Feith, Obama, Rice, PC'ism and godlessness!

Kudos to George Carlin and his thoughts on aging. RIP - George (See 1 below.)

On the plane returning from Boston we were sitting several rows behind other passengers occupying Exit Rows. They were approached by US Air attendants and were told they would have to agree to read and familiarize themselves with the evacuation procedures and must speak English.

I cynically turned to my wife and said were I, PC and with the ACLU, I would yell and scream "profiling." Suppose these passengers did not speak English think how "put down" and humiliated they would feel as they had to leave their seats and sit somewhere else.

One day I believe someone will be so offended and bring such a suit. That's become the American Way. We have gone PC overboard in my view and it has brought Europe to the point of self destruction. We are following close behind.

I just read an article in the New York Times about the former Commandant at at West Point. The thrust of the article was how some former West Point graduates were complaining religion was forced upon them while they were there. The article also cited interviews of other cadets who said they were never intimidated and that the mention of God, at required "vesper" services, was more generic and they were urged, as future officers, to obey their God and their moral principles.

I went to a Military Prep School and every Sunday evening the president lectured us on what he thought was appropriate behaviour and what morals we should develop. He always invoked Christ's name in his prayers. It was, in today's mis-begotten world, as anti-democratic a setting as one could imagine. Well, I am now 75, still Jewish and I thought his talks were sort of old fashioned but I survived, never conjured up suing anyone or changing my religion and am probably better off for having been made to attend. Certainly the president of my school's comments were better than the tripe Obama said he never listened to while attending Rev Wright's racially biased theatricals.

The Far Left has just about killed God in our society and the intellectuals on our campus life and part of the growth in the Right Wing element of the Republican Party is a backlash to the attack on God and religion by The Far Left and their godless play mates in the press and media. Yet, religion now intrudes every facet of our society and has finally invaded, nay consumed, the political arena. Why? Because of intolerance from the left? You decide.

By mocking those of faith and casting aspersions on those who embrace their faith we have become a society of hypocrites and much poorer spiritually for it. We allow those who trample on our rights their vulgarities and "space" because we have gone overboard in our level of tolerance and adherence to vacuous PC'ism. For those who no longer believe we should adorn our currency with "In God We Trust" I can only say God help us.

The Move on Dot Org ad showing a whining mother telling the world she does not want her son to serve and castigating McCain, is, simply put, pathetic. We are at war with those seeking to destroy our freedom and way of life and the sooner we realize this the more realistic we shall be. Our safety continues to depend upon those patriotic and self-less enough to serve and protect us so we can pursue a life of godlessness.

The press and media have their own agenda and it is out of kilter with the norms and values I grew up with, still abide by and wish to retain and pass on to my grandchildren against all odds to the contrary. My value system has served me well and remains rooted in a clear understanding of what is meant to be a good and responsible citizen.

I reject the garbage edicts and failed policies from both The Left and The Right. We are in a dilemma not because of Iraq but because we trashed the value system that made us a great nation and replaced it with one that disparaged the concept of responsibility. We have bought into a free lunch anchorless world and it is little wonder we have arrived at where we are - spiritually, economically and socially.

Well here we are some 50 years later floating around in valueless idealistic PC'ism and about to possibly elect a man lacking any qualification except an ability to raise money, spout in an articulate and contrived manner empty phrases while he cloaks himself in an unchallenged message of false hope and "populist and divisive pap." Obama, in my book, is a vapid shallow fraud and, if elected, we will pay dearly for his inexperience, lack of economic footing and mysticism because of our own misplaced gullibility.

Though not ritualistically religious, I believe it would be a dull world if we did not believe in a higher being, force of nature or whatever. We are fast approaching the state where man Hedonistically worships himself and, thus, I suspect, we will continue down the path of a world made increasingly uglier as this sordid tendency takes root and sprouts.

Douglas Feith is a "neo-con" who wrote a fascinating book entitled: "War and Decision." In it, Feith tells of his experience as an Under Secretary of Defense and the time he served with Sec. Rumsfeld. Feith discusses, from his perspective, his own involvement in the peopled decisions that shaped the administration's rationale for going to war with Iraq and the roles of the various agencies etc.

Feith reminds the reader we went to war for reasons well beyond WMD. They were: Sadaam's brutal behaviour towards his own people, his defiance of 17 UN Resolutions, his repeated attacks on our fly-overs, his attack on Kuwait and his disregard of his commitments as a result of that war, his support of external terrorism and its threat to our own nation and our allies and his use of WMD against the Kurds and Iranians. The decision to attack Sadaam was not initially undertaken to install a democratic government but simply to liberate Iraq from a tyrant. According to Feith, Rumsfeld consistently counseled we should turn over governance to Iraqis as soon as possible even if factually premature. Rumsfeld met consistent resistance in this viewpoint from Powell, Armitage the CIA and eventually Brimmer.

Sec. Powell went before the UN and made a more narrowly based WMD argument which was taken as the basis for our going to war and in his address he made light mention of some of the many other factors.

Feith points out and cites speeches of a host of politicians on both sides of the aisle who supported and voted for going to war as well as many world leaders who based their views on the same flawed intelligence available to GW. Feith recounts instance after instance of the flawed nature of CIA intelligence pertaining to Iraq beyond the issue of WMD. In fact, the CIA was unable to provide meaningful help to Gen.Franks during his pre-war planning and even less after our active military phase ended. The CIA miscalculated how the vacuum of a Sadaam-less government would be filled, would the Baathists promote and sustain an insurgency, as they have, whether the Iraq military would remain intact, would the Iraq police stay on the job, would the Iraqis engage in guerilla-type fighting?

