The Fourth Estate's Abdication of Its Civic Responsibility!

A spoof? Maybe not! (See 1 below.)

Can Obama's soothing words overcome Iran's brutal ways. (See 2 and 2a below.)

I have not checked the authenticity but it would be a very interesting twist should this prove even remotely factual. (See 3 below.)

Another type crash on the way? (See 4 below.)

I have railed against the press and media's abdication of their social/civic responsibility to our society til you are tired of reading about it. Today's Op Ed, in the WSJ, reveals that The Washington Post is now seeking revenue by selling its own influence.

My father was a lawyer's lawyer but never practiced criminal law. He told me that, though criminals were entitled to a vigorous defense, he personally concluded, early on, that association with them would soon rub off and he did not want to subject himself to the potential taint.

It is the responsibility of the press to aggressively uncover and report on misdeeds of public officials, yet, be objective and truthful in doing so. In the case of The Washngton Post the desire to seek revenue has led them astray.

Our 'Fourth Estate' is becoming increasingly bankrupt - financially and morally.(See 5 below.)

British Col. verifies what we all know but what the pess, media, U.N and most European nations refuse to admit.

We kill civilians in Pakistan attacking Taliban and it is reported as an every day event. War is hell and particularly when the enemy seeks to hide behind civilians and locate among civilian structures and commerce. (See 6 below.)

Constant biased attacks on Israel is simply a subtle method of de-legitimizing the nation.

We live in a two faced world and though we should not become indifferent it will not change.(See 6a and 6b below.)

Economic afterthoughts and defending being stuck in the muck and mire of bad policy. More stimulus? Why choke twice? (See 7 below.)

George Will on McNamara -" Two of behavioralism's reinforcing assumptions were: Things that can be quantified can be controlled. And everything can be quantified. So, pick a problem, any problem. Military insurgency in Indochina? The answer is counterinsurgency. What can be, and hence must be, quantified? Body counts, surely. Bingo: A metric of success."

McNamara was embued with reading his own press, drank his own bathwater and was very brainy.
Has McNamara been resurrected in the guise of our youthful speechifying president? There are parallels.

Truman would never have hired McNamara, in fact he fired one for insubordination. (See 8 below.)

Conservatism is growing but not under a Republican Banner. I can relate because I have no real party allegiance since I believe both parties are a disaster. (See 9 below.)

A Russian attack on Georgia would be both embarassing and a bad move on Putin's part but he lives in his own bubble and could mis-calculate. (See 10 below.)

Should China conclude N Korea is a burden watch out!

It would be ironic indeed if China's actions revealed us sitting on or thumbs vis a vis Iran. (See 11 below.)

Rob Peter to pay Paul - do anything to get health care plan passed even though it will lead to bureaucratic rationing.

When all else fails lower your standards, quit thinking outside the box and let government control it.

The goal is to construct a bill that attracts enough votes. Whether it satisfies voters is of little importance because government solutions exist to be changed and changed and changed. That is what change is all about.(See 12 below.)

Innovative Israel. (See 13 below.)

Dick


1)The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama. The stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.

After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings: The stamp is in perfect order. There is nothing wrong with the adhesive. People are spitting on the wrong side.

2)iran1.pps (2034KB)

2a)Jihadist Magazine: 'The Spread of Democracy – A Victory for the U.S. and Israel'

In an anti-democracy article titled "The Spread of Democracy - A Victory for the U.S. and Israel," Abu Taha 'Abdallah Al-Miqdad enumerates democracy's crimes against humanity, and particularly against the Muslims, and warns that support for democracy is apostasy from Islam.

Following are excerpts from the article, which appeared in the Global Islamic Media Front magazine Sada Al-Jihad:

"Human History Has Never Known Villainous Massacres Such As Those of the Era in Which Democrats Emerged"

"…Human history has never known villainous massacres such as those of the era in which democrats emerged. World Wars I and II are evidence of the extent of the democrats' moral deterioration and their failure to take into account the simplest of [moral] principles of life customary among people in past eras. The war being waged today in the Muslim lands adds innumerably more crimes, attesting to the filthiness of their souls and the hardness of their hearts...

"The former U.S. president, George W. Bush the Crusader, said in statements to the press on April 30, 2005: 'In the long run, terrorism will be defeated by the spread of freedom and democracy. This is actually the only way [to defeat it].' In his speech at the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit on February 8, 2005, the former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon the Zionist, addressed [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud 'Abbas, saying: "My congratulations on your wonderful victory in the elections for the presidency of the Palestinian Authority, [because] this victory and the way that you want to lead your people has the potential for bringing about a true change of direction and for affecting the entire area. Likewise, I hope that you will succeed in leading your people on the path of democracy and preservation of law and order, to the establishment of an independent democratic state.'"


"Our Clerics [i.e. Salafi Jihadi Clerics] Have Spoken of Democracy and Clarified That It Is an Infidel Regime"

"With regard to [U.S. President Barack] Obama, he [too] is trying to spread democracy, but his view is different in the details, since he has stressed in various places that he will in no way relinquish the spread of democracy in the world during his presidency, and that he intends to [spread it] extensively - but with general diplomatic plans and by greatly increasing U.S. aid to the world in spheres such as fighting poverty, spreading education, and health care, and by encouraging trade and economic partnership with the U.S. [Obama] is likewise calling to link U.S. aid to progress in efforts to [institute] reform and democracy in the countries interested in receiving this aid...

"Democracy is a great tribulation and a huge catastrophe, but it is a proven indicator in winnowing out the ranks of the righteous believers, keeping the good [among them] and ejecting the miscreants whose hearts are sick. [On the one hand] are piled up all the democrats - Christians, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Shi'ites, Zoroastrians, apostates, hypocrites, Murji'ites, and Ash'arites - and [on the other hand are] the ranks of the Muslims clinging to the path of Allah straighten out... and they stand against the entire world, certain of Allah's victory and aid...

