Will Dawn Dawn on Obama? Learning Equals Re-election!

 Obama's New 'Lean Forward' Campaign Strategy
---

Ne'eman diagnoses the meaning of Netanyahu-Mofaz! (See 1 below.)

---

Union bark bigger than its bite? You decide.  Wisconsin voters did!

If Obama can discern the message it could even boost his own prospects because his campaign could then  begin to send a message he understands the mood of America but I doubt Obama can reverse course because he is ideologically bound in a different direction than our nation. (See 2  below.)

You do not have to be on the ballot to lose! (See 2a below.)

With the selection of a Democrat, the Wisconsin Senate returns to their control.  This is why Romney must appeal to voters not to give him 'half a loaf' if they expect him to accomplish his agenda.

---

Turkey dumped Israel, so Israel is using its new found energy discoveries to build significant ties with Azerbaijan which also helps the U.S. (See 3 below.)

---

Tobin challenges Jeffrey Goldberg  and outlines  the positive aspects of Israel winning  the 6th Day War! (See 4 below.)

---

Under Putin, is Russia returning to its old ways?  (See 5 below.)

---

Is dawn beginning to dawn on Obama vis a vis Palestinian desire for peace?  DUH!

Netanyahu has conveyed, in no uncertain terms, he is serious about negotiating a two state solution and now that he has a unity government he can do so without having to worry about  always looking over his shoulder.  Netanyahu is willing to do so as long as there are no preconditions which, of course Abbas demands, because then there would be nothing to negotiate.

It has finally dawned on Jordan that Netanyhau is serious, maybe it is beginning to sink into Obama's head that Netanyahu is serious and that Abbas and the Palestinians remain the cork in the bottle, the sand in the gear.

Are we about to see Obama demonstrate he is learning on the job? Is he trying to validate the  lap dogs in the press and media's message who will begin to rationalize his re-election based on learning  since they cannot highlight his record? (See 6 below.)

---

Have three decisions by The Supremes dealt the 'et tu' blow to Obama? Will the forthcoming decision on 'Obamascare' prove the final undoing of Obama's belief government should be all encompassing? 

Stay tuned because it is gong to be an interesting , if not nasty, summer. (See 7 below.)

---

Just wanted to let you know -

Today I received my 2012 Social Security
Stimulus Package.
It contained:

Two tomato seeds,

Cornbread mix,

A prayer rug,

A machine to blow smoke up my a--,

2 discount coupons to KFC,

An "Obama Hope & Change"bumper sticker,

And a "Blame it on Bush" poster for the front yard.

The directions were in Spanish.

Watch for yours soon.

---

Avi and economic warfare against Iran.  Will it suffice and eliminate the need for military action as they get hit where they are the weakest and most exposed? Time will tell.  (See 8 and my own comments below.)

---

Finally, I am going to make a stab at explaining the significance of the differences between Netanyahu's negotiating position demands about Iran's nuclear and what is the West's position.

1) Yes, sanctions are taking a bite. However, N Korea proved they could still move forward developing their nuclear capabilities while sanctions were imposed and because of their willingness to allow their people to suffer economic hardships..

  

Netanyahu, and all of Israel have no illusions about Iran's desire to achieve nuclear status. Most in the West now get that message as well. The problem lies in the subtle differences between what Netanyahu believes should be offered as the point of negotiation versus what the West is offering and seems willing to accept if Iran agrees.

2)  Iran is not serious about stopping their nuclear program and thus, they will play cat and mouse, do so by feigning in order to gain time for continuing their low grade nuclear development. Developing more low grade uranium is the key point.

3)  The difference between Israel's demands and those of the West and U.S. involve the following:

a)Israel demands Iran be stopped from developing low grade uranium because if Iran is allowed to continue low grade development it puts them in a position to be 2/3rds of the way towards developing a bomb. They apparently have enough high grade uranium for five bombs but still need more low grade uranium development.

b)  The West has put forth an agreement which allows Iran to stop development of 20% enriched uranium but the plan allows Iran to continue low grade development.

c)  There are also differences  between Israel and the West regarding shipping the enriched uranium outside the country and most importantly shutting down the Parchin nuclear facility.

