lost when he thinks of something he feels is terribly clever. In this case, believing he can best deter Iran and North Korea by saying the United States should also give up its nuclear weapons.
Does anyone in the world take this seriously?
To hear him say it, America’s enemies are trembling:
“These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.”
In a sense, all he had to offer was a schoolyard taunt: You'll be sorry! After so many previous such statements, this comes across as a very empty threat indeed. A different kind of president would have used the State of the Union speech--the timing of it would have been perfect--as a platform to announce that America was switching gears from failed engagement to tough sanctions. The members in both parties would have roared approval. He would have a mandate and the message would have been clearly heard in Tehran. But such an approach would never have occurred to Obama.
And that's why America's enemies aren’t trembling but laughing and sneering.
This is the speech of a man who is arrogantly convinced of his own brilliance and who basically believes that no one has a right to criticize him. He thinks that he can ignore or rewrite the rules of international affairs. It reveals both a temperament and a set of ideas totally unsuited for dealing with the world as it is.
What I find most fascinating of all about Obama is that despite all the externals—his early personal history and skin color most obviously—used by himself and others to boast that he understands other peoples, Obama is altogether incapable of grasping that others in the world think and act differently from himself.
That’s partly due to his ideology but also to his mistaken belief—ignoring the fact that he is a Hawaii-raised, Harvard-educated member of a very insulated elite whose life has been largely one of uninterrupted rewards mostly showered onto him as gifts--that they are just like he is.
May he, and we all, be very lucky in the next few years.
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), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan)
Keeping Zionism's promise
CAROLINE GLICK
29/01/2010
"Never again!”
So declared Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as he spoke at Auschwitz-Birkenau on Wednesday, the 65th anniversary of its liberation.
Netanyahu used his speech at the notorious death camp to nudge what he referred to as “the enlightened nations of the world” to recognize that “murderous evil” has to be stopped as early as possible to prevent it from achieving its aims. Unfortunately, the events of the past week show clearly that evil is on the march, and “the enlightened nations of the world” are on a coffee break from enlightenment. As Netanyahu addressed the world from the site of the most prolific genocide factory in human history, at the place where over a million Jews were gassed, starved, beaten, raped, frozen, shot and hanged and then burned in ovens, Iran’s leaders were declaring loudly that they intend to finish what the Nazis started. They will destroy the Jewish people.
Iran’s dictator supremo Ali Khamenei used a photo-op with Mauritania’s President Mohammed Ould Abdel Aziz – who cut his own country’s diplomatic ties with Israel last January – to renew his pledge to commit yet another Holocaust. As he put it, “Surely, the day will come when the nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionist regime... When the destruction happens will depend on how the Islamic nations approach the issue.”
And as he spoke, the ability of “the enlightened nations of the world” to deny that the Iranian regime is building a nuclear arsenal was finally and utterly wiped away. On Monday, Germany’s Der Speigel reported that evidence gleaned from document intercepts and from the testimony of two senior Iranian defectors who were involved in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran’s nuclear program is not a peaceful one. The Iranians are designing and building nuclear warheads for their Shihab-3 ballistic missiles. According to a summary of the findings now circulating through the halls of power, Teheran will have the wherewithal to build nuclear warheads by 2012.
So the Der Spiegel report showed that Iran is developing the capacity to carry out a second Holocaust in under a hundred years. And yet, in the face of their sure knowledge that evil is on the march, as they did 70 years ago, the “enlightened nations” of Europe are siding with evil against its would-be victims.
On a popular level, as Sunday’s release of the Jewish Agency’s annual report on global anti-Semitism documented, there were more anti-Semitic attacks in Europe in 2009 than there had been in any single year since the Holocaust. The report stated that the attacks were carried out by Jew-haters on both the Left and the Right.