"Though our clerics [i.e. salafi jihadi clerics] have spoken of democracy and clarified that it is an infidel regime, I will cite for you Wagdi Ghneim, who is known for his affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood movement, who are the greatest proponents of democracy in our time. He stated in his book Divine Shura and Manmade Democracy (Rabaniyyat Al-Shura wa-Wadh'iat Al-Dimuqratiyya): 'Democracy is erroneous from its foundation. Allah's religion [i.e. Islam] considers it wrong, and anyone who believes in it, promotes it, confirms it, accepts it, or acts according to it... is an apostate, even if he has a Muslim name and falsely claims that he is a believing Muslim - because in Allah's religion, Islam and democracy are absolutely incompatible.'


"Democracy Directly Impairs Tawhid"

"The dangers of democracy are clear for all to see, since it directly impairs tawhid [the belief in Allah's unity]. If we consider the opinions of Westerners, in whose lands this ugly germ sprouted and grew, we will find that it is [also] loathsome to some of their researchers, since as one American researcher described it, democracy means preferring the opinion of 11 asses over the opinion of 10 scholars." [1]

The article was accompanied by photos of elections in Israel, Iran, and the U.S.:

[1] Sada Al-Jihad, No. 33, Rabi'I 1430 (February-March 2009), pp. 16-18.

3)AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College.

Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.

In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. M r. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.


4)Does Obama Want to Own the Airlines? Welcome to government for the benefit of government officials and their hangers-on.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR

Only luck and falling oil prices saved Washington from having to face mass bankruptcy of the airline industry last year. Now the specter is rising again. Fuel prices are up. Traffic continues to plummet amid a global recession. United Airlines last week mortgaged its spare-parts inventory to raise cash at a usurious 17% interest rate.

Yet the Obama Justice Department has come out of the blocks trying to scuttle a promising experiment to stabilize the chronically unprofitable U.S. airline sector. The new administration seemingly won't let companies fail, and won't let them succeed either.

The airline industry's self-help solution has been an evolving trio of international alliances, partly blessed with "antitrust immunity" by the U.S. Department of Transportation. One, the Star Alliance led by United and Lufthansa, is currently poaching Continental from a rival alliance, SkyTeam. DOT was set to approve their application last week when Justice belatedly intervened with a 58-page complaint about why the pact should be restructured.

To anyone drilled in the antitrust mindset, Justice's argument won't seem outlandish. It frets about reduced competition on this or that international route, and sees little chance of competitive entry by new carriers despite fat profits that presumably would be on offer. It argues, in a fashion typical of antitrust these days, that nonstop flights are a market unto themselves, so connecting flights on the same routes don't count.

But the real fulcrum is Justice's insistence, or plea, that DOT should set a high bar for antitrust immunity, because antitrust enforcement has been such a gosh-darn boon to consumers.

Justice offers no supporting evidence for this proposition, which has resisted academic verification. And in dismissing the "putative" benefits of immunized airline alliances, Justice fails even to acknowledge the one benefit that Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has emphasized: "These alliances are life savers for airlines. That is the premise from which we start. We believe it. The airlines believe it."

In part, such alliances are substitutes for international airline mergers (which are prohibited under U.S. law), but are more interesting than mergers, thanks to the flexibility with which carriers can enter and exit cooperative agreements with each other.

The antitrust mindset naturally sees such cooperation as always harmful, inflating prices and gouging consumers. But then why does organized labor oppose the deals? Shouldn't workers favor alliances if they reduce competitive pressure on wages? Yet Justice's intervention came after United's pilots ran a full-page ad in Roll Call attacking the company's own deal.

And why do carriers lobby against each other's pacts? Shouldn't they favor anything that leads to oligopoly pricing? And what to make of Continental's decision to jilt SkyTeam and jump to Star, shifting the competitive balance on the North Atlantic?

Obama antitrust chief Christine Varney doesn't have much good to say about her Bush predecessors. But she praises their record of cartel-busting. She might examine that record for what it actually says about the incentive to collude.

It shows, for one thing, that companies are inclined to snuggle up mainly to share losses and preserve capacity in a downturn or to curb the free-riding of powerful customers. When profits are available, on the other hand, they quickly go back to competing to maximize their respective shares rather than colluding to limit their individual upsides.

These incentives would very likely prevail in the highly flexible airline alliances. Such alliances are no miracle cure for what ails the domestic carriers, but they would open a window to let us see beyond antitrust's indiscriminate prejudice against cooperative acts by competitors.

Of course, this would fly in the face of Ms. Varney's agenda, which is to expand the bailiwick of the Washington antitrust bar. Even now, she has turned her attention from airlines to the mobile-phone business on the theory that any industry that hasn't collapsed into government receivership must be doing something wrong.

Mr. Obama blabs about the evils of lobbying, but his administration is fast becoming the greatest fillip to lobbying ever seen. Ms. Varney has now horned in on the DOT's action, forcing the airline business and all its camp followers to come and pay tribute. Her choice of targets is obviously designed for political effect. Airlines and mobile-phone operators both touch the public in ways that leave the public frequently annoyed.

What we're seeing here and elsewhere from the new administration is not some rebirth of thoughtful liberalism, but a spastic descent into machine liberalism -- government for the benefit of government officials and their hangers-on. Mr. Obama, however, may not be so pleased with the result if it means he must soon add the airlines to the collection of failed industries being run out of the White House.

5) When Newspapers Peddle Influence: A revealing scandal at the Washington Post.
By THOMAS FRANK

Some time last week the Washington Post issued a flier advertising a "salon" on the health-care issue. Over dinner at the home of the paper's publisher, Katharine Weymouth, participants were promised "a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds."

The paper's executive editor and its "health-care reporters" would be there too, but not in a "confrontational" capacity, you could rest assured. Everything would be safely "off-the-record." And you could "bring your organization's CEO or executive director literally to the table" for a mere $25,000.

Even in Washington, it's unusual to see an actual price tag placed on a chance to "alter the debate," as the Post's flier tastefully put it. Stranger still is it to see the city's scourge of public corruption -- the Post broke the Watergate story and the Walter Reed scandal, among others -- seemingly offering its own good offices for hire.

It was a moment of rare, piquant hypocrisy. Let us take it slow and savor every drop.

To begin with, just think of the functions of righteousness that the Post effectively put up on the block. Here was journalism's zealous guardian of professional rectitude with its hand apparently out for a little bit of baksheesh. Here was the definer of the capital's consensus, the policer of its ideological boundaries, seemingly offering to adjust its vast reserves of Washington wisdom for you if the price was right.