The CIA had established virtually no internal and reliable contacts and thus could not report on the nature of Iraq's infrastructure nor the background and views of the internal and externals who had the potential to become Iraqi leaders. Yet, the CIA consistently, along with State and The CIA, opposed most of the externals (exiled Iraqis living outside of Iraq) at every turn.

Throughout, Feith discusses the many variance between The State Department and The Defense Department; Powell, Armitage, The CIA's Tenet, Rice, various Pentagon generals, Brimmer and Rumsfeld among others.

Powell, Armitage and Tenet seldom presented written papers or voiced strong opposition at principle meetings. According to Feith, Rumsfeld consistently and openly expressed his thinking and generally in some written format. Rice, Feith writes, was more interested in presenting GW with a distilled "consensus" view that glossed over underlying differences. Feith writes, in doing so, Rice did not serve GW well because he then made decisions based on these inputs. Thus, GW was not aware or apprised of the underlying unresolved differences that actually existed.

Powell, Feith writes, never willingly embraced GW's decision to go to war yet never seemed to make his reticence aggressively known. After Powell's UN speech and our failure to find WMD, GW inarticulately allowed himself to be painted into a corner by the press, media and those who initially supported the war but then switched. Over time, GW also changed his own rhetoric from liberation to establishing a democracy. Feith submits establishing a democracy is not a legitimate basis for going to war and believes GW got off message to his detriment.

Once the war was won, in a military sense, GW's choice of Brimmer created further problems because Brimmer did not agree with Rumseld who did not believe we should turn the issue of governance over to the Iraqis as quickly as Rumsfeld wanted, urged and presented in various papers. Brimmer apparently dragged his feet and had to be bludgeoned to adhere to a shorter agreed upon period regarding our involvement in running the political affairs of Iraq.

There were also sharp differences over how to handle the Baathists. Should they be reconstituted into a governing force? The CIA and State did everything in their power to belittle and denigrate Ahmad Chalabi who sought to provide information that actually turned out would have been useful and accurate regarding the attitudes of the various Iraq factions etc.

Feith acknowledges Rumsfeld was abrasive, made enemies but he portrays Rumsfeld in a far better light than have the press or media. Rumsfeld invariably asked the right questions, was a stickler at demanding answers to them to the point of being a task master. Rumsfeld would probe and probe and probe. Feith writes, Rumsfeld often had keen insights into how the post war phase should have been handled. Sometimes Rumnsfeld's advice was taken by GW and sometimes not. Rumsfeld, however, deferred to his generals and seldom engaged in second guessing them when it came to their military decisions and actual tactics involving fighting.

The idea of going in "light" was something Rumsfeld and Frank settled on because of the demands a larger force would have required. Whether after the military victory we had sufficient force to carry out the post war phase is a matter for debate and really turns on so many other factors, ie. what Iraq forces would be retained and why they never were etc. Once again, Brimmer and Rumsfeld were at each other's throats because Brimmer understandably was reluctant to allow a force to be re-armed that our troops had just fought against etc.

Feith discusses the terrible impact Abu Ghraid had and that Rumsfeld twice offered his resignation over it and how it undercut so much of our effort.

Feith laments the resort to leaks and the fact that so often it was obvious Powell, Armitage and Rice would undercut Rumsfeld and eventually GW with their leaks. Feith concludes the president has the right to make policy and to expect honest support from all executive branch personnel. If they cannot adhere to their sworn loyalty and having had their chance to express their views and disagreements they should then resign.

Feith's book is obviously his version of the facts and before long we will get a cascading stream of other versions. We recently were treated to the lamentations of the former White House Press Secretary - Scott McClellan. Historians will eventually sort through the entanglements and we will, someday, be given a clearer picture of what went right and what went wrong. Until that time I recommend Feith's "War and Decision" to anyone seeking insight into the labyrinth of decision making processes that went into GW's decision to go to war in Iraq, the various agencies and individuals who were involved and how government must function and whether, when involved in something so intricate, it actually can do so effectively.

I came away buttressed in my view that we had every right to go to war. Sadaam was actively engaged in supporting a variety of terrorists that were a threat to ourselves and our friends. He actively financed terrorism against Israel, provided a safe haven for Abu al-Zarqawi, the principal foreign jihadist in Iraq as well as training sites for terrorists etc. Sadaam was in active pursuit of re-constituting his WMD program and it probably was only a matter of time before he would be in a position to provide terrorists with such.

Feith also re-affirmed my view that GW made serious personnel mistakes, tolerated far more insubordination of his program than any president should and GW's inability to overcome his own typecasting by his detractors did him in and still does to this day. Feith lays blame for some of the mistakes at GW's feet but also portrays the president as far less eager to go to war than the press, media and nay-Sayers would have us believe. In fact, GW tortured over the decision to go to war and was supported by a far larger number of nations but allowed those who wished, for their own internal reasons, to remain secretive thus, giving rise to claims of GW's unilateralism and lack of broad support.

Feith, like myself, believes premature withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster, tantamount to another tragic defeat with far greater consequences, would only serve the interests of our enemies and would make our word meaningless.

What I find more distressing is that we have equal justification for going after Iran's nuclear facilities. While the president has committed our youth to battle he knowingly fails to defend them against Iran's involvement in killing them. Iran has defied the UN, it has threatened Israel with extermination and it has brutalized its own people. Finally, Iran has been involved in a number of deadly attacks on our own citizens and has sponsored terrorism against our friends and allies.