Europe’s anti-Semites wasted no time in proving the report was accurate. On Monday, Polish Catholic Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek said that Jews have “expropriated” the Holocaust as “a propaganda weapon.” Jews, he claimed, “enjoy good press because they have powerful financial means behind them, enormous power and the unconditional backing of the United States, and this favors a certain arrogance that I find unbearable.”
Then we have the political alliance of leftist anti-Semites with Muslim anti-Semites. Together they not only attack Jews, they provide political cover for expanding those attacks by rejecting Israel’s right to exist and justifying violent attacks against Jews outside Israel as the logical outcome of their politically correct anger at Israel for refusing to destroy itself. Case in point is Ilmar Reepalu, the mayor of Malmo, Sweden.
Malmo is one of the most dangerous places for Jews in Europe. The city’s small Jewish population is fleeing. The situation in Malmo was graphically demonstrated last March when Israel’s tennis stars Amir Haddad and Andy Ram faced off against Swedish rivals at a Davis Cup tie in Malmo and Swedish authorities closed their game to the public. Malmo’s Muslim residents and their post-Christian partners on the Left threatened to attack them. Malmo’s authorities didn’t think it was their responsibility to protect their Israeli guests. So Haddad and Ram were forced to play in an empty stadium.
Interviewed in a local paper this week about the rise of anti-Semitic attacks in his city, Reepalu blamed Israel. In his view, the violence against Jews in Malmo by the far Left and Muslims, “spilled over from Gaza.”
By his lights the Jewish national liberation movement is just as bad as the Jewish annihilation movement. As he put it, “We accept neither Zionism nor anti-Semitism. They are extremes that place themselves above other groups they think are less important.”
Reepalu then blamed Malmo’s Jews for their victimization by his fellow leftists and his Muslim comrades. As far as he is concerned, the Jews brought the violence on themselves last March when they responded to Haddad and Ram’s treatment by holding a demonstration supporting Israel. In his view, Malmo’s Jews need to separate themselves away from Israel, not support it.
Since the Holocaust, old-style right-wing anti-Semites in Europe have had a hard time getting political traction for their desire to see Jews suffer. But by conflating Jews with Israel, their colleagues on the Left have made sticking it to the Jews, our state and our supporters the easiest way to score political points. So it was that in her first speech as the EU’s new foreign policy chief, Britain’s Catherine Ashton went out of her way to condemn Israel for building in Jerusalem, closing its border with Hamas-controlled Gaza and defending itself from Palestinian terrorists in Judea and Samaria.
AS FOR Israel’s friends, they are hounded, driven out of Europe and where possible placed on trial. Dutch MP Geert Wilders, the head of the Netherland’s Freedom Party, is one of Israel’s greatest supporters in Europe. Today Wilders is on trial for publicly criticizing what he views as the endemic anti-Semitism of the Koran.
Against the backdrop of the persistence of right-wing Jew hatred, and the politically ascendant Red-Green alliance of anti-Semites, it makes sense that Europe will not raise a finger to prevent another Holocaust.
And so, not surprisingly, in the wake of the Der Spiegel report, the EU’s foreign ministers got together and decided not to support any new sanctions against Iran – unless they are passed by the UN Security Council. Since Europe’s foreign ministers all know full well the Security Council will not pass sanctions against Iran because China has announced that it will veto any sanctions against Iran, this week the EU’s foreign ministers got together and essentially said they’re okay with another Holocaust.
With Europe out, and with “enlightened” Asian, African and South American countries never really in the game, the only “enlightened” country that might be expected to stop murderous evil before it can carry out its aims is the United States. But unfortunately, like the Europeans, the Americans don’t feel like being responsible. President Barack Obama, his administration and many of his fellow Democrats would rather take on Israel.
This week 54 Democratic members of Congress wrote Obama a letter asking him to apply pressure on Israel to remove its restrictions on the import of goods – including dual use goods like construction materials – to Hamas-controlled Gaza. Never mind that under US law it is legally problematic to provide any aid, (including the $300 million Obama has pledged) to Gaza in light of the fact that it is controlled by a terrorist organization.