In such a ham-handed manner, too. When the leading newspaper of the capital city of the world's most powerful country decides to turn influence-peddler, is this the best it can do? An advertisement that reads as though it were promoting expensive scotch? ("Bringing together those powerful few.") Not even favorite Post targets like Jack Abramoff stooped to that.

Even worse were the lame excuses offered by the paper's brass, who blamed one another after the embarrassing story broke and immediately cancelled the get-together. The flier hadn't been properly "vetted," they said. Ms. Weymouth had been out of town. Plus assorted other feeble explanations.

If this was a slip it was a Freudian one, the kind that tells us something true and revealing about what is going on inside.

We are living, after all, in a sort of conflict-of-interest golden age. Professionalism is for sale almost wherever you choose to look. Among the forces that most conspicuously drove the late real-estate bubble, for example, were appraisers and bond rating agencies that apparently decided to put themselves on the market.

The city of Washington is an extreme case of this marketized world. The capital swarms with hired guns, payola pundits, and think tanks on a mission. Every bad idea that has ever appealed to the funding class is well-represented here. And with the coming of the health-care debate, as the Post itself has noted, the entire apparatus has swung into well-compensated action.

Then there is the city's cult of power, in which the Post sometimes serves as high priest. Despite its many famous takedowns of the corrupt, the newspaper often seems fascinated with the lives of the rich and the well-connected: their struggles for access, the clever things they say, the trappings of their wealth, the techniques by which they have monetized their power.

In April, for example, one Post columnist described a dinner salon series run by the Atlantic magazine whose guests "are as A-list as they come." Superstar names were dropped. The benefits to journalism were vigorously asserted. Rahm Emanuel himself was quoted hailing the suspension of "the adversarial."

The Post's own confused relationship with power is also often summarized by reference to dinner parties, in this case the ones given by Ms. Weymouth's grandmother, Katharine Graham. "The great men of Washington, up until the Nixon administration, came regularly to Mrs. Graham's dinner parties, the best ticket in town, and as they socialized over good food and wine, the adversarial role diminished," wrote David Halberstam in his 1979 book, "The Powers That Be." "They were close, they were friends, these were not just men of power, they were men of good will, events were seen as they wanted them seen."

All that was missing, apparently, was a price tag.

Today, of course, the newspaper industry is in crisis. And public service, along with all such intangible ideals, is quickly disappearing into the cash nexus. The only possible reason to revive Ms. Graham's legendary dinners today is as a revenue stream.

Instead, of course, what the Post's proprietors did was hasten the day of reckoning. If I had $25,000 to spare, I'd advise them to forget about befriending the A-list. Stick to the public -- what you might call the Z-list.

6) Pakistani officials: Suspected US strikes kill 45
By CHRIS BRUMMITT

Suspected U.S. unmanned aircraft launched two attacks against militants loyal to the head of the Pakistani Taliban on Wednesday, killing at least 45 in the latest in a barrage of strikes against a group also being targeted by the Pakistani military, intelligence officials said.

The convergence of U.S. and Pakistani interests in the South Waziristan tribal region suggests the two uneasy allies were cooperating in the strikes, making it harder for Islamabad to protest them publicly as it has in the past.

The army denied signing off on the attacks and insisted they were hurting its campaign against Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud by alienating local tribes it is trying to enlist in the fight.

Meanwhile, an army spokesman said a Pakistani jet attack wounded the local Taliban commander in the scenic Swat Valley elsewhere in the northwest. Troops have been battling militants in Swat for more than two months, an offensive that has so far failed to net any top insurgent leaders.

The mountainous border region is home to al-Qaida and Taliban leaders who plot attacks in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, which is witnessing an unprecedented level of violence against U.S. and NATO troops.

South Waziristan is the stronghold of Mehsud and his followers, whom the government blames for more than 90 percent of the suicide bombings in Pakistan in recent years. The U.S. State Department says Mehsud is a key al-Qaida facilitator in the region.

Suspected American drones have carried out more than 45 attacks in the region since last August. Although most have targeted foreign al-Qaida militants and those accused of violence in Afghanistan, increasingly they are aimed at the Mehsud network.

The first strike Wednesday took place before dawn. Six missiles were fired at a mountaintop training camp in the Karwan Manza area of South Waziristan, killing 10 militants, Pakistani intelligence officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media.

Hours later, 12 miles to the east, missiles hit four vehicles carrying Taliban militants, killing at least 35, including a key Taliban commander, one intelligence official said. Another said 50 were killed.

Independent verification of the targets and casualties was not possible because the region is remote, dangerous and largely inaccessible to journalists. U.S. and Pakistani officials do not publicly comment on such strikes.

On Tuesday, a suspected U.S. missile attack killed 12 militants in South Waziristan, including five foreigners, according to intelligence officials. Another recent strike killed up to 80 insurgents attending a funeral.

The timing is significant because Pakistan's military is also carrying out bombing runs and firing mortar rounds at militant targets in the region as part of efforts to kill or capture Mehsud and his followers. It says it plans to launch a large offensive there soon.

The government routinely protests suspected U.S. missile strikes as violations of Pakistani sovereignty and has publicly asked the U.S. to give it technology to launch its own attacks. But many analysts suspect the government — which has received billions of dollars a year from the U.S. since 2001 — supports the strikes, especially those against Mehsud and his Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan.

"They are decrying them on one hand and aiding and abetting them on the other," said Shuja Nawaz, director of the U.S.-based Atlantic Council. "It is helpful for the Pakistanis when the TTP is being targeted. There is obviously much better coordination now."

Speaking after Tuesday's attack, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas insisted the U.S. help was unwelcome and alienated local tribes it wanted to enlist in the fight against Mehsud.

The United States has been trying to get Pakistan's military to crack down on militants in the border area since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the country's past nurturing of militants to use as proxies in Afghanistan and Pakistan has complicated those efforts.

The Swat offensive began after militants there violated a peace deal with the government and moved into regions close to the capital, Islamabad. The army claims to have nearly cleared the valley of insurgents, killing more than 1,500.

