---
Israel is willing to make reasonable concessions in order for Palestinians to have an independent state and peace for their peoples. For this, Palestinians must recognize Israel as a legitimate state as well and both renounce and end terrorism.
Territory exchanges will be part of any agreement and Israel's security remains a geographical necessity.
If Abbas and his people come to their senses they will gain both a state and peace for themselves. If they cannot, then there will be more conflict and tragic killings.
Palestinians historically have relied upon unrealistic expectations and this has led them to reject all opportunities to have what they seek. Will they do so again? I would not bet against Palestinians shooting themselves in their feet again because, like children, Palestinian leadership has continually fed them unrealistic hope they could have it all if they continued to raise their demands. Palestinian leaders have understandably taken this approach because Western leaders and Obama have helped create the false allusion they could keep raising their demands. Why? Because Israel could always be pressed to make concessions.
Abbas is willing to meet Netanyahu to discuss issues that separate them as long as Netanyahu agrees to begin negotiations at the point where there is nothing left to discuss.
Neat trick and one Palestinians always trot out to prove Israeli leaders are intransigent and are against peace.
Abbas has announced the 'Palestinian Spring' has begun. I doubt the 'Palestinian Spring' with match the aroma of "Irish Spring" that wonderful smelling soap!
The role of Hamas, Iran, Turkey and Russia remain in the wings and can also disrupt any opportunity for agreement.
Meanwhile this Scottish professor should be Secretary General of The U.N. (see 1 below.)
---
Golub not gullible. (See 2 below.)
Meanwhile our jive talking president went before the GBC (Congressional Black Caucus) and demanded they take off their slippers and shake their 'booties!'
I interpret this to mean: 'I need to win! So get off your asses and keep me and Michelle in The White House. If we lose, the rich and greedy will run off with the nation, black unemployment will soar and Republicans will take away all the government advances I have made for you in education, home ownership and getting food stamps.'
---
I understand Pakistan's military and intelligence agency may be in cahoots with terrorists but I warned in a previous memo Obama's belief he could take out al Qaeda on Pakistani soil would eventually lead to trouble. The fact that Pakistan receives large sums of foreign aid does not allow us any privilege we would like. Also, the fact that Obama has announced we are leaving the region weakens our hand with Pakistan because Pakistan will still be there and must live with whatever happens in Afghanistan.
Like it or not, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. They have every right to tell us we cannot randomly kill people we may be pursuing should they escape to Pakistan. If, on the other hand Pakistan is encouraging terrorists to attack our embassy and kill our troops then how can Obama confront Pakistan and ignore Iran which has done the same thing for years?
Did Obama implement GW's ok to allow Israel buster bombs so that Israel can do to Iran that which Obama is unwilling to do? Is Obama getting ready to replicate his approach toward the Libyan conflagration in terms of Iran and allow Israel to do the heavy lifting? Did Obama leak the news of the buster bombs to Newseek to curry favor with the Jewish vote, ie. why now? Why at all?
Finally, I daresay we would not take kindly to Mexican hot pursuit of their enemies and shooting them on the soil of Arizona, Texas etc. nor, obviously, would be be happy if Mexico was instructing dope lords to attack American interests and troops.
Frankly, I am never comfortable when Obama gets tough with adversaries because it is uncharacteristic and he never follows through. Obama generally makes a bad situation worse. He did this with unemployment, our deficit, the Middle East. Not a track record that builds confidence.
Am I being too harsh? You decide.(See 3 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)A Scottish professor responds to campus boycott. The Edinburgh Student’s Association made a motion to boycott all things Israeli since they claim Israel is under an apartheid regime. Dr. Denis Maceoin (a non-Jew) is an expert in Middle Eastern affairs. Here is his letter to those students. AN EDUCATED NON-JEWISH TAKE ON ISRAEL.
Dr. Denis MacEoin, a senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly, addresses The Committee of the Edinburgh University Student Association.
TO: The Committee Edinburgh University Student Association.
May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain ‘s great Middle East experts in their day.
I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University . Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field. I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote.
I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel . That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves. Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those members of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby.
Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I’m not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel . I’m speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a “Nazi” state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nuremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel , precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for.
It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.
Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled how things were in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is.
That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country’s 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha’is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world center; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population).
In Iran , the Bahai’s (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren’t your members boycotting Iran ? Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa . They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews – something no blacks were able to do in South Africa .
Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theaters.
In Israel , women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home.
It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran , where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief.
Intelligent students thinking it’s better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?
University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak.
I do not object to well-documented criticism of Israel . I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it’s clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens.
Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya , Bahrain , Saudi Arabia , Yemen , and Iran . They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world’s freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Bahai’s…. Need I go on?
The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott. I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. Ask for some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument.
They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930′s (which, sadly, there was not), don’t you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it?
Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense. I have given you some of the evidence. It’s up to you to find out more.
Yours sincerely,
Denis MacEoin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Harvey Golub: Obama's Jobs Bill 'Boggles the Mind'
By Forrest Jones
President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs bill is mind-boggling in that raising taxes and government spending will not create jobs, says Harvey Golub, former CEO of American Express.
The bill, a mix of tax breaks and projects such as infrastructure development, is designed to increase demand for jobs, which the economy needs to recovery.
The problem, Golub says, is that stimulus measures don't produce lasting demand, and Obama's proposals come hand in hand with tax hikes that claim to target millionaires and billionaires but in reality punishes small businesses and blocks them from hiring.
"First and foremost, the president has promised to raise tax rates on the 'millionaires' making more than $250,000 per household. Meanwhile, he's ignored entitlement reform, retarded the development of our energy resources, and added new layers to our regulatory burden," Golub writes in The Wall Street Journal.