These distinctions are subtle but make a huge difference in deterrence of Iran's program versus its elimination.

Iran seeks to manipulate the West and the foreign press by agreeing, then delaying implementation to whatever they agree all the while continuing along their merry way vis a vis low enrichment.  That is what Iran is currently  doing.

3)  What does it take to stop Iran? In Netanyahu's view, tougher oil sanctions (because oil represents 80% of Iran's income source.) This  means stop Iran's oil shipments.  Second,  raise the financial costs of any oil transactions and most importantly, make Iran understand the West is serious about the military option.

(When GW attacked Iraq, Iran ceased its nuclear program fearing they would be next.  The press and media  forget this.)

All of what I have said above has been repeatedly stated by Netanyahu, is out in the open for all to read, should they care to do so, but the problem is the press and media have not highlighted the subtlety of the differences and the West appears willing to accept a commitment from Iran that falls short, far short.

What Netanyahu means by ratcheting up is make the military option so viable Iran clearly understands and then, perhaps, real progress can be made.

If, after that, Iran continues to press forward Israel, much to Netanyahu and Israel's chagrin, will do what it has to do and which the West will have failed failed doing.  I am as certain of this as I am that of writing it.

---

Dick

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Netanyahu:  The Next Year and a Half, a Socio-Economic Look

By Yisrael Ne'eman

Last month Shaul Mofaz brought his Kadima party into a national unity government coalition with PM Benyamin Netanyahu's Likud.  Speculation was rife as to why the two made the agreement.  Everyone was preparing for the last vote in the Knesset to legislate early elections for September 4.  Mofaz and Kadima were far behind in the public opinion polls and Netanyahu appeared to have the up coming elections wrapped up with some 31 seats.  He would form another right wing/religious government while the Kadima centrists and the left would continue sinking further into the opposition quick sand. 

But something did not add up.  Let's call it multiple contradictions.  Did Netanyahu want to remain in a right/religious coalition where the settlement movement in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) calls the shots on foreign policy as far as Palestinian issues are concerned?  Did the PM and his party want to be beholden to the Sephardi ultra-orthodox party Shas (11 seats) and their Ashkenazi counterparts in United Torah Judaism – UTJ (6 seats) where rabbinical determinations trump policy decisions by elected officials especially when confronting the Supreme Court decision demanding equality between all sectors in light of the military draft?  The "social justice" movement was brewing for another summer of protests not only by the middle class but by the lower classes who see themselves as constant losers especially in the wake of the illegal immigrant surge from Africa.  And of course there is the Iranian problem.  Should one take action and if so, when?   Netanyahu preferred Kadima and Mofaz who having recently replaced the more liberal Tzipi Livne, decided that fateful decisions were not made in the opposition.  Is this a marriage of convenience or a confluence of interests?  There is a bit of both.

First a word about Mofaz.  He is the son of Iranian immigrants who worked his way up to becoming army chief of staff at the end of the 1990s when he defeated Matan Vilnai who was considered a shoe in for the position.  He later became defense minister under PM Ariel Sharon until the 2006 elections.  Mofaz followed Sharon and former PM Ehud Olmert into Kadima (even though he first announced he would remain in the Likud), made his way to #2 and now leads the faltering party.  Kadima retains the same neo-liberal economic ideals as Netanyahu and the Likud but is centrist-left on foreign policy.  Under Livne Kadima wallowed in the opposition.  Before the next elections Mofaz wants to prove his party will make a difference in overall policy implementation.

