Always said victimhood paid. Now we have the figures!

GW's speech Wednesday is the last straw, so to speak. There is little the Democrats can or will do, other than grumble, but if his new strategy does not begin to bring results he will eventually be forced to retreat. The WSJ lead editorial tried to put the matter in perspective today and also published a different view in an op ed piece written by the former Sec. of The Army and a Johns Hopkins Professor entitled "OUR ONLY HOPE.".

If PM Maliki gets tough with Cleric Sadr, highly problematical, that would go a long way towards helping GW to ultimately accomplish his goal of a liberated and less conflictual sectarian Iraq society. I argued a year ago that Sadr should have been arrested and tried for treasonous activities. Face him then or face him later but in the end he must be faced. The same is true for Iran and Syria.

There are some issues you cannot duck and doing so prolongs problems. Furthermore, it serves to weaken your position when you eventually have to face them. The adage about putting off today etc. comes to mind.

Shin Bet has published a report which states 14% of the suicide bombers had been granted Israeli citizenship. That would be the equivalent of about 42 million Americans - equal to the population of about half the entire southern states (See 1 below.)

I have stated for years, victim hood pays well. We now have some new statistics. The U.S. taxpayer has been taken for another ride. (See 2 below.)

If and when the next war begins from Gaza and the West Bank, Israel might be facing Katyushas instead of Qassams. (Seee 3 below.)

Many many years ago Upton Sinclair wrote about the Chicago Stockyards and the outrageous employment of under age youth and the terrible working conditions. Has WalMart replaced the Chcago Stockyards? To hear some politicians you would think so. But a new poll reveals railing against WMT does not have the same political sting.

I do not understand why we love to attack the successful in this country simply because they are successful. No doubt any successful company makes mistakes and engages in some abuses but the vindictiveness against WalMart is beyond logic. It is pure populism. WMT benefits their customers by offering good products and service at a low cost. When they open a new store people line up for blocks seeking employment.

It would seem politicians would be wiser to pick another fight based on polling but then politicians are often tone deaf or maybe I am missing something.(See 4 below.)

In the interest of objectivity I own 582 shares.

Dick



1) Shin Bet: 14 percent of suicide bombers had Israeli citizenship
By Gideon Alon

38 of the 272 suicide bombings in Israel (roughly 14 percent) were carried out by terrorists that had received Israeli citizenship in the context of family reunification, a Shin Bet official told the Knesset Internal Affairs and Environment Committee on Monday.

The committee met Monday in order to discuss the extension of a temporary law that prevents family reunification between Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli Arabs due to security reasons.

The Shin Bet official said the figures show it is imperative that the government extend the temporary law, which will expire January 16.

Deputy Attorney General Mike Blass also said it is absolutely necessary to extend the law, because security threats have not decreased. Justice Ministry attorney Yochi Gansin said there has been an increase in the involvement of women in terrorist attacks, including married women, widows, and educated women.

Nearly all of the MKs who participated in the deliberations were harshly critical of calls to extend the temporary law. The committee's chairman, Labor MK Raleb Majadele, demand the committee be presented with statistics on the involvement in terror of Palestinians who received entry permits, and not just those who received citizenship as a result of family unification.

Meretz Chairman Yossi Beilin called the law "a terrible law, a draconian law that has no place in the book of laws," while Hadash MK Dov Khenin said: "It is a bad law that harms human and civil rights."

Ra'am-Ta'al MK Ahmed Tibi said the "rationale behind the law is not security but demographics."

Attorney Oded Peler from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said the association opposes extending the law, saying it constitutes collective punishment, blatantly violates individuals' constitutional rights to personal freedom, dignity, equality, and privacy, and harms family life.

This is the fourth time the Knesset has been asked to extend the temporary law.

In the summer of 2005, the law was amended allow Palestinian males over the age of 35, and women over the age of 25, to begin the family reunification process. In addition, the amendments expanded the army's authority to grant entry permits for periods over six months for the purpose of medical treatment.