Making matters even more ludicrous, yesterday, GW allowed N Korea to get off the hook once again. This nation has consistently lied and we have consistently caved.

Sec. Rice is correct. Diplomacy does work. Just not for us but N Korea. (See 2 below.)

We are no longer respected but for far different reasons than the press and media constantly highlight. Our word is meaningless, our threats are empty blustering and ring hollow. (See 3 below.)

The above cursory and surface review does not do justice to the quality and care of Feith's efforts to report accurately, in depth in a readable and balanced manner and thus I urge you read his book yourself.

Today's 5/4 decision upholding your Constitutional Right to protect yourself is further evidence why the election of a Far Left president and his appointment of equally Far Left Justices will result in further mindless drift away from the thought process and conclusive writings of those who founded our nation. In rapid succession The Court has allowed foreign terrorists the same legal rights as American citizens, denies the president the right to defend our nation and presupposes Justices have more responsibility than he does in military matters.

Meanwhile, Obama continues to waffle and pander to any group he appears before. Over time the messiah has morphed into just another "changing" politician - a chameleon who changes his colorful views and rhetoric to suit the moment and the audience.

As I thought, it has just been revealed Obama will help defray Hillary's debt. Money talks and Obama will certainly make good use of your tax dollars in paying off his various constituents but then Obama is no different than any other politician. We recently were given insight how the former Republican Speaker, Dennis Hastert, was given monetary advantages in a "sweetheart" condemnation property deal.

Out with Olmert before the 25th of September and in the process Netanyahu's own prospects are dimmed. (See 4 below.)

Meanwhile, Olmert is seeking a way to position himself to run again should he not be indicted and he also vows not to stab those who stabbed him - at least not for now. Also, some unflattering comments about Barak. (See 5 below.)

Peres appears boastful at IAF graduation ceremony. Were his comments intended to boost Israeli pride after war with Hezballah and Israel's defeat by Hamas or was it meant to spread fear in Iran and possibly put pressure on the Mullahs to rethink the impact of Ahmadinejad's own boastful ways? (See 6 below.)

The axe has not been buried according to Jonathan Tobin and if so in the backs of those who thought the issued of divestment had been allayed. (See 7 below.)

Caroline Glick sees just one more sell-out. Is it possible Olmert is starting a whirlwind negotiating ploy in hopes it will save his political skin? (See 8 below.)

Yes, this memo is a catch-up mouthful.



Dick


1)George Carlin's Views on Aging
>
> Do you realize that the only time in our lives when we like to get old is
> when we're kids? If you're less than 10 years old, you're so excited about
> aging that you think in fractions.
>
> 'How old are you?' 'I'm four and a half!' You're never thirty-six and a
> half. You're four and a half, going on five! That's the key
>
> You get into your teens, now they can't hold you back. You jump to the
> next number, or even a few ahead.
>
> 'How old are you?' 'I'm gonna be 16!' You could be 13, but hey, you're
> gonna be 16! And then the greatest day of your life .. . You become 21.
> Even the words sound like a ceremony . YOU BECOME 21. YESSSS!!!
>
> But then you turn 30. Oooohh, what happened there? Makes you sound like
> bad milk! He TURNED; we had to throw him out. There's no fun now, you're
> Just a sour-dumpling. What's wrong? What's changed?
>
> You BECOME 21, you TURN 30, then you're PUSHING 40. Whoa! Put on the
> brakes, it's all slipping away. Before you know it, you REACH 50 and your
> dreams are gone.
>
> But wait!!! You MAKE it to 60. You didn't think you would!
>
> So you BECOME 21, TURN 30, PUSH 40, REACH 50 and MAKE it to 60.
>
> You've built up so much speed that you HIT 70! After that it's a
> day-by-day thing; you HIT Wednesday!
>
> You get into your 80's and every day is a complete cycle; you HIT lunch;
> you TURN 4:30 ; you REACH bedtime. And it doesn't end there. Into the 90s,
> you start going backwards; 'I Was JUST 92.'
>
> Then a strange thing happens. If you make it over 100, you become a little
> kid again. 'I'm 100 and a half!'
> May you all make it to a healthy 100 and a half!!
>
> HOW TO STAY YOUNG
> 1. Throw out nonessential numbers. This includes age, weight and height.
> Let the doctors worry about them. That is why you pay 'them.'
>
> 2. Keep only cheerful friends. The grouches pull you down.
>
> 3. Keep learning. Learn more about the computer, crafts, gardening,
> whatever. Never let the brain idle. 'An idle mind is the devil's
> workshop.'And the devil's name is Alzheimer's.
>
> 4. Enjoy the simple things.
>
> 5. Laugh often, long and loud. Laugh until you gasp for breath.
>
> 6. The tears happen. Endure, grieve, and move on. The only person, who is
> with us our entire life, is ourselves. Be ALIVE while you are alive.
>
> 7. Surround yourself with what you love, whether it's family, pets,
> keepsakes, music, plants, hobbies, whatever. Your home is your refuge.
>
> 8. Cherish your health: If it is good, preserve it. If it is unstable,
> improve it. If it is beyond what you can improve, get help.
>
> 9. Don't take guilt trips. Take a trip to the mall, even to the next
> county; to a foreign country but NOT to where the guilt is.
>
> 10.Tell the people you love that you love them, at every opportunity.
>
> AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take,but by the moments
> that take our breath away.

2) Diplomacy Is Working on North Korea
By CONDOLEEZZA RICE


North Korea will soon make a declaration of its nuclear programs, facilities and materials. This is an important, if initial, step and we will demand that it be verifiable as complete and accurate.