The picture at the moment is getting quite a bit dimmer:

The middle class "social justice" movement demos of last summer will return with the housing issue in the forefront.  The government promise of free schooling from the age of three is expected to be implemented this September and there is the continual discussion of a tax reform of sorts.  Such expectations may prove major disappointments.  But a much larger question is in the offering – Will the explosive lower classes take to the streets demanding decent low income (and government subsidized) housing, schools where children actually get an education, a drastic lowering of food prices (which are 20% higher than the average OECD nation), jobs and physical security on their streets?  As is known the revolt against the illegal African immigrants, especially from Sudan and Eritrea is here with the accompanying violence.  The Knesset right wing, including certain Likud members, is fanning the flames for political reasons but it may blow up in everyone's face since no real solutions are being offered.  Putting illegal immigrants into detention is one thing, solving all the other issues is far more difficult.  We may be in for a very volatile summer with Israel's under classes in the starring role pushing aside the polite, fairly well connected genteel middle class professionals whose idea of a demonstration includes a trek with baby carriages and some good music.

Let's recall that most of Israel's working class population votes for the Likud and right wing parties.  Despite their situation they are loathe to take on the government.  If pushed to the wall they may, but first they will take out their anger on the African migrants, tens of thousands of whom are in Israel illegally but obviously must enjoy basic human rights and police protection against bodily harm.  We may have a situation of displaced aggression being meted out against this unfortunate group when the real anger is against the government.  One would think that their disappearance will greatly improve the socio-economic status of Israel's lower classes.  If well organized, lower class anger will pour into the streets and make a difference and if not we may be in for the soccer fan variety of hooliganism, but on a fairly large scale.

The government is constantly stressing its great economic success.  The expectation is for a "trickle down" capitalist economy.  Unfortunately for Netanyahu the economy is extremely centralized around twenty families or so.  Israel's GDP grows by more than 4% yearly since the mid-2000s but the average person feels he is being left out.  The overall cry for an economic decentralization and more taxes on the rich will be heard.  Officials from the World Bank and the governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer (similar to the US federal reserve chairman) have voiced similar criticisms.

So this brings us to the 2013 election year state budget.  There is an immediate need for a 7-10 billion shekel cut but this apparently will not be enough.  Overall, there is a cumulative 32 billion shekel deficit over the past year or so, much the result of the slowing world economic picture and export decline.  There are options of raising taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations while slashing the defense budget.  Or one can cut social services to the lower classes.  And any combination of the above comes to mind.  The tax burden as usual will fall on the middle class bringing about the exact opposite result of the Trachtenberg Report recommendations for partial budget restructuring following last summer's protests.  Expectations were raised while the economic picture worsened.

While economic disparities in Israeli society annoy many, the state legislated inequality in favor of the ultra-orthodox (haredi) communities is infuriating.  As is well known most haredi youth continue studying in yeshivas (or pretend to) while Israeli high school graduates go to the army.  The haredi population is growing much faster than any other in the Jewish sector, yet they are barely present when asked to serve the country.  The Supreme Court ruled recently that the haredim must be treated equally and not be given special privileges.  The last government initiative on this matter known as the Tal Law was recently struck down by the Court and is due to expire on July 31.  The government is scrambling to find an alternative without violating the Court decision and it is quite probable the Shas and UTJ ultra-orthodox parties will leave the coalition taking 17 seats with them.  Augmented by 28 Kadima seats there will be no government crisis.  However how will the army draft yeshiva students who refuse military service while enjoying the full support of their rabbis to defy the Court and the State?  Will they do the acceptable national service instead or will there be a form of deferment and/or job arrangement which in itself may entail legal difficulties?  Here is one more social-political crisis for the summer.

Netanyahu and Mofaz have their work cut out for them on the socio-economic front but this is only half the story.  The government must deal with the settler movement and the Givat Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El which pits the hard line right wing and religious against Netanyahu, the center and the left in a battle not only over the future of a neighborhood but in an ideological confrontation over the fate of the State of Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Israel's relationship with the Palestinians.  Add to this the greater picture of the continuing political Islamization of the Arab World and the Iranian nuclear threat and the picture begins to sharpen.  Netanyahu prefers decision making with Kadima at his side and does not want to rely on the ultra-orthodox and/or pro-settlement Jewish Home party (3 seats) for support as he seeks out a more centrist position.  Mofaz and Kadima must prove they are players in the game and that only they can move the government towards a more secular and middle position, if they fail they the 2013 elections may be their undoing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)Big Labor's Big Boo-Boo

By C. Edmund Wright

Wow.  Where to start? 