For its part, the administration apparently believes that there is no reason to seek the overthrow of Hamas simply because the US is required by US law and binding UN Security Council resolutions to do so. The US Treasury Department has reportedly just removed all but one Hamas official from its list of known terrorists and so paved the way for Hamas to receive funding from Europe.
As for Israel, during his trip here this week, Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell came up with a revolutionary new idea. In the face of Palestinian intransigence, Mitchell introduced the earthshaking concept of pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians.
This week Mitchell asked Israel to stop all of its counterterror operations in Judea and Samaria, and allow Palestinian forces to operate not only in the Palestinian areas, but in predominantly Israeli areas as well. Specifically, Mitchell asked Israel to allow Palestinian forces to deploy in what the arguably defunct Oslo agreements refer to as Area C, where the Palestinian Authority has no security authority whatsoever.
When it comes to Iran, the Obama administration behaves as though the jury is still out on whether the mullahs are even seeking nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last Thursday that Iran might face some tough statements from the world if it continues to refuse to be appeased by the Obama White House, although she couldn’t say whether any actual steps would be taken to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which she wouldn’t acknowledge the mullahs are developing.
And in his State of the Union address on Wednesday, Obama himself made clear that the US will do nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As far as Obama is concerned, the nuclear arsenal in most urgent need of evisceration is the US’s nuclear arsenal.
ALL OF this just goes to show that at the end of the day, now when the chips are down, there is only one “enlightened” nation in the world that may actually do something to prevent the advance of murderous evil. And Israel unfortunately is of two minds on the issue.
On the one hand, we have Netanyahu, who is clearly focused on preventing another Holocaust of Jewry. But on the other hand, we have Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who on Tuesday claimed that the absence of peace with the Palestinians – not Iran – is the greatest threat that Israel faces today. As he put it, “The lack of defined boundaries within Israel, and not an Iranian bomb, is the greatest threat to our future.”
Barak’s outrageous pronouncement is a succinct encapsulation of the great aspiration of the Israeli Left. If he could only be right, then Israel would be able to singlehandedly solve all the problems of the region and be immediately adored by the likes of the EU and the Obama administration just by making itself smaller.
So with the scourge of moral and strategic blindness rampant not only in Europe and America, but within his own government, Netanyahu rapidly approaches his moment of truth.
In what will undoubtedly be the most fateful decision of his life, he will have to decide whether Iran will become a nuclear power, or whether Israel, standing alone, will prevent it from becoming a nuclear power.
Was his declaration of “Never Again,” at Auschwitz just the bloviating of yet another “enlightened” leader who lacks the courage of his convictions? Or was it a solemn vow that Zionism’s promise will be kept?
.
29/01/2010
"Never again!”
So declared Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as he spoke at Auschwitz-Birkenau on Wednesday, the 65th anniversary of its liberation.
Netanyahu used his speech at the notorious death camp to nudge what he referred to as “the enlightened nations of the world” to recognize that “murderous evil” has to be stopped as early as possible to prevent it from achieving its aims. Unfortunately, the events of the past week show clearly that evil is on the march, and “the enlightened nations of the world” are on a coffee break from enlightenment. As Netanyahu addressed the world from the site of the most prolific genocide factory in human history, at the place where over a million Jews were gassed, starved, beaten, raped, frozen, shot and hanged and then burned in ovens, Iran’s leaders were declaring loudly that they intend to finish what the Nazis started. They will destroy the Jewish people.
Iran’s dictator supremo Ali Khamenei used a photo-op with Mauritania’s President Mohammed Ould Abdel Aziz – who cut his own country’s diplomatic ties with Israel last January – to renew his pledge to commit yet another Holocaust. As he put it, “Surely, the day will come when the nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionist regime... When the destruction happens will depend on how the Islamic nations approach the issue.”