"He's also increased the uncertainty inherent in an already dysfunctional and perverse tax code, added trillions to our national debt, spent taxpayer money ineffectively and inefficiently, tried to micromanage the economy, and acted as an incompetent venture capitalist by investing in 'green jobs' and high-speed rail."
The jobs bill is not exactly rushing through the legislature.
Senate Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., admits that the Senate floor was "pretty well jammed now," ABC News reports.
Republicans have been quick to point out that Democrats aren't flocking behind Obama on the bill.
"The president has been running around the country trying to set a record for the number of times he can say 'pass this bill right away' in a five-minute stump speech," says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., ABC News adds.
"Meanwhile, his communications director is telling people the president doesn’t really expect the bill to pass. And the Democratic majority leader of the Senate is treating it like a legislative afterthought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)US and Pakistan near military clash. Islamabad blames US Afghan "disarray"
Amid spiraling Pakistani-US tensions, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani Sunday, Sept. 25, ordered Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar to return home from New York at once shortly after she warned the US against "hot pursuit" of terrorists on Pakistani soil. A sense of crisis pervaded Islamabad as Pakistan's army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani held a "special" meeting of his top commanders "to review the security situation."
Pakistan appears to be steeling itself for a possible clash with US troops
should "hot pursuit" takes place.
"The United States must not make someone a scapegoat if its goals are not achieved," the Foreign Minister Khar went on to say – apparently in response to the US message that if Islamabad fails to shut down the Haqqani network's bases, the Americans would.
Thursday, Sept. 22, the US Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen accused Pakistan's powerful ISI spy agency of supporting the Haqqani group which attacked the US embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul, capital of Afghanistan, on Sept. 13. His charge was based on the tapes obtained by US intelligence recording telephone conversations in the course of the attack in which the terrorists asked Inter-Service Intelligence officers in Pakistan for orders on how to proceed.
Pakistani intelligence is also accused of controlling the audacious suicide strike two days earlier on the Sayed Abad US Special Forces base which left 77 servicemen injured – the largest number of US casualties in a single attack in the past decade.
Friday, Sept. 23, US CENTCOM chief Gen. James Mattis arrived in Islamabad and confronted the Pakistani army chief with these charges. Gen. Kayani flatly denied any ties between the ISI and the Haqqani terrorists. He also warned that Pakistan would strike without mercy any acts of terror committed from Afghanistan by "miscreants."
The White House then issued a statement demanding that Pakistan break any link they have with terrorists.
The Americans bluntly accuse the ISI of funding and controlling the Haqqani Network and engineering its attacks on US military targets in Kabul to shake up security and wreck US political and military positions there ahead of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.
Islamabad is seen in Washington as softening up the ground for pro-Pakistan Taliban factions to move in as US troops move out in order pre-empt the rising influence of Pakistan's traditional foe India which the ISI believes the United States is helping.
The Pakistani Prime Minister raised the stakes Saturday, Sept. 24 by dismissing US charges as betraying "confusion and policy disarray within the US establishment on the way forward in Afghanistan." He therefore held the Obama administration and US military leaders no less responsible for the disarray in Afghanistan than its foes, the Taliban and the Haqqani network.
Military sources report the current crisis brings to a climax ten years of mutual recriminations: The United States accuses Pakistan of playing a double role in the US war against Al Qaeda and Taliban – earning an annual $3 billion aid package from Washington while quietly nurturing Taliban and Pakistani terrorist groups, some linked to al Qaeda, for operations in Afghanistan and India.
Until May this year, the governments kept their voices down. Washington was concerned to maintain the important transit route supplies to US forces fighting in Afghanistan and so, when the argument became too strident, American secretaries of state or defense and CIA chiefs rushed over to Islamabad to hush things up and chart new paths for cooperation.
However, the US Special Forces raid on the Pakistani garrison town of Abbotville, to kill Osama Bin Laden, put an end to this on-again, off-again armistice. Washington refused to believe that he had enjoyed asylum there for five years without the knowledge of Pakistani military intelligence. Islamabad refused to take the American breach of their sovereignty without forewarning or the Pakistani military reacting lying down.
The acute differences burst out in the open. Pakistani public opinion, whose anti-Americanism is ingrained, refused to tolerate the false face of common interests and cooperation presented by Washington and Islamabad and insisted on a policy change: "The US can be friends but not masters," because a watchword.
The Gilani government can therefore no longer afford to be seen obeying Washington by cracking down on radical Islamic militias and terrorists operating in the country, whether Taliban, the Haqqani Network of Al Qaeda. Such measures would quickly be translated into burning American flags on Pakistani streets and demonstrations against the government.
The heads of that government no longer hold back their criticism of America's conduct of the Afghan war or their views that Washington has no chance of attaining a negotiated peace even with a part of the Taliban command.
Islamabad would prefer the Obama administration to pull his troops out of Afghanistan at once because, Pakistani leaders believe that the longer they stay, the greater the debacle. They have no intention of being associated with this downfall.
Gilani is not the only Pakistani leader terming US policy in Afghanistan as marked by "confusion and policy disarray."
Friday, Sept. 23, the Washington Post carried this comment: When President Obama told Americans in July that the “tide of war is receding” in Afghanistan, 3,100 soldiers from the 172nd brigade were just beginning to arrive in this rugged swath of the country — their first Afghan deployment coinciding almost exactly with the war’s ebb. The timing leaves [Col. Edward] Bohnemann to balance two separate directives that are often at odds with each other: to do all he can to defeat insurgents, while also preparing for an American departure by the end of 2014.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
No comments:
Post a Comment