The "it's gonna be a late night in Madison" notion was virtually over by the end of Happy Hour -- which no doubt did cause some very late nights instead in Washington and Chicago.  With little or no happiness at all.  And naturally there were also the comparisons to the vibes of the night Scott Brown took down the Kennedy seat in 2009.  More on both of these dynamics shortly.

The real story is: what happened this spring in Wisconsin was not a recall election at all.  Pure and simple, it was a mulligan.  A childish do-over.  Moreover, it was a battle of government union members and their families against pretty much everyone else.  And when that really crystallized in the minds of the voters, the unions' cause was doomed.  The name Tom Barrett is irrelevant here.  The biggest losers last night -- and there were many -- were big labor generally and public service unions specifically.

Succinctly put, the petty, protected, pampered lefty government unions -- still indignant over Scott Walker's 2010 win -- simply threw a 75 million dollar tantrum as a third do over on that same election.  And the unions' reward from the citizens of Wisconsin for a year and a half of hell was a resounding "go to hell" of epic proportions.  And if anyone doubts that there is a God -- and that He has a sense of humor -- the Wisconsin State Motto is, yep, "Forward." 

You can't make this stuff up.

Making stuff up, however, is what the entire leftist media-Democratic Party complex is doing today, blaming everything and everyone from the Citizens United decision, voter fraud, a bogus robo-call, George Bush -- and probably even Brett Favre.  MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell even pretended the election did not happen, focusing on Mitt Romney's job creation record in Massachusetts instead.  It's all very funny.  And satisfying.

Now the losers:

Big Labor: Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell didn't want to admit it on Fox, but big labor was absolutely the huge loser last night and in fact, they have been losing ever since Walker took office.  It was the behavior of the unions in the Madison riots that really started the general public's focusing in on just how much these "public servants" are now making in salaries, pensions and health care, and how damned entitled they feel to all of this.  That is what started all of this mess.  The public was also tuned in to the unseemly nature of public sector unions per se and their relationship with politicians they get elected.  And perhaps most devastating of all is the fact that some government unions in Wisconsin have lost over half of their own membership during this protracted battle.  And oh by the way, public sector unions started in Wisconsin.  In 1959. 

Democratic Party: It goes without saying that if big labor loses, the Democratic Party loses.  Actually, we have Wisconsin to thank that this now goes without saying.  The past 21 months have been a highly visible object lesson for all to see.  Moreover, the Democrats have lost much of their built in fund raising via the union mechanism thanks to some of Walker's reforms.

MSM and their exit polling: As 9pm EDT rolled around last night, all media outlets were buzzing with word that the exit polls were 50-50 and Ed Schultz was settling in "for a long night."  He had no idea at the time.  These exit polls excited the same fantasies that these same media outlets had been feeding that "the race was tightening" in the final week.  Actually, it was not tightening at all.  One thing the exit polls showed was that almost everybody who voted had long made up their minds.  And why not?  You're either on the gummint gravy train or your're not.  What's to decide?  How this escaped the geniuses in the media is another story.  But they lost last night in a big way.

Obama: This one is a no brainer, and was pretty much obvious when he decided to avoid Wisconsin this week like yellow in the game Twister.  But it goes deeper than that. His failure to do more than send a last minute Twitter message in support of Barrett has to rankle the unions, who have in the past done so much to get Obama and other Democrats elected. Looking ahead to November, their coffers are depleted, and enthusiasm for giving money to Obama, manning phone banks, and canvassing drives has to diminish not just in Wisconsin but beyond.

GOP Establishment: Setting Reince Preibus aside for a second, the GOP Establishment took a bit of a whipping last night -- because Walker is exactly the kind of Republican the establishment constantly warns us is poison for the party. Preibus gets a lot of grief because he is RNC Chair and they normally deserve it . But Preibus was key to Walker's first win as well as Senator Johnston's defeat of Russ Feingold in 2010.  We can only hope that now Preibus will have more cred in the halls of the RNC offices inside the Beltway.