And as he spoke, the ability of “the enlightened nations of the world” to deny that the Iranian regime is building a nuclear arsenal was finally and utterly wiped away. On Monday, Germany’s Der Speigel reported that evidence gleaned from document intercepts and from the testimony of two senior Iranian defectors who were involved in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran’s nuclear program is not a peaceful one. The Iranians are designing and building nuclear warheads for their Shihab-3 ballistic missiles. According to a summary of the findings now circulating through the halls of power, Teheran will have the wherewithal to build nuclear warheads by 2012.
So the Der Spiegel report showed that Iran is developing the capacity to carry out a second Holocaust in under a hundred years. And yet, in the face of their sure knowledge that evil is on the march, as they did 70 years ago, the “enlightened nations” of Europe are siding with evil against its would-be victims.
On a popular level, as Sunday’s release of the Jewish Agency’s annual report on global anti-Semitism documented, there were more anti-Semitic attacks in Europe in 2009 than there had been in any single year since the Holocaust. The report stated that the attacks were carried out by Jew-haters on both the Left and the Right.
Europe’s anti-Semites wasted no time in proving the report was accurate. On Monday, Polish Catholic Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek said that Jews have “expropriated” the Holocaust as “a propaganda weapon.” Jews, he claimed, “enjoy good press because they have powerful financial means behind them, enormous power and the unconditional backing of the United States, and this favors a certain arrogance that I find unbearable.”
Then we have the political alliance of leftist anti-Semites with Muslim anti-Semites. Together they not only attack Jews, they provide political cover for expanding those attacks by rejecting Israel’s right to exist and justifying violent attacks against Jews outside Israel as the logical outcome of their politically correct anger at Israel for refusing to destroy itself. Case in point is Ilmar Reepalu, the mayor of Malmo, Sweden.
Malmo is one of the most dangerous places for Jews in Europe. The city’s small Jewish population is fleeing. The situation in Malmo was graphically demonstrated last March when Israel’s tennis stars Amir Haddad and Andy Ram faced off against Swedish rivals at a Davis Cup tie in Malmo and Swedish authorities closed their game to the public. Malmo’s Muslim residents and their post-Christian partners on the Left threatened to attack them. Malmo’s authorities didn’t think it was their responsibility to protect their Israeli guests. So Haddad and Ram were forced to play in an empty stadium.
Interviewed in a local paper this week about the rise of anti-Semitic attacks in his city, Reepalu blamed Israel. In his view, the violence against Jews in Malmo by the far Left and Muslims, “spilled over from Gaza.”
By his lights the Jewish national liberation movement is just as bad as the Jewish annihilation movement. As he put it, “We accept neither Zionism nor anti-Semitism. They are extremes that place themselves above other groups they think are less important.”
Reepalu then blamed Malmo’s Jews for their victimization by his fellow leftists and his Muslim comrades. As far as he is concerned, the Jews brought the violence on themselves last March when they responded to Haddad and Ram’s treatment by holding a demonstration supporting Israel. In his view, Malmo’s Jews need to separate themselves away from Israel, not support it.
Since the Holocaust, old-style right-wing anti-Semites in Europe have had a hard time getting political traction for their desire to see Jews suffer. But by conflating Jews with Israel, their colleagues on the Left have made sticking it to the Jews, our state and our supporters the easiest way to score political points. So it was that in her first speech as the EU’s new foreign policy chief, Britain’s Catherine Ashton went out of her way to condemn Israel for building in Jerusalem, closing its border with Hamas-controlled Gaza and defending itself from Palestinian terrorists in Judea and Samaria.
AS FOR Israel’s friends, they are hounded, driven out of Europe and where possible placed on trial. Dutch MP Geert Wilders, the head of the Netherland’s Freedom Party, is one of Israel’s greatest supporters in Europe. Today Wilders is on trial for publicly criticizing what he views as the endemic anti-Semitism of the Koran.