Amidst all the focus on our diplomatic tactics, it is important to keep two broader points in mind. One, we are learning more about Pyongyang's nuclear efforts through the six-party framework than we otherwise would be. And two, this policy is our best option to achieve the strategic goal of verifiably eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons and programs.

North Korea now faces a clear choice about its future. If it chooses confrontation – violating international law, pursuing nuclear weapons, and threatening the region – it will face serious consequences not only from the United States, but also from Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, as it did in 2006 after testing a nuclear device.

If, however, North Korea chooses cooperation – by fulfilling its pledge from the September 2005 Joint Statement to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs" – a path is open for it to achieve the better and more secure relationship it says it wants with the international community. That includes the U.S. We have no permanent enemies.

Any effort to denuclearize the Korean peninsula must contend with the fact that North Korea is the most secretive and opaque regime on the planet. Our intelligence is far from complete. Despite these inherent limitations, consider what we have achieved and learned thus far through the six-party framework, and how much more could still be possible.

North Korea is now disabling its plutonium production facility at Yongbyon – not freezing it, as before, but disabling it for the purpose of abandonment. U.S. inspectors are monitoring this process on the ground.

In its declaration, North Korea will state how much plutonium it possesses. We will not accept that statement on faith. We will insist on verification. North Korea has already turned over nearly 19,000 pages of production records from its Yongbyon reactor and associated facilities. With additional information we expect to receive – access to other documents, relevant sites, key personnel and the reactor itself – these records will help to verify the accuracy and completeness of Pyongyang's declaration. North Korea's plutonium program has been by far its largest nuclear effort over many decades, and we believe our policy could verifiably get the regime out of the plutonium-making business.

Getting a handle on North Korea's uranium-enrichment program is harder, because we simply do not know its full scale or what it yielded. And yet, because of our current policy, we now know more about North Korea's uranium-enrichment efforts than before, and we are learning more still – much of it troubling. North Korea acknowledges our concerns about its uranium-enrichment program, and we will insist on getting to the bottom of this issue.

Similarly, we know that North Korea proliferated nuclear technology to Syria, but we do not know whether that is the end of the story. Rather than just trying to address this threat unilaterally, we will be more effective in learning about North Korean proliferation and preventing its continuation through a cooperative effort with Japan, South Korea, China and Russia.

And in return for these steps, what have we given thus far? No significant economic assistance. No trade or investment cooperation. No security guarantees or normalized relations. And our many sanctions on North Korea, both bilateral and multilateral, remain in place.

Because of its history of illicit activities, North Korea is still isolated from the international financial system, despite the fact that the matter of Banco Delta Asia was resolved and the money returned to North Korea. All we have given up is 134,000 tons of heavy fuel oil, which cannot be used in cars, or trucks, or tanks, or high-performance engines of any kind.

When North Korea makes its declaration, President Bush will lift the application of the Trading with the Enemies Act with respect to North Korea, and notify Congress that, in 45 days, he will remove North Korea from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. No other sanctions will be lifted without further North Korean actions.

North Korea now meets the statutory criteria for removal from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. However, nearly all restrictions that might be lifted by ceasing application of the Trading with the Enemies Act will remain in place under different U.S. laws and regulations. We and the other four parties will expect North Korea to cooperate with us in verifying the accuracy and completeness of its declaration. And if that cooperation is lacking, we will respond accordingly.

Considering North Korea's track record, verification is essential, but still it must be asked: What if North Korea cheats? The answer is simple: We will hold North Korea accountable. We will reimpose any applicable sanctions that we have waived – plus add new ones. And because North Korea would be violating an agreement not only with us, but also with all of its neighbors, those countries would take appropriate measures as well.

It may be the case that North Korea does not want to give up its nuclear weapons and programs. That is a real possibility. But we should test it, and the best way to do that is through the six-party framework. Is it right to proceed cautiously? Absolutely. But in the final calculation, do we think our current policy is better than the alternatives? Yes, we do. We believe that the six-party framework is the best way to learn more about the threat posed by this closed and opaque regime, and ultimately, together with partners, to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons and programs.



3)Analysis: Rice presses for a US diplomatic presence in Tehran

Washington sources, report that by the dramatic step of establishing a US interests section in Tehran, 27 years after relations were severed with the Revolutionary Republic, the Bush administration would hope to wash its hands of any Israeli plan to strike Iran’s nuclear sites this year.

Behind the step are US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and her former deputy Nicholas Burns; its disclosure to the American media attests to White House backing.

The step slots into the American presidential campaign by distancing President George W. Bush from conservative elements, whose thinking was encapsulated by Bill Kristol, of the Weekly Standard when he told Fox News Sunday, June 22: “If President Bush foresees the likelihood of an Obama election, he may decide to go ahead with such an attack. However, if the President thinks Sen. McCain will be the winner, he would leave the Iranian situation for President McCain to handle.” This view was endorsed by Daniel Pipes, a Middle East expert and member of the conservative Hoover Institution.

Democratic Barack Obama has increased his margin against the Republican John McCain by 15 percent.

Regarding the likelihood of an Israeli go-it-alone attack on Iran, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said in the same broadcast:

"I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I don’t think they will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it.”

The estimate of Israeli intelligence and military circles that the extension of Mossad director Meir Dagan’s tenure for another year up to the end of 2009 points to a probable Israeli military action against Iran this year before the Bush presidency runs out.

The unsolicited statement by Condoleezza Rice came next on Monday, June 23. On her way to a conference in Berlin of donors to the Palestinian Civil Police Force, she spoke of opening a US interests section in Tehran similar to the one maintained in Cuba. In so saying, she broke away sharply from the international drive led by the Bush administration to isolate Iran for refusing to give up uranium enrichment.