Gop Consultants / Conventional Wisdom See above, but the consultant class deserves their own space in the biggest loser category.  They have cost us many elections over the decades, and last night was a huge blow to their entire foundational template.  This may be Walker's biggest gift of all to conservatives.

Bipartisanship / No Labels Crowd: The stunning vitriol and passion in this election, along with the results of the recent Pew Research findings, have dealt the notion of "getting along" and bipartisanship a huge blow.  Actually, reality is the problem with bipartisanship.  This is a nation divided on the role of government and government unions and all of the attendant spending and control in our lives.  Many of us knew that already.  Those that didn't surely should now, after seeing the last 21 months unfold in Madison and after perusing the Pew results as well.

Julia: The entire nanny state government dependency mindset -- as demonstrated by the Obama 2012 cartoon character Julia -- took a big whipping last night as well.  The folks who pay for all of the government union members and for all of the Julias had a collective awakening and said enough is enough.  If there's another installment of Julia, and I suspect there will not be, she would be very unhappy watching MSNBC in last night's episode.

Now, as pleasing as this result is, this is not an indication that Mitt Romney can necessarily come rolling into Wisconsin and win.  While Walker, his Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch and several State Senators won last night, surveys indicate that even in this environment Romney would have lost.  Besides, rarely has Romney shown the cojones on any issue that Walker has shown consistently.

Which brings us to the contrast with the Brown win in 09.  The Walker win is even sweeter and more significant.  Scott Brown campaigned on tea party principles, and while avoiding the term celebrated those principles in his victory speech. But he has not always voted that way -- and will run against Princess Warren as a moderate.

Scott Walker meanwhile campaigned outwardly as a tea party type in 2010,  governed that way absolutely -- campaigned again as a tea party candidate this year -- and won an even bigger victory. Now, in his speech last night, Walker said that "he's committed to working together" and to is determined to "put this election behind us." Of course he was sounding the obligatory good winner attitude, as he should have.  We all know better.  The liberals, their unions, their President, their media -- all have to be defeated because there is no working with them. 

And last night, we did.  Soundly.

2a)Red Flags All Over for Obama in Wisconsin

By Josh Kraushaar

President Obama wasn't on the ballot in Wisconsin, but Gov. Scott Walker's decisive victory in last night's gubernatorial recall is a stinging blow to his prospects for a second term.  The re-election was a telltale sign that the conservative base is as energized as ever, that the Democratic GOTV efforts may not be as stellar as advertised, and that the Democratic-leaning "blue wall" Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will be very much in play this November.

Walker won by a bigger margin than he did in 2010, and with more overall votes. He carried 38 percent of union households - a slight improvement from his 2010 midterm tally -- a strikingly strong number given how he's been cast as the villain of labor.  It's a sign of the cultural divide between national Democrats and blue-collar whites, one that is particularly acute for the president.

Obama's team is taking consolation in the fact that exit polling showed him leading Mitt Romney, 51 to 44 percent.  But that's hardly good news: with near-presidential level turnout (and notably higher level of union turnout), Obama is running five points behind his 2008 performance.  Replicate that dropoff across the board, and all the key swing states flip to Mitt Romney. 

For all of Obama's political talent, he's been a major drag on his party since taking office.  In 2009, Republicans won two hotly-contested gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, with the victors (Chris Christie/Bob McDonnell) now on Romney's vice-presidential short list. During the heat of the health care debate in 2010, Scott Brown picked up Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts.  Later that year, Republicans regained control of the House, by winning a whopping 63 seats while picking up six Senate seats.  And now, Walker wins the recall by a bigger margin than in the 2010 election, which was already a watershed year for Wisconsin Republicans. 

All this suggests that something has to change fast for Obama to avoid the fate of his party colleagues come November. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Clinton in Baku amid Russian-Iranian friction over Azeri stake in Israeli energy

Richard Morningstar, designated US ambassador to Baku

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives in Baku, Azerbaijan Wednesday, June 6, to kick off a South Caucasian tour amid President Ilam Aliyav’s worsening relations with Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Baku’s pro-Western orientation and its fast-growing military and energy ties with Israel are thorns in both their sides.