Abbas told a news conference Wednesday that according to "credible information," the leader of the Swat Taliban, Maulana Fazlullah, was wounded in a recent airstrike. Fazlullah's capture or killing would be a major symbolic victory for the army and could ease the fears of some 2 million residents who fled the valley and surrounding districts and have yet to return.


6a) British Colonel Declares: The IDF Did More to Safeguard Civilians Than Any Other Army
International Law and Military Operations in Practice
By Col. Richard Kemp -

[Watch the Video]
www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=701&FID=765&PID=0
[Read the Full Transcript]
www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=0&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=3026&TTL=International_Law_and_Military_Operations_in_Practice

Former commander of British forces in Afghanistan Col. Richard Kemp told a
conference in Jerusalem on June 18, 2009:

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

The battlefield - in any kind of war - is a place of confusion and chaos, of
fast-moving action. In the type of conflict that the Israeli Defense Forces
recently fought in Gaza and in Lebanon, and Britain and America are still
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, these age-old confusions and complexities
are made one hundred times worse by the fighting policies and techniques of
the enemy.

Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict
carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli
commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of
engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they
view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is
built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by
the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating
consistently outside international law.

Civilians and their property are routinely exploited by these groups, in
deliberate and flagrant violation of international laws or reasonable norms
of civilized behavior. Protected buildings, mosques, schools, and hospitals
are used as strongholds. Legal and proportional responses by a Western army
will be deliberately exploited and manipulated in order to produce
international outcry and condemnation.

Hamas' military capability was deliberately positioned behind the human
shield of the civilian population. They also ordered, forced when necessary,
men, women and children from their own population to stay put in places they
knew were about to be attacked by the IDF. Israel was fighting an enemy that
is deliberately trying to sacrifice their own people, deliberately trying to
lure you into killing their own innocent civilians.

And Hamas, like Hizbullah, is also highly expert at driving the media
agenda. They will always have people ready to give interviews condemning
Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting
incidents.

When possible the IDF gave at least four hours' notice to civilians to leave
areas targeted for attack. The IDF dropped over 900,000 leaflets warning the
population of impending attacks to allow them to leave designated areas. The
IDF phoned over 30,000 Palestinian households in Gaza, urging them in Arabic
to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be preparing to
fight.

Many attack helicopter missions that could have taken out Hamas military
capability were cancelled if there was too great a risk of civilian
casualties in the area. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of
humanitarian aid into Gaza, even though delivering aid virtually into your
enemy's hands is to the military tactician normally quite unthinkable.

By taking these actions the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of
civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

6b) Israel on Trial:The U.N. begins its kangaroo "investigation" of Israeli “war crimes.”
By Alan M. Dershowitz


Just as Spain’s National Court decided to shelve a phony war crime investigation of a 2002 Israeli air strike in Gaza, a group of lawyers and military experts assigned by the United Nations Human Rights Council continued its phony investigation of “the grave violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip.”

Top of Form

The UN Human Rights Council is a scandal. It’s a successor to the defunct UN Human Rights Commission. Both organizations have a long history of singling out Israel for condemnation and of ignoring real human rights abusers by the world’s worst offenders, several of which dominate the Human Rights Council and it predecessor.

As Hudson Institute scholar Anne Bayefsky recently noted: “The Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all the other 191 U.N. member states combined…. The more time the Council spends demonizing Israel , the less likely it becomes that it will ever get around to condemning genocide in Sudan , female slavery in Saudi Arabia , or torture in Egypt .”

The very mandate that authorized the Gaza investigation reveals its bias against Israel . The council has already concluded, without any pretense an investigation, that Israel is guilty of “grave violations of human rights…due to its…military attacks.”

It has also concluded that the Gaza Strip “remains occupied,” despite Israel having ended its occupation and having removed every single soldier and settler in 2005. Moreover, the Council’s current president has limited the scope of the investigation to “violations committed in the context of the conflict that took place between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009.” Those are the dates of the Israeli response to more than seven years of rocket attacks by terrorists operating behind human shields in Gaza . During the period prior to 27 December 2008, Hamas and its terrorist allies fired thousands of rockets and mortar shells into civilian areas of Israel , killing, maiming and traumatizing Israeli women, men and children. But these attacks that provoked Israel ’s self-defense military actions, are excluded from the investigation, according to the mandate and its interpretation by the president of the council. It would be as if they UN convened an investigation of the United States and terrorism but limited the investigation only to actions taken after September 12, 2001.

The very idea of the UN Council conducting an “independent” or objective investigation Israel is preposterous. It would be as if an all white Mississippi court were investigating a black man’s self-defense in response to years of lynchings by whites and limiting its investigation to the event following the lynchings. There is simply no way of an investigation conducted under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council and be fair. Its history of bias and bigotry should not be legitimated by men and women of decency who care about real human rights.

That is why it was so surprising and disturbing to see a good man like Richard Goldstone agree to head the investigation team appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. Goldstone is a South African who fought against Apartheid and led an important investigation into the causes of violence there, ultimately blaming the government itself for instigating violence through a “third force.” Would he have succeeded if his commission had been limited to white members only, and if its mandate of his investigation was limited to the black violence and excluded the white violence that provoked it? Would he have been willing to lend his good name to legitimate the bad history of all white Apartheid courts? What if he were a black lawyer, deliberately selected by the all white court to be an “Uncle Tom” precisely because he was black?

Goldstone was selected to head this investigation precisely because he is Jewish. Let there be no mistake about that cynical reality. I don’t blame the UN Council for selecting a Jew to legitimiate its kangaroo investigation of the Jewish state, but I wonder why a man like Goldstone would allow himself to be used in this manner. Does he not realize how he is being played? How his distinguished reputation is being exploited in the interest of bigotry? Oh yes, Goldstone will be “even-handed”. That is precisely what the Council wants: equivalent condemnation of Israel and Hamas for unequivalent actions.

Hamas admits—indeed boasts—that it has committed multiple war crimes: first it boasts about firing rockets at Israeli school children; it fires its rockets primarily at times when Israeli children are on their way to and from school; it has hit several kindergartens, elementary schools and playgrounds (fortunately, the children had been sent home); it celebrates every civilian death and injury it causes. Targeting civilians is a war crime.