She said: “We do have the station in Dubai where [Iranians] can get visas, but we know that it's difficult for Iranians sometimes to get to Dubai. We want more Iranians visiting the United States. We are determined to find ways to reach out to the Iranian people."

Middle East peace negotiators, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni and Palestinian ex-prime minister Ahmed Qureia are attending the Berlin conference.

Since the 1979 siege of the US embassy in Tehran by revolutionary zealots, Washington has been represented in Tehran by the Swiss embassy. This arrangement has become untenable since Switzerland signed a bi gas deal with Iran, in breach US sanctions against the Islamic Republic.


4)Kadima to replace PM Ehud Olmert before Sept. 25, saves government

The deal with a Sept. 25 deadline for a Kadima primary effectively forestalled the Likud-led opposition Knesset dissolution vote Wednesday, June 25 and its support by Labor members, which would have brought the government down, political sources report.

The two ruling parties, Kadima and Labor, reached an eleventh hour agreement before dawn, June 25. It was signed by foreign affairs committee chairman Tzahi Hanegbi and Labor secretary Eitan Kabel. Ehud Olmert's Kadima faction undertook to convene next Monday to finalize a date for the primary to take place before September 25.

The two party leaders agreed to delay a general election until spring 2009 without setting a date. This will give Kadima’s candidate for prime minister six months’ grace in office.

The Kadima-Labor deal paved the way for a merger in time for them to run for election as a single, unified bloc.

The Labor leader, defense minister Ehud Barak, snatched victory from almost certain downfall for refusing to quit the Olmert government in the face of popular and party demands – first after the 2006 Lebanon War debacle, latterly over the cash envelopes scandal.

He has in fact pulled off a bloodless coup d’etat against the prime minister and maneuvered himself into front position should Labor and Kadima forge a union. Another survivor is the prime minister’s own Kadima party which would have gone under if Likud had forced the Knesset into dissolution Wednesday.

The leading Kadima prime ministerial candidates, both of whom are bound to retain Barak as defense minister, are foreign minister Tzipi Livni and transport minister Shaul Mofaz.

The prime movers behind this rescue operation were Kadima’s Tzahi Hanegbi and Labor’s Shalom Simhon, both seasoned political manipulators.

The two big losers are the prime minister - his own party has shown him the door - and his rival, opposition Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu, former and would-be prime minister. Likud MK Silvan Shalom’s initiative to overthrow Israel’s most unpopular government ever by means of a motion to dissolve the Knesset and force a general election was neatly outmaneuvered.

Likud too faces serious rethinking about the quality of its leadership. Shalom operated in the vacuum generated by Netanyahu’s failure to lead Likud in a fighting campaign against the government.

5) Olmert associates on Kadima-Labor deal: Barak ran away like battered dog
By Yossi Verter


The agreement between the prime minister and defense minister that prevented a vote this week on dissolving the Knesset and advanced primaries in the Kadima Party neither calmed tempers nor soothed the tense relations between Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak.

On Wednesday, after the fact, Olmert's associates claimed that Labor Party chairman Barak initiated the compromise because he feared Olmert would fire him immediately, and that today, Friday, "the sun will be in the meridian, and he'll be a civilian." Barak, the prime minister's confidants added, "ran away like a battered dog."

In conversations with several associates late this week, Olmert said he could work in concert with Barak, because of the serious issues on the agenda, and that he does not intend to settle scores with those who stabbed him in the back.

Olmert also said in those closed forums that he will not forget that while he was sitting with the French president and, the next day, with the Egyptian president, discussing the issues most critical things to Israel, several of his rivals were plotting against him.

In preparation for the primaries in Kadima, slated to wrap up by September 25, Olmert is considering proposing an amendment to the party's charter that would make it easier for him to run, should he decide to do so. The amendment he is reviewing would make the winner of the number-two slot deputy chair of Kadima. In the event that the party chair is forced to quit the position of prime minister, the deputy would automatically become party chair and Kadima would not have to hold another primary election.

What would this amendment mean for Olmert? He would essentially be saying to registered Kadima voters: I want to run, but I know my situation is problematic and I know that after I'm reelected, if I'm reelected, the State Prosecutor's Office might file an indictment against me - and then I'll have to resign. If that happens, you'll have nothing to worry about: The change of guard would be quick and clean, Kadima would not be harmed, it would not be caught unprepared.

On the other hand, Olmert would also be saying, If I don't run, and after a month or two the prosecution decides to close the case against me it won't be fair to me. Therefore sources close to Olmert believe the proposed amendment might solve the problem - both for Olmert, who hinted in a Knesset speech Wednesday that he will run, and for his party.

6) 'IAF only air force to hit 2 reactors'
By YAAKOV LAPPIN






Israel has carried out military strikes against two nuclear sites, President Shimon Peres boasted on Thursday, saying "this is the only air force in the world that has such an achievement."


Addressing an IAF pilots graduation ceremony at the Hatzerim base near Beersheba, Peres said, "According to foreign reports, the air force took out two nuclear plants" - an apparent reference to the strike against a Syrian site last September that Israel has not publicy acknowledged, and the Iraqi reactor at Osirak in 1981.

On Wednesday, IAF commander Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan said that the air force was preparing for action on multiple fronts, and added that he was unsure where combat would break out first - Gaza or the northern border.