Against the backdrop of the persistence of right-wing Jew hatred, and the politically ascendant Red-Green alliance of anti-Semites, it makes sense that Europe will not raise a finger to prevent another Holocaust.
And so, not surprisingly, in the wake of the Der Spiegel report, the EU’s foreign ministers got together and decided not to support any new sanctions against Iran – unless they are passed by the UN Security Council. Since Europe’s foreign ministers all know full well the Security Council will not pass sanctions against Iran because China has announced that it will veto any sanctions against Iran, this week the EU’s foreign ministers got together and essentially said they’re okay with another Holocaust.
With Europe out, and with “enlightened” Asian, African and South American countries never really in the game, the only “enlightened” country that might be expected to stop murderous evil before it can carry out its aims is the United States. But unfortunately, like the Europeans, the Americans don’t feel like being responsible. President Barack Obama, his administration and many of his fellow Democrats would rather take on Israel.
This week 54 Democratic members of Congress wrote Obama a letter asking him to apply pressure on Israel to remove its restrictions on the import of goods – including dual use goods like construction materials – to Hamas-controlled Gaza. Never mind that under US law it is legally problematic to provide any aid, (including the $300 million Obama has pledged) to Gaza in light of the fact that it is controlled by a terrorist organization.
For its part, the administration apparently believes that there is no reason to seek the overthrow of Hamas simply because the US is required by US law and binding UN Security Council resolutions to do so. The US Treasury Department has reportedly just removed all but one Hamas official from its list of known terrorists and so paved the way for Hamas to receive funding from Europe.
As for Israel, during his trip here this week, Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell came up with a revolutionary new idea. In the face of Palestinian intransigence, Mitchell introduced the earthshaking concept of pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians.
This week Mitchell asked Israel to stop all of its counterterror operations in Judea and Samaria, and allow Palestinian forces to operate not only in the Palestinian areas, but in predominantly Israeli areas as well. Specifically, Mitchell asked Israel to allow Palestinian forces to deploy in what the arguably defunct Oslo agreements refer to as Area C, where the Palestinian Authority has no security authority whatsoever.
When it comes to Iran, the Obama administration behaves as though the jury is still out on whether the mullahs are even seeking nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last Thursday that Iran might face some tough statements from the world if it continues to refuse to be appeased by the Obama White House, although she couldn’t say whether any actual steps would be taken to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which she wouldn’t acknowledge the mullahs are developing.
And in his State of the Union address on Wednesday, Obama himself made clear that the US will do nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As far as Obama is concerned, the nuclear arsenal in most urgent need of evisceration is the US’s nuclear arsenal.
ALL OF this just goes to show that at the end of the day, now when the chips are down, there is only one “enlightened” nation in the world that may actually do something to prevent the advance of murderous evil. And Israel unfortunately is of two minds on the issue.
On the one hand, we have Netanyahu, who is clearly focused on preventing another Holocaust of Jewry. But on the other hand, we have Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who on Tuesday claimed that the absence of peace with the Palestinians – not Iran – is the greatest threat that Israel faces today. As he put it, “The lack of defined boundaries within Israel, and not an Iranian bomb, is the greatest threat to our future.”
Barak’s outrageous pronouncement is a succinct encapsulation of the great aspiration of the Israeli Left. If he could only be right, then Israel would be able to singlehandedly solve all the problems of the region and be immediately adored by the likes of the EU and the Obama administration just by making itself smaller.
So with the scourge of moral and strategic blindness rampant not only in Europe and America, but within his own government, Netanyahu rapidly approaches his moment of truth.
In what will undoubtedly be the most fateful decision of his life, he will have to decide whether Iran will become a nuclear power, or whether Israel, standing alone, will prevent it from becoming a nuclear power.
Was his declaration of “Never Again,” at Auschwitz just the bloviating of yet another “enlightened” leader who lacks the courage of his convictions? Or was it a solemn vow that Zionism’s promise will be kept?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)