Second, Hamas boasts of hiding behind human shields, which is also a war crime. A prominent Hamas legislator has boasted of the fact that Hamas:

“…[has] formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death like you desire life.’”

Third, since Hamas is the elected government of Gaza , every rocket attack from Gaza is a violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which authorizes member nations to defend itself against “armed attack.”

Fourth, these attacks are part of a long term strategy to destroy a member nation of the United Nations, as the Hamas charter clearly proclaims.

No “investigation” is needed to conclude that Hamas engaged in war crimes.

Israel , on the other hand, is engaged in legitimate self defense: as a leading British expert, Richard Kemp put it on the BBC during the Gaza War:

"I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce the civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza .”

To be even-handed in the face of such uneven conduct, or to find moral equivalence where there is none, would be the worst sort of immoral bigotry. Yet moral and legal equivalence is precisely what this investigatory commission will “find,” following its “independent fact-finding mission,” unless it finds that Israel ’s conduct was worse than Hamas’s because more people died from Israeli fire than from Hamas rockets. The investigators will ignore the law that holds murderers who hide behind human shields responsible for the deaths of these human shields, even when the bullets that killed them came from the weapons of those who engaged in legitimate self-defense. Consider the analogous situation of the Navy SEALs who killed the Somali pirates that had kidnapped American merchant captain Richard Phillips. Similar rescue attempts have sometimes resulted in the tragic deaths of the hostages. Would it be fair to try the SEALs for murder, instead of the pirates? That is exactly what the Gaza commission aims to do to Israel . It will also ignore the fact that Hamas always exaggerates the number of civilians killed by including in that category armed police (who double as terrorists), “civilians” who willing serve as human shields or who willingly allow their homes to be used to manufacture, store or fire rockets, “children” and “women” who have become terrorists, and even “collaborators” killed by Hamas.

Goldstone will try his best to be even-handed. But he knows that unless his report condemns Israel , at least as forcefully as it condemns Hamas, it will never be accepted by the UN Human Rights Council and his work will come to naught. He is an experienced international diplomat. He knows who appointed him. He understands his mandate. He will try to expand it to include Hamas war crimes, so as to be “even-handed,” even though Hamas already boasts of its crimes.

Israel too knows this. They know Goldstone. They know that his appointment was calculated to make it difficult for Israel to refuse to cooperate with a Jewish investigator who has had close ties with the Jewish state. Their refusal to cooperate with this distinguished group of investigators, they will be seen by some as afraid of the “truth.” Had they cooperated, they know that “the truth” produced by this investigation will be a lie. They are in a no-win situation, precisely because Richard Goldstone accepted an appointment he should never have agreed to accept.

Israel should conduct its own thorough investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

Richard Goldstone should resign in protest if the Human Rights Council finds moral or legal equivalence between the multiple war crimes deliberately committed by a terrorist and the inadvertent deaths caused by the use of human shields to protect terrorists from legitimate self-defense actions taken by a democracy to protect its citizens.

Alan M. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. He is the author of many books, including, most recently, “The Case Against Israel’s Enemies.”




7) Democrats stuck in stimulus jam
By Victoria McGrane


President Barack Obama says there’s “nothing” he “would have done differently” about his economic stimulus plan, but one of his top outside economic advisers says the plan was “a bit too small.”

Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri says the idea of a second stimulus is a “non-starter,” but Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island says it “should be on the table.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says there’s “no showing that a second stimulus is needed,” but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says Congress needs to be “open to whether we need additional action.”

Democrats are all over the map on the stimulus and the possibility of a sequel, and it’s not hard to see why: When it comes to a second stimulus, they may be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

“Right now, every headline across the board is the stimulus isn’t enough, states are in bankruptcy, states aren’t paying their bills,” says Wendy Schiller, a Brown University political scientist. “This is really deadly for the Democratic Party, because what it suggests is the Democratic Party cannot run the country.”

At the same time, however, polls show that voters have little appetite for a second stimulus, and Democrats fear that any attempt to pass one will provide Republicans too much ammunition to argue that Democrats are profligate spenders who can’t reverse the job-loss trend.

McCaskill says there’s no way to go back to the well.

“If we are trying to move anything on health care and we’re trying to move anything on climate change, then putting another stimulus on top of that is a backbreaker,” she told POLITICO. “It is a political backbreaker — for people from states like mine anyway.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says that Congress has already pumped “trillions” into the economy and that she’s “not sure there’s any magic thing” it can do now “other than what we’ve done before.”

But other Democrats say the economy may need another jolt, regardless of the political risks.

“The thing we have to consider is the risk to not doing it,” said Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.).

With unemployment in his home state of Rhode Island at 12 percent, Whitehouse told POLITICO that it’s too soon to “rule out” another stimulus — a point his Democratic colleague, Sen. Jack Reed, echoed on MSNBC on Tuesday.

Whitehouse rejected the argument already being made by Republicans that passing a second stimulus — or a third, if you count the package signed by President George W. Bush — would be tantamount to admitting the first $700-plus billion package just plain didn’t work.

“It’s like putting out the first half of the fire in the house. If it flares back up again, the firemen ... go back and put more water on it,” he said.

The White House is working to get the money that’s already been approved out the door and into the economy faster. For instance, Vice President Joe Biden’s office launched several weeks ago a 10-part “Roadmap to Recovery” initiative designed to create four times as many jobs in the second 100 days of the stimulus than in the first.

Some economists, including Nobel Prize laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, say the need for additional stimulus measures is already clear.


“To my mind it’s pretty obvious we need another stimulus package, probably a lot bigger than the last one,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research. “It’s horrible that you have all of these people suffering because you have people in Washington with rocks in their head.”

Still others agree with those Democrats who prefer a wait-and-see approach.

“I think it’s premature to conclude that a third stimulus would be needed. The maximum benefit from the current stimulus will occur this summer and fall, and in terms of jobs, not until very late this year,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody’s Economy.com.

“Now if we get into late this year and the economy is not continuing to improve — and it is improving, it’s still in recession but it’s improving — and if we don’t make further progress through the end of the year, then I think it would be reasonable to consider another stimulus.”