Azerbaijan is an expanding strategic asset for Washington: Since Pakistan closed its overland route for supplies to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the US is increasingly reliant on Azerbaijan’s airfields. Its logistical value will rise with the advance of the 2014 date for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Clinton will have another go, after several failures, at resolving the long-running Nagorno-Karabakh conflict over which Russia and Iran side with Armenia against Azerbaijan. The day she landed in Baku, Armenian forces killed five Azerbaijani soldiers in a border clash.

Washington has never admitted its direct involvement in the bilateral ties unfolding between Baku and Jerusalem but its generally understand that those ties act as a thin wedge through America’s door to the region. It is significant that the party welcoming the US secretary in the Azerbaijan capital includes Richard L. Morningstar, whom President Barack Obama picked in May as ambassador to the small oil republic. He is still awaiting congressional endorsement.


Middle East sources report Morningstar is the architect of the Obama administration’s oil and gas policy in Central Asia opposite Russia and Iran, as well as the linchpin of US energy policy in the Middle East. He was present at all the negotiations leading up to the contracts signed by Israel, Greece and Cyprus for the distribution of offshore Mediterranean gas and oil beds. His presence bespoke the administration’s support for the investment in their exploitation by American oil interests.

It may be presumed that Morningstar was in on the newly-signed $1.6 billion contract for the sale of Israeli arms to Azerbaijan - although Washington is unlikely to confirm this.

Moscow and Tehran are particularly put out by this deal in the regional context, concerned that it will enhance Azerbaijan’s military clout in the Caucasian and the Caspian Sea. With a well-equipped militlary, he will be a lot freer to pursue an independent energy policy and less vulnerable to pressures from Tehran and Moscow.

Regarding the second side of the relatationship, towards the end of 2011, the Azerbaijan state-owned Caspian Drilling Company quietly signed a contract for the acquisition of a 5 percent share in the firm controlling the Israeli Med Ashdod, which is developing an offshore field estimated to hold 280 million barrels of oil. This was the first Azeri investment in a foreign energy project.

Soon after the signing, in November 2011, a secret meeting took place in London between representatives of the Russian energy colossus Gazprom and Israel to discuss a Russian bid to acquire a stake in Med Ashdod.

Moscow also put out secret feelers for stakes in additional Israeli gas and oil Mediterranean projects. One offer was for the Russians to provide and finance pumping facilities and pipelines for the Israeli fields and take charge of marketing to Europe. Vladimir Putin, while running for president, quietly lobbied top Israeli officials to gain their support for Moscow’s partnership proposition.

In the last week of April this year, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman spent two days in Baku. The talks he held there with Azeri leaders were veiled in secrecy, but sources in Baku said they were concerned with the highly important laying down of guidelines for the rapidly-evolving security and energy ties between the two countries.

In 2011, Israel purchased one-third of its oil consumption from Azerbaijan – 2.5 million barrels worth $2 billion dollars, and the volume of trade between them rose to $4 billion, making that Caspian country Israel’s biggest trading partner in the former Soviet bloc.

Military and intelligence ties between Baku and Jerusalem have been consistently kept under wraps, but while Moscow and Tehran knew about them, they never expected them to expand to their present magnitude.

The deal today holds Azerbaijan’s investments in Israel’s burgeoning energy industry contingent on the scale of its arms purchases.  Both elements of this trade-off are earmarked for massive growth.

According to European energy sources, Azerbaijan’s aspirations go beyond investment in developing Israel’s Mediterranean gas and oil fields and extend to bidding for a role with American energy firms in laying the pipelines planned to carry the oil to European outlets. This would make Baku a rival for Putin’s ambitions to carve out a place in the new markets for Gazprom.

In the view of some Western military experts, the interface between the Azerbaijani and Israeli energy and military spheres offers Jerusalem a strategic pathway to the Caspian region under Iran’s nose, as well a lucrative source of revenue for its arms industry for years go come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Winning Six Day War doomed Israel?