"Iran's nuclear program comes from a basic ideology - Iranian nationalism seeks defense, but the regime of the ideology is radical," Nehushtan said during an address to a conference in Herzliya. "In the North, Hizbullah is building up power and learning lessons from the past. The same is happening in Gaza. I can't say which will come first - we have to be ready for both. We have to be very ready."

The IAF, he said, "is a key, maybe the sole player in some of the fronts I described."

He added that "providing answers to dynamically changing threats and recognizing the future" was vital to national security. "The future will be influenced by what we do - it is not deterministic."

When asked to address Israel's missile defense program, Nehushtan said, "We have the Arrow system... Israel invested in active layers of missile defense, which is a direct reply to missile [attacks]. These are [still] in the development stages. Do these systems create a hermetically sealed umbrella? I don't believe so, but when they prevent high percentages of missile strikes on the home front, and as we attack, the other side will understand that its [missile] card has been lost."

The subject of the conference was unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), an increasingly important tool at the IAF's disposal.

Despite the common use of UAVs in operations over Gaza, Nehushtan said the flying drones had not reached the stage of development where "we can put expensive equipment on board, but their credibility is growing."

Brig.-Gen. Gabi Shahor, commander of the Palmahim air force base in the Center of the country, appeared far more enthusiastic about the role of drones in the air force, saying UAVs were swiftly evolving into machines with capabilities reminiscent of science fiction.

"There is major progress being made - use your imagination to think of where we are today. I can't talk about everything... [but] some UAVs have been turned into satellites. They can hover in the air for weeks, and cover large areas."

He added that there was "no reason not to arm a drone with an air-to-air missile, [as] this is effective for missions," and described the scenario of UAV aerial combat as "fourth-generation warfare."

Shahor showed several videos of UAVs in use over Gaza and aiding in strikes on vehicles transporting Kassam rockets.

UAVs have dramatically helped bring the number of Palestinian casualties down, Shahor said.

"Thanks to UAVs, there is one civilian casualty for every 22 terrorist casualties. We do not want to harm civilians, and the UAVs help us identify bystanders in the area, allowing us to call off an operation," he said. "Imagine what we'll see in the coming decade."

7) Real Friends and Real Enemies
By Jonathan Tobin




Two years ago, American Jewish community relations groups were busy patting themselves on the back for achieving a signal victory in turning back the attempt by anti-Israel radicals to hijack the Presbyterian Church USA.


After the Presbyterians became the first Protestant church to embrace divestment from companies doing business in Israel in 2004, Jewish groups worked hard to overturn the decision. When the church voted to back away from this stand in 2006, it was rightly seen as a triumph not just for friends of Israel, but for the tactic of outreach itself as years of tenacious diplomacy paid off.


The celebrations seem to have been premature.


The release of a document by the church last month titled "Vigilance Against Anti-Jewish Bias in the Pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian Peace" was supposed to help its members guard against anti-Semitic rhetoric when discussing the Middle East.

Church's Betrayal
Instead, it is a compendium of charges aimed at deligimitizing the Jewish State. The church release avoids discussing Arab support for terrorism and, rather than serve as a warning against bias, it serves as a justification for anti-Israel invective since it places the sole blame for the conflict on Israel, rather than on those attempting to destroy it. If anything, it should serve to reinvigorate those who have been pushing for divestment, which is nothing less than a declaration of economic war on Israel and the Jewish people.


In itself, this should justify the outrage and the feelings of betrayal that have been voiced by a wide spectrum of centrist and liberal Jewish denominations and organizations that worked to reverse the previous Presbyterian stand on Israel.


But also buried in the document is a strand of thought that is relevant not only to this battle for the soul of a powerful mainline liberal Protestant church, but to the mindset of American Jews themselves.


Amid a laundry list of anti-Israel measures in the Presbyterian statement — including opposition to the security fence that effectively ended the Palestinian suicide bombing campaign — was the assertion that "Christian faithfulness, as well as the policies of our church, demands that we maintain our commitments … to criticize forms of Christian Zionism."


That meant that in the same document in which they urged its members to avoid couching their attacks on Israel in ways that could be labeled anti-Semitic, the Presbyterians specifically attack fellow Christians who have lent their support to the idea that the Jewish people have a right to sovereignty over their historic homeland.


In particular, they singled out Evangelicals such as Pastor John Hagee, who was flogged out of the camp of Republican presidential candidate John McCain for saying the Holocaust was caused by the Jewish sin of failing to make aliyah.


To support the contention that Christian Zionists are wrongheaded, the Presbyterian document cited Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the leader of the Union for Reform Judaism, who in a December 2007 speech warned Jews to avoid alliances with the pro-Israel Christian right.


Yoffie, whose Reform movement joined the coalition of Jewish groups that condemned the Presbyterian reversal, is not happy about this. He told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he is "infuriated" about the Presbyterians "embedding" his words in a "doctrine that is so hostile to Israel."


While some of Yoffie's criticisms of Hagee are not completely off-target — particularly his reaction to Hagee's foolish talk about the Holocaust, for which the pastor has since apologized — the Reform leader is right to be embarrassed.


But rather than merely being annoyed by the church's chutzpah, he ought to be rethinking his own bashing of right-wing Christian Zionists.


Indeed, the Presbyterians' renewed flirtation with anti-Zionism should serve as a wake-up call for the vast number of American Jews who have clung to their prejudices about Evangelicals, despite the sea change in the Protestant world that has occurred in the last generation.


In the past, Jews instinctively looked to mainline liberal Protestant churches, like the Presbyterians, the Methodists, Lutherans and Anglicans, who have all been debating divestment measures against Israel in recent years, as allies. At the same time, Jews generally assumed that Evangelicals, who generally lived outside the coastal urban enclaves where Jewish life has thrived in America, were liable to be anti-Semitic.