But Republicans aren’t waiting to go on the attack.

They’re slamming the White House for predicting that unemployment wouldn’t go above 8 percent if Congress passed the stimulus, pointing out that it has now hit a 26-year high of 9.5 percent.

They’re seizing on Democrats’ own statements — such as Biden’s acknowledgment over the weekend that the administration “misread” how bad the economy would get — to make their point.

And they’re already mocking Democrats for even considering a second stimulus, previewing the arguments they’re sure to fire up should Democrats choose that path.

“Down home, we used to say there’s no education in the second kick of a mule,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday. “Now, why in the world there would be any conclusion reached after looking at the results of the first stimulus that the way to deal with that is to pass yet another one — [it] is mind-boggling.”

The office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has called talk of a second stimulus “a collective acknowledgement that Washington Democrats’ spending binge — which was supposed to create jobs “immediately” — isn’t working.”

Some observers suggest that Congress can take stimulus-esque steps without actually having to pass a politically painful stimulus package. Zandi suggested providing aid to cash-strapped states, delaying tax increases set for 2011 and expanding the housing tax credit.

But Democrats may find themselves limited even on stimulus-lite approaches as Republicans argue that government spending hasn’t worked and won’t do anything but drive up the federal deficit.

“This offers us an opportunity to realign ourselves with middle-class economic anxieties,” said Kevin Madden, who led Mitt Romney’s communication operation for the 2008 presidential campaign. “We have to make a very clear and convincing case to everyday Americans that we’ve tried it the Democrats’ way by pumping money into the public sector, and it hasn’t worked.”

8) The McNamara Mentality
By George Will

The death of Robert McNamara at 93 was less a faint reverberation of a receding era than a reminder that mentalities are the defining attributes of eras, and certain American mentalities recur with, it sometimes seems, metronomic regularity. McNamara came to Washington from a robust Detroit -- he headed Ford when America's swaggering automobile manufacturers enjoyed 90 percent market share -- to be President John Kennedy's secretary of defense. Seemingly confident that managing the competition of nations could be as orderly as managing competition among the three participants in Detroit's oligopoly, McNamara entered government seven months before the birth of the current president, who is the owner and, he is serenely sure, fixer of General Motors.

Today, something unsettlingly similar to McNamara's eerie assuredness pervades the Washington in which he died. The spirit is: Have confidence, everybody, because we have, or soon will have, everything -- really everything -- under control.

The apogee of McNamara's professional life, in the first half of the 1960s, coincided, not coincidentally, with the apogee of the belief that behavioralism had finally made possible a science of politics. Behavioralism held -- holds; it is a hardy perennial -- that the social and natural sciences are not so different, both being devoted to the discovery of law-like regularities that govern the behavior of atoms, hamsters, humans, whatever.

Two of behavioralism's reinforcing assumptions were: Things that can be quantified can be controlled. And everything can be quantified. So, pick a problem, any problem. Military insurgency in Indochina? The answer is counterinsurgency. What can be, and hence must be, quantified? Body counts, surely. Bingo: A metric of success.

Not exactly. The behavior of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong did not respond as expected to America's finely calibrated stimuli, such as bombing this but not that, and bombing pauses. Behavioralists were disappointed, but not discouraged. They would give nation-building another try.

It was in reaction to the mentality that McNamara represented that "The Public Interest" quarterly was born. Its founders were intellectuals, many of whom were called "neoconservatives" when that designation was more relevant to domestic than foreign policy. The journal's mission was to insist that (as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a Harvard social scientist, said) the function of social science is not to tell us what to do but to tell us what does not work. What did not work in the 1960s, at home and abroad, was quite a lot.

McNamara died on a day when there was interesting news from Asia, the region of his torments: There was lethal ethnic rioting in China. That development refutes, redundantly, the prophecy of a 19th-century social scientist, Karl Marx. Believing that he had discerned the laws of social physics, he said that the coming of modernity -- the rise of science and the retreat of religion under the rationality of market societies -- would mean that preindustrial factors such as religion and ethnicity would lose their history-shaping saliency.

So far, the 21st century is vexed by nothing so much as those supposed residues of humanity's infancy. Nevertheless, Marx's anticipation morphed into what Moynihan called "the liberal expectancy." It is the hope -- liberals tend to treat hopes as probabilities -- that the fading of those atavisms and superstitions has put the world on a path to perpetual tranquility.

The world McNamara has departed could soon be convulsed by attempts to modify Iran's behavior. Since a variety of incentives have been unavailing, more muscular measures -- perhaps "surgical strikes," a phrase redolent of the McNamara mentality -- are contemplated.

Some persons fault the president for not having more ambitious plans to somehow prompt and guide Iranians toward regime change. That outcome is sometimes advocated, and its consequences confidently anticipated, by neoconservatives whose certitude about feasibility resembles that which, decades ago, neoconservatism was born to counter.

Well. Every four years we saturate New Hampshire -- that small, English-speaking, culturally homogenous, ethnically temperate sliver of tranquil New England -- with politicians, consultants, journalists and political scientists. And often we are surprised -- even dumbfounded -- by how unpredictably that state's people, with their native perversity, choose to behave in their presidential primary.

McNamara, like many who leave high office, never left the capital of this nation that believes people learn from history, and that therefore history is linear and progressive. But the capital, gripped once again by the audacious hope of mastering everything, would be wise to entertain a shadow of a doubt about that.

9) Are Americans Becoming More Conservative? They Think So, But...
By Marc Ambinder

Are Americans Becoming More Conservative? They Think So, But...
Conservatives trumpet, and liberals pooh-pooh, this latest Gallup survey of American ideological self-assessment. It includes that although Americans say they're becoming more conservative, they're not voting that way, and they're not acting that way. I think George Will's classic saying is relevant here: Americans tend to be temperamental conservatives and operational liberals.