In May, an expanded High Court of Justice panel approved the temporary law in a 6-5 vote. The court determined, however, that arrangements must be put into place in order to put greater emphasis on humanitarian concerns.

Among the dissenting votes was former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak, who argued that the "worthwhile objective of increasing security does not sanctify serious harm to the lives of thousands of Israeli citizens."

The new version of the law will change the response to humanitarian exceptions. For instance, the interior minister will determine the maximum annual quota of individuals that will receive entry permits for humanitarian reasons on the basis of a professional committee's recommendation.

In such cases, the Palestinian individuals in question may be granted not only entry permits, but also may be given temporary resident status, which will allow them to work legally.

The new version of the law would also grant the interior minister the authority to reject any citizenship request filed by residents of Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon.

2)What Did the Palestinians Do with Their "Marshall Plan"?[Squandered millions]
by Ben-Dror Yamini
The Palestinians have bought themselves a place of honor on the list of
unfortunates in the world. A well-oiled public relations campaign has turned
them into a nation of victims. Misery pays. One of the countries hated by
the Palestinians the most, the United States, has since 1993 helped them
more than any other nation in the world, according to World Bank figures.
From 1994 to 2004, the U.S. provided the Palestinians with $1.3 billion, the
EU $1.1 billion, and Japan $530 million. In addition to direct aid, the U.S.
is also the largest contributor to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian
refugees.

In 1992, the Palestinian per capita GDP was $2,683 per person. If there had
not been terror, the Palestinian economy could have grown during the 1990s
into one of the leaders in the Middle East. The money was used for three
major purposes: perpetuation of the refugees as victims, purchase of weapons
and explosives, and corruption. Opportunities to achieve independence and
prosperity were rejected for the ultimate goal: the removal of Israel from
the map.

In relation to their numbers, the Palestinians have received more aid than
provided by the Marshall Plan after World War II. Since the Oslo agreements,
the Palestinians in the territories have received $5.5 billion, or $1,300
per person. By comparison, in the Marshall plan, each European enjoyed only
$273 (in today's numbers). Above all, the guilt lies with those who gave
these huge sums without having the Palestinians undergo a period of recovery
from their futile dreams of the destruction of Israel. The result is,
primarily, the continued destruction of Palestinian society.

3) Palestinian terror cells seek to acquire Katyusha technology
By YAAKOV KATZ

A number Palestinian terror cell members have recently left the Gaza Strip and traveled abroad to learn how to manufacture and effectively launch short-range Katyusha rockets, high-ranking defense officials told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.

According to the officials, the new rockets, with an estimated range of over 35 kilometers, could reach the southern cities of Kiryat Gat, Netivot and Ofakim.

A senior IDF officer said the terrorists who traveled abroad were those responsible for the development and firing of Kassam rockets at the western Negev. The terrorists have decided, the officer said, to begin using Katyusha rockets against Israel, since the Kassam has exhausted itself technologically.

"The Kassam cannot be further upgraded, and the Palestinians need a new weapon," the officer said. "The cells have traveled abroad to learn about the Katyusha rocket and how to manufacture it back in the Gaza Strip."

While the officer refrained from revealing the cell members' destination, Hamas terrorists have been known to travel to Lebanon and Iran for training with Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

While the Kassam has been the IDF's current and immediate focus, a high-ranking defense official said Monday that it was necessary to begin preparing for the possibility that the Palestinian terror organizations in the Gaza Strip would also soon obtain rockets with even longer ranges than that of the Katyusha.

Palestinian terrorists in Gaza are also known to have a small quantity of old Soviet-era Grad-type Katyusha rockets, some of which have been fired at Israel - although without reaching their maximum range of close to 30 kilometers. During the war in Lebanon, close to 4,000 rockets - mostly short-range Katyushas - landed in northern Israel.