But in the America of 2008, it is precisely the Evangelicals of the Christian right who are instinctively supportive of Israel, while our traditional allies on the Christian left are flirting with a theology that demonizes Israel and the Jews.


Though the gap between the Christian right and most Jews on domestic issues is still vast, when it comes to the life-and-death questions of Israeli survival and opposition to terror, it is the people who look to the Hagees of the world for leadership, rather than to the Presbyterians, who stand with Israel.


Unfortunately, that isn't good enough for many Jews who never tire of making unsupported and utterly false accusations that the Evangelicals actually hate Jews and want to destroy us. It is little surprise that this has only encouraged the Presbyterians to use this issue to bolster their own attempt to isolate Israel.


The point here is not to claim that the Christian right has become Israel's only American friends, though they are among the most active and effective.


The fact is, most of the rank-and-file members of the mainline churches who are dabbling in anti-Zionist rhetoric and considering divestment don't support the campaign against Israel. Indeed, it is doubtful even after all of the controversy of the past few years, that most are even aware of the fact that their spiritual home is being hijacked by radical left-wing elements.

OUTREACH MUST CONTINUE
As frustrated as many Jews are with the Presbyterian betrayal, the outreach campaign carried out by Jewish community relations councils across the country must continue.


Most American Protestants rightly see Israel as sharing common democratic values with the United States and want nothing to do with the sort of anti-Zionism that has won a foothold among mainline church activists. They need to understand that their silence will be taken as complicity with the actions of these radicals. They must understand that their churches cannot pretend to be friends with their Jewish neighbors while supporting an economic war on the Jewish state. And they must be prodded to take action to rescind such measures enacted in their names.


But, at the same time, American Jews must cease living in the past when it comes to understanding the contemporary religious and political landscape of America. At a time when Hamas, Hezbollah and their Iranian sponsors are plotting a new Holocaust for Israel and its six million Jews, treating those Protestants who actually love Israel as hateful pariahs is a strategy devoid of truth or sense.

8) Israel's darkest week
By Caroline B. Glick

The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's liquidation sale of Israel's strategic assets opened officially this week. Iran's proxies have pounced on the merchandise.

The first asset sold was the security of southern Israel. The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's "ceasefire" with Hamas transferred all power to determine the fate of the residents of southern Israel to Iran's Palestinian proxy.

Under the "agreement," Hamas will refrain from attacking Sderot, Ashkelon, Netivot and surrounding kibbutzim for as long as it serves its interests. Since temporarily halting its attacks on southern Israel is the only thing that Hamas has agreed to do, it will use the lull in fighting to build up its arsenal and its military infrastructures in Gaza. When it has built up its forces sufficiently, or when its Iranian overlords give it the order, Hamas will again attack southern Israel. And when it reengages, it can be assumed that it will do so with a vastly expanded missile range. So under the guise of the "ceasefire," Hamas will place hundreds of thousands more Israelis at its mercy.

The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's agreement with Hamas does more than sell out the security of the south. The agreement also divests Israel of its former ability to isolate Hamas diplomatically. Fatah's renewal of negotiations toward reconciling with Hamas is a direct consequence of Israel's actions. As these talks unfold, it is clear to all concerned that they will not lead to any sort of power sharing agreement between the two parties. Hamas today holds all the power in Palestinian society. Israel's acceptance of Hamas's power over the safety of Israeli citizens only amplified this fact. Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas - who cannot even travel to Nablus without IDF protection - is not approaching Hamas as an equal, but as a supplicant.

Moreover, Israel's willingness to allow Gazans to enter Israel, and its acceptance of Hamas's control over the Rafah international terminal that separates Gaza from Egypt constitutes de facto Israeli recognition of the Hamas regime in Gaza. And the direct consequence of Israel's diplomatic and strategic capitulation to Hamas is that no one in either the Arab world or the West today will agree to isolate or boycott Hamas.

But the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government apparently doesn't care. Israel's leaders actually don't want anyone to isolate of boycott Hamas anymore. The government's reported negotiations regarding the deployment of an all-Arab "peacekeeping" force in Gaza in a later phase of the "ceasefire" make clear that Israel is pushing for Hamas's international legitimization.

After all, unlike Israel, Hamas would never allow any government that doesn't recognize its legitimacy to deploy forces in its territory or along its borders. So any Arab force that deployed in Gaza or along Gaza's borders would have to recognize Hamas's regime. Beyond that, of course, Israel's advocacy of such a force indicates that the government has no interest in ever confronting Hamas militarily and is ready to tie the hands of any future Israeli government to do so since the presence of Arab forces in Gaza will render it much more difficult for Israel to defend itself. For if such a force is deployed, any future counter-terror operation in Gaza is liable to cause casualties among foreign Arab soldiers and so risk escalating the conflict to the level of regional war.

Israel's decision to embrace Hamas is so outrageous that even the US State Department apparently hasn't had a chance to get its bearings. Reacting to the news on Wednesday, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said, "Saying you've got a loaded gun to my head but you're not going to fire today is far different from taking the gun down, locking it up, and saying you're not going to use it again." The agreement "hardly takes Hamas out of the terrorism business."

The "ceasefire" with Hamas also has direct implications for Judea and Samaria. If Hamas holds its fire for six months then Israel will be obliged to end its counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria. That is, if Hamas keeps its powder dry until January, Israel will effectively enable it to assert its control over Judea and Samaria and so place Iran in control of the outskirts of Jerusalem, Kfar Saba, Afula and Netanya.