Since the 1970s, there has always been a conservative tilt to voters' self portraits, especially since liberalism is still a discredited word to non-liberals. Perhaps this will change soon, as liberals are reclaiming liberalism (and the word, too), and as the Republican brand implosion over the last five years will trickle over to the word "conservative," too. The survey's results may reflect a difference between aspiration and identity; voters wish they could be more conservative than they are. Or it could reflect the month the poll was taken it: we've been debating the deficit, Obama's approval ratings are slipping, the economy is a mess, etc -- the excitement of the first few months of the new administration have waned a bit. If Gallup had taken the same poll a few months ago, they might have found some differences, which may or may not be significant;I wonder whether these marginal changes in political identity shift from week to week...or, rather, that there are enough Americans who use their reaction to events to determine their ideological identity so as to make it appear as if, when a snapshot is taken, a trend is seen. How can the country be conservative trending if it endorsed Barack Obama's liberal policies? This poll suggests that the answer is: it just... can. Americans seem capable of separating ideology and operation, of judging how one is doing something, rather than what one is actually doing.



The poll also makes clear that the links between conservatism and the Republican Party are fraying. There is no contradiction in noting that the Republican party is weak and yet independents are growing more conservative. Indeed, this argues for a relative stasis in our politics: conservative independents used to identify as Republicans.

10) The Smell of War at Breakfast
By Yulia Latynina

Will Russia launch a war against Georgia? That is the most important question that should have been decided during U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Moscow — or, to be more precise, during Obama’s breakfast meeting on Tuesday with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Everything else was of secondary importance. Compared with the Russia-Georgia conflict, what difference does it make what kind of agreement they reach to reduce strategic nuclear arms? After all, Russia and the United States will never use these weapons against each other anyway.

The pleasantries shared between President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama during their news conference and photo ops were just as meaningless. In the end, Medvedev and Putin will always support regimes that are antagonistic to Washington for one simple reason: to increase international tensions, drive up oil prices and give the Kremlin another chance to bask in its inflated self-image as a global energy superpower.

It was very important that Obama’s visit coincided with Russia’s large-scale military exercises “Caucasus 2009,” which were most likely held in preparation for a new war in the region. And whether or not Russia’s troops will be given the green light does not depend on military considerations, but on whether Putin, after meeting with Obama, believes that he can start a war without incurring repercussions from the West.

“Caucasus 2009” is strikingly similar to the Russian exercises that preceded the August 2008 war with Georgia. The smell of war is once again in the air. Counterterrorism operations have been instituted in the Prielbrusiye region on the Russian-Georgian border, many people have been evacuated from the region and Russia has beefed up its forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Like deja vu, the Kremlin is again accusing Georgia of aggression, and yet it is Moscow that has insisted that all observers from the United Nations and Europe leave the region to remove unnecessary witnesses to Russia’s planned aggression. It would be difficult to label these moves as simply blackmail. Russia is mobilizing for war.

The Kremlin’s foreign policy is driven by one basic principle: It will pursue an aggressive, hostile policy as long as it believes it can get away with it.

The Russian-Georgian war last year was a perfect example. When Georgian forces occupied Tskhinvali, Putin, who always operated on the assumption that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was a puppet of former U.S. President George W. Bush, met with Bush in Beijing while they were attending the Olympic Games there. Bush, who apparently knew nothing about the events in Georgia, muttered something to the effect of “Nobody wants a war.” Putin interpreted these words to mean that Bush was rescinding U.S. support for Georgia. But after French President Nicolas Sarkozy flew to Georgia, this was enough to convince Putin to stop the army’s advance, even though Russian troops had already reached the outskirts of Tbilisi.

The Kremlin’s behavior is driven by both rational and irrational motives. An irrational motive is Putin’s stated desire to hang Saakashvili by the balls. A rational motive is the desire to convince the world that Saakashvili has already hanged himself by the balls.

The outcome of the last Russian-Georgian war was determined when Putin met one-on-one with Bush in Beijing. Similarly, whether or not there will be another Caucasus war will depend on what Putin reads in Obama’s eyes during this summit.

Yulia Latynina hosts a political talk show on Ekho Moskvy radio.

11) Why China might turn on North Korea: As Beijing strives to become a responsible great power, the costs of staying allied with North Korea may come to surpass the costs of abandoning it.
By Leif-Eric Easley

North Korea's provocations are testing more than weapons and diplomacy. Recent actions by the United Nations, South Korea, Japan, and United States, while well developed and coordinated, are insufficient. An effective international response hinges on how national identity changes in China reshape Beijing's strategic interests toward Pyongyang.

Owing to North Korea's historical relations with and economic dependence on China, analysts argue that Chinese leaders hold the key to solving the "North Korea problem." But the Obama administration understands, as did the Bush administration, that maximizing pressure on Beijing would be counterproductive.

China has long seen its national interests served by the status quo on the Korean Peninsula. According to a cold-war perspective about strategic balance and a post-cold-war emphasis on internal development, Beijing prioritized maintaining a buffer state and preventing North Korea's problems from spilling over China's border. While Beijing retains these priorities, the chances of it getting tough with Pyongyang are low.

However, the China of today is not the China that came to Pyongyang's aid during the Korean War – its national identity has evolved over decades of rapid development and international integration. The ideas of communist solidarity and laying low to focus on modernization are becoming obsolete.

Instead, China covets its traditional role at the center of Asia, entailing not only power, but also respect and responsibility. Such ambition is possible thanks to the success of an economic model that has brought China closer to the US, Japan, and South Korea.

China's growing identity gap with North Korea may be changing the way China views its own interests. Chinese now ask whether Beijing underestimates the costs of a nuclear-armed North Korea and being the largest backer of the Kim regime. There are also questions about whether China overestimates the usefulness of a buffer against US and South Korean forces, the challenge of North Korean refugees, and the probability of international military conflict on the peninsula.

Given the responsible great power China wants to become, the costs of staying allied with North Korea may come to surpass the costs of abandoning it.

The priority for Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo should be to stay on the same page, especially through North Korea's leadership transition. Pyongyang's belligerence provides an opportunity to fundamentally attract Beijing to the allies' position. Nuclear proliferation, illegal arms tests and trade, and holding foreign journalists for ransom are becoming anathemas to Chinese identity.

Zero-sum thinking about political and economic influence on the strategic Korean Peninsula won't suddenly disappear. However, the long-term interests that China shares with Japan, South Korea, and the US will become increasingly apparent.