As a result of the new intelligence, the Home Front Command has stopped formulating protection and defense plans based on the Kassam threat, and has updated all of its databases and now runs simulations and tests protective measures against the larger Katyusha rocket.

In May, the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for a Katyusha rocket attack on the Gaza-belt community of Netiv Ha'asara.

Unlike the homemade, short-range Kassam rockets frequently launched at Israel, Islamic Jihad said the Grad version of the Katyusha was 2.8 meters long, weighed 66 kilograms and had a caliber of 122 mm. It carried a 17-kilogram warhead, the group said, and had a range of 18 to 30 kilometers.

4) Poll: Critique of Wal-Mart is a Political Loser
By Peter Brown

Democratic presidential candidates who attack Wal-Mart due to concerns about the ill effects of globalization, the firm's business practices and its pay for workers are hurting their own election prospects.

That's the message from new polls in Ohio and Florida, the two most important swing states in presidential elections.

Simply put, the poll results raise this question: Why have Democrats chosen to highlight their opposition to the nation's largest employer.

Three-in-four voters say attacks by politicians on Wal-Mart won't affect their voting behavior. But among those who say it will, those people are much more likely to vote against a candidate who skewers Wal-Mart than they are to vote for him.

Quinnipiac University polls of more than 1,000 voters in each of those states last month found that Wal-Mart is viewed very favorably by the electorate, and especially by independent voters who generally decide close elections.

A plurality of voters also believes that Democrats who attack Wal-Mart are doing so to curry favor with organized labor, which is unhappy with the firm because its stores are non-union.

Even self-identified Democrats say their local communities are better off for having a Wal-Mart in their area, although in Ohio, union families are more likely to have mixed feelings about the company.

Many Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, have not just been critical of the nation's largest retailer, but used it as a campaign prop.

Bashing Wal-Mart has become almost a stock part of their rhetoric, arguing that the company doesn't treat its workers well, and hurts communities because a side effect of offering its low prices is driving down wages.

To determine the effectiveness of that message, the independent Quinnipiac Poll asked voters in Ohio and Florida whether anyone in their household had shopped in a Wal-Mart in the past year.

In Florida, 91 percent answered affirmatively; in Ohio 86 percent.

But not only do these voters shop there, they overwhelmingly see the company as a positive force in their community, and by a solid margin as a good thing for the country. The difference probably reflects a concern about the outsourcing of American jobs, since Wal-Mart imports a large percentage of its goods from overseas.

In Florida, by a 72-16 percent margin, voters think Wal-Mart has a positive rather than negative effect on their area. By a 61-25 percent margin, they feel that way about the firm's affect on the country. In Ohio, by 65-23 percent voters think it has been a positive force in their area, 52-37 percent for the country.

By a ratio of four-to-one, 56-14 percent, Floridians view Wal-Mart favorably. The figures for Florida Democrats aren't much different, 54-15 percent.

Ohioans see the firm favorably 44-24 percent, although in the roughly one in five Ohio households in which there is a union member, Wal-Mart is viewed negatively 40-31 percent. However, those union households believe by a 53-28 percent margin that Wal-Mart has been positive for their area.

In Ohio 77 percent, and in Florida 78 percent, say a candidate's attacks on Wal-Mart would not affect their voting behavior. But among those who say it matters, the view is decidedly negative about such candidates.

In Ohio, twice as many voters, 14 percent, said attacks against Wal-Mart make it less likely they would support such a candidate than the 7 percent who said it made them more likely. Among independents, that margin was 13 percent to 4 percent.

In Florida, 16 percent said they would be less likely to support such a candidate, compared to 4 percent who said they would be more likely to support him. Among independents, it was 18-4 percent.

Of course what a presidential candidate says about Wal-Mart doesn't rank high on voters' list of priorities, but it is interesting that Democrats, and not just those running for president, have decided to declare verbal warfare on the company.

At least on the surface, it does not seem to make political sense.