If the US was aghast at the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's capitulation to Hamas, UN officials are aghast at its second asset drop. This week the government conducted its second round of negotiations toward the surrender of the Golan Heights to Syria. Speaking of the surrender talks to a group of Israeli diplomats, Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 condemned the move arguing just by holding the negotiations, "Israel has given Syria a huge gift, without thus far receiving anything in exchange." Larsen continued bitterly, "Syria is receiving legitimacy for free. Europe is courting the Syrians because of the negotiations with Israel, and they are no longer being asked to give anything in exchange."

Indeed, far from moderating their behavior, the Syrians seem only to have strengthened their already intimate ties with Iran since Israel initiated the surrender talks last month. Reacting to the second round of talks, Iran's Ambassador to Syria, Sayyed Ahmed Moussavi told a German news agency that Iranian-Syrian ties have strengthened still further over the past four months. Moussavi, who also serves as a general in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and as a senior adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hinted that Iran is planning on sharing its nuclear arsenal with Syria. As he put it, "Islam taught us to pass on our knowledge and we can pass our [nuclear] experience to Syria if it wants it."

In its rush to obliterate Israel's defensive positions, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government apparently doesn't care that Iran may well attack Israel with nuclear warheads launched from a post-withdrawal Golan Heights. What is most important to the government is to make Syria look good. And so, following the second round of negotiations with the Syrians, Olmert practically got down on his hands and knees to beg Assad to meet with him face to face when they visit Paris together next month. The two have been invited by French President Nicholas Sarkozy to participate in the launch of his Mediterranean Union initiative on July 13. Assad, no doubt enjoying the moment, rejected Olmert's pleas. As Larsen warned, Assad has no reason to pay for something he is already getting for free.

Apparently, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government couldn't suffice with capitulation on three fronts in one week. And so it moved to a fourth one. Far from displaying alarm or anger over US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's decision to visit Beirut and give the US's blessing to the new Hizbullah-controlled Lebanese government, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert joined her defeatist bandwagon. He announced that he wishes to open negotiations with Iran's Lebanese proxy and to that end he is willing to surrender strategically critical Mt. Dov - or what Hizbullah refers to as Shebaa Farms - to Hizbullah. So eager is Olmert to surrender, that even after Hizbullah's puppet Prime Minister Fuad Siniora rejected his offer, he reiterated it. Like Assad and Hamas, Hizbullah sees no reason to honor Olmert and his colleagues with direct talks. As Hizbullah parliamentarian Nawar Sahili said this week, "If they really want to give us back our land, they can withdraw."

Finally, there is the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's handling of the Israeli soldiers being held hostage by Hamas and Hizbullah. The government agreed to the "ceasefire" with Hamas without securing Gilad Schalit's release from captivity. Rather than acknowledge that they have likely signed his death warrant, the government insists that it's not done capitulating. It will begin begging Hamas to accept hundreds of Palestinian murderers jailed in Israeli prisons in exchange for Schalit next Tuesday.

As for Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, who were kidnapped to Lebanon by Hizbullah two years ago and haven't been heard from since, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government is poised to spring arch-murderer Samir Kuntar from prison together with three other Hizbullah terrorists in exchange for their release - dead or alive.

In a naked attempt to divert the public's attention away from its surrender drive, Thursday morning the government initiated a violent confrontation with Israeli residents of Samaria by ordering the destruction of homes in the community of Yitzhar. In other words, while surrendering to Iranian proxies on four fronts, the government has turned its guns against Israeli citizens.

The government's actions no doubt increase prospects for a major war. But beyond that, it is important to note that Israel is discarding its strategic assets in the face of the burgeoning threat of nuclear annihilation. No doubt buoyed by the government's strategic incapacitation, Iran mockingly told the Europeans that it will be happy to consider their European-American offer to build Iran nuclear reactors and normalize relations with it - so long as it is understood that they will accept their largesse while continuing their uranium enrichment activities.

In Israel's 60 year history, there is no precedent for the government's actions this week. And if history is any guide, Israel can only expect more of the same in the government's remaining time in office - however long that might be.

Until Olmert was elected prime minister in 2006, Defense Minister Ehud Barak enjoyed the distinction of being the worst prime minister in Israeli history. And Barak's behavior in his waning days in power is instructive for understanding what we can expect from Olmert and Livni and Barak today.

In July 2000, after he lost a no-confidence vote in the Knesset, Barak went to Camp David and shot for the moon offering PLO chieftan Yassir Arafat a state in all of Gaza, ninety percent of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem. Arafat rejected his offer and went to war. Facing the rejection of the Israeli electorate at the polls, rather than curtail his capitulation efforts, Barak redoubled them. As Arafat's soldiers were busy blowing up buses and lynching Israeli soldiers, Barak offered Arafat still more land in Judea and Samaria and the Temple Mount.

And today, with Barak at his side, Olmert — who similarly has been rejected by the electorate — is repeating Barak's move fourfold. And he can be expected to continue on this course until elections are held and he is sent packing.

Next week the Knesset is expected to vote on a motion to disband and move to general elections. It is far from clear that the vote will pass. Barak and his Labor Party may well decide that capitulation suits them just fine and remain on board Olmert and Livni's sinking ship.

As the Israeli public stares at the wreckage and danger that has marked this disastrous week, hopefully it understands that this is what happens when we elect bad leaders. All of this was eminently predictable in 2006 when Kadima and Labor both ran for office on capitulationist platforms. Choices have consequences. And we will be suffering with the consequences of the 2006 elections until its winners are finally thrown from office.