Pyongyang's provocations are testing how China's changing national identity shapes its strategic interests and ultimately foreign policy. The extent to which Beijing cooperates with Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul hangs in the balance.


• Leif-Eric Easley is a PhD candidate at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., and a visiting scholar at the University of Southern California Korean Studies Institute.

12) White House, hospitals reach deal on health care
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

The nation's hospitals will give up $155 billion in future Medicare and Medicaid payments to help defray the cost of President Barack Obama's health care plan, a concession the White House hopes will boost an overhaul effort that's hit a roadblock in Congress.

Vice President Joe Biden announced the deal at the White House on Wednesday, with administration officials and hospital administrators at his side.

"Reform is coming. It is on track; it is coming. We have tried for decades to fix a broken system, and we have never, in my entire tenure in public life, been this close," Biden said. And in a firm message to lawmakers, Biden added, "We must — and we will — enact reform by the end of August."

Obama has set an ambitious timetable for legislation, with the hope of signing a comprehensive bill in October. But lawmakers returned Tuesday from their July 4 break with lots of questions about the complex legislation and deep misgivings about key elements under discussion.

Democratic senators in particular are having second thoughts about a proposed new tax on generous health insurance benefits provided by some employers. Without the tax — Republicans favor it as a brake on cost increases — the prospects for a bipartisan deal in the Senate appear to be in jeopardy.

Timing is critical because lawmakers might be reluctant to vote on such a charged issue as health care next year, when all House members and one-third of senators face elections.

"We're not there yet," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has spent countless hours seeking a compromise with Republican colleagues. "I'm trying the best I can to get there soon."

Another senator deeply involved in the bipartisan negotiations said the proposed new tax on the costliest employer-paid insurance benefits is quickly losing favor with Democrats.

"It's clearly a very difficult issue," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., citing recent polls. "You go to the public to ask them what they think and they don't like it."

A compilation of surveys reviewed by senators showed at least 59 percent of the public opposed to taxing health care benefits to "pay for reform."

As a result, Conrad said, "we're looking at other options" to help finance a bill whose price tag is expected to reach $1 trillion or slightly more. Those other options may be hard to sell to Republicans whose support Baucus has been cultivating.

Baucus has long championed a tax on health benefits as the best way to pay for health care while simultaneously restraining the growth of the cost of coverage in the future. But the idea has drawn strong opposition from organized labor, a core Democratic constituency. House Democrats have been highly resistant, too, and Obama campaigned hard against it in last year's run for the White House.

The deal with the hospitals — the one bright spot right now for Obama — may also be on shaky ground. Officials said it's pegged to the Senate Finance Committee legislation that Baucus is negotiating, and whose prospects are uncertain. It would follow concessions from drug companies, and an announcement by Wal-Mart last week that it would support an employer requirement to help pay for health care.

Of the $155 billion in projected savings from hospitals, about $40 billion to $50 billion would come from reducing federal payments hospitals receive for providing care to uninsured and low-income patients, according to lobbyists. Those payments are now made through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Medicaid cuts would be apportioned by state, as 10 percent annual reductions beginning around 2015.

Officials of public hospitals say they have concerns such reductions could also squeeze funding for trauma centers and burn units, which receive Medicare and Medicaid money. But they wanted to see the fine print.

Other savings of about $100 billion would come from slowing increases in planned Medicare payments to hospitals. A small amount of savings would come from trimming the money hospitals get for preventing patients from being readmitted for additional care.

Hospitals would also get something out of the deal. They won an agreement that if the Finance Committee's legislation includes a public health insurance plan, it would reimburse hospitals at above the rates Medicare and Medicaid pay, which hospitals have long complained are insufficient.

The issue of a government insurance plan to compete against private companies continued to inflame sentiments on both sides of the political aisle. Republicans remain solidly opposed. Democrats, citing polls that show the public is open to the idea, are talking about a showdown on the issue.

Biden was joined at the White House by Rich Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association, Richard Bracken, president of Hospital Corporation of America, Wayne Smith, president of Community Health Systems, and Sister Carol Keehan, president of Catholic Health Association of the United States.

"We know how urgently reform is needed, both for moral and economic purposes," said Keehan, who represents Catholic hospitals.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio criticized the hospital deal, saying it was negotiated out of public view. "The administration and congressional Democrats are literally bullying health care groups into cutting backroom deals to fund a government takeover of health care," Boehner said in a statement.

13) The Near East Report editors pulled together a few of the many news items that caught their attention—stories about Israeli innovation in medicine, agriculture, environmentalism, computer technology, space exploration and much more. Click the links in each summary to view the full story. Here is a brief round-up:

An Israeli Muslim woman, Dr. Suheir Assady, was recently appointed as the new head of the Nephrology Department at Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa. To date, Dr. Assady is the first Israeli Muslim woman directing a large medical department in an Israeli hospital. There are only a few women holding similar positions in the entire Middle East.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has launched its first Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in its Vision for Space Exploration, using technology that was developed by an Israeli company.

A new recycling program in Arad could not only boost the town’s depressed status, but also provide a green model for the rest of Israel, and even the Middle East. A team of researchers from the University of Haifa have stumbled upon a rare desert plant living in Israel’s mountainous Negev desert, which can irrigate itself. Israeli aviation giant IAI is playing a key role in a major European Union initiative designed to green our skies.

An Israeli company has developed a new meter that can monitor milk production in real time, enabling dairy farmers to keep immediate track of a number of critical parameters.

Prescription drugs mixed inadvertently with over the counter medications can be a lethal cocktail hospitalizing hundreds of thousands of people every year. Now an Israel company has the solution.

Imagine if you could get one flu shot that would last for three to five years, and protect you from all the different strains of flu around the world. That’s exactly what Israeli company BiondVax Pharmaceuticals is developing.

An Israeli-American research team has stumbled onto a new and interesting find—a non-radiation based therapy that may provide relief for an aggressive and hard to treat breast cancer cell known as HER2+, but which could also have wider applications for treating all kinds of cancer.

It can be tricky trying to figure out who everyone is in your Facebook photo albums, but now an Israeli company has come up with a solution—a unique face recognition technology that can analyze and identify people in your online photos, and even connect you with them on the web.