By Jonathan Tobin

Forty-five years ago today, the Six-Day War began. But rather than this being an occasion for the world to remember when Israel's existence hung in the balance, it is, instead, merely being used as an opportunity for pundits and critics to urge the Jewish state to recreate in some way the world of June 5, 1967. In one such column, Jeffrey Goldberg resurrects the now familiar theme that Israel's famous victory was actually a defeat because it left the Jewish state in possession of the West Bank. For Goldberg, the only way for Israel to finally win the war that began on that day is for it to begin a process of unilateral withdrawal from the territories.

Goldberg's thesis is that the demographic threat from the Arab population of both the West Bank and pre-1967 Israel to the country's Jewish majority requires the withdrawal of Jewish settlements even if a peace accord is not in sight. Goldberg's support for another Israeli attempt at unilateralism is misguided, because the experience of Gaza proved that such tactics lead only to grief, and no critic of Israel will think better of it if the settlers are removed but troops remain. But the assumption that the outcome of that war is still in the balance and depends on Israel's exit from the territories is flawed. It misunderstands the nature of the conflict and Israel's ability to transform the attitudes of its neighbors or the world. So long as the goal of Israel's foes is its destruction and not merely withdrawal from the West Bank or parts of Jerusalem, the only way to look at the Six-Day War or the current impasse is through the prism of survival, not the world's perceptions. That was just as true 45 years ago when Israel's government was instructed by the world — including the United States — to sit back and wait to be attacked as it is today.

The belief that the Arabs can ultimately win the Six-Day War by waiting patiently until they outnumber the Jews between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River is based on the assumption that the status quo is untenable and must inevitably be replaced by either a two-state solution or the transformation of Israel into an Arab majority country. But that idea that Israel must choose now between the two is mistaken.

Goldberg is right that the overwhelming majority of Israelis have no wish to rule over millions of Palestinians. But the roadblock to peace that would create a two-state solution has never been the settlements. It has been, as Goldberg acknowledges, the Palestinians' rejection of peace offers that would have given them independence in most of the territories in 2000, 2001 and 2008 and their refusal to even restart negotiations. In the absence of a sea change in Palestinian political culture that would allow them to live in peace alongside a Jewish state, peace is impossible.

As unpleasant as the status quo is for Israel, it is preferable to a return to the situation of June 1967 when Israel was, despite its underdog status, no closer to universal popularity than it is today. The assumption that it must lead inevitably to a one-state solution is foolish simply because there is no mechanism by which Israel will ever allow itself to be voted out of existence by the Palestinians. Nor is it a given that such an Arab majority will ever exist. What Israel must and can do is what it has been doing for 45 years: waiting for the Arabs to come to their senses and give up a notion of Palestinian nationalism that is rooted in negation of Zionism. That was only made possible by military victory.

The achievements of 1967 are by no means impermanent even if it led to a situation in the West Bank that is not optimal. In the wake of that war, Israel got the strategic depth as well as the confidence to survive even while it was besieged by hostile neighbors while the world looked on with indifference.

The victory won in those days also altered the relationship between Israel and the United States. It set in motion a process that has forged a strategic alliance between the two countries that is now a permanent fact in the Middle East that no amount of Arab or Muslim hatred or European hostility can erase.

What was at stake in those six days wasn't a matter of perceptions or demography but simple survival as Arab armies massed to attempt to reverse the verdict of the 1948-49 War of Independence. What followed was a changed and often problematic new world but one that ensured Israel would not be erased, as many feared it would in the weeks before the shooting started. In winning the war with what seemed to be miraculous speed, the conflict wasn't ended, but it was changed to one that could be managed from a position of Israeli strength.

Part of the problem with grasping this reality is the difficulty of recalling not only how dire Israel's strategic situation was on June 5, 1967, but also how precarious its hold on the world's sympathy was then.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)Russia returning to its old ways?

By Fred Weir

Duma rushing through a bill that will impose large fines for a wide range of protests. Activists say the hikes amount to financial intimidation to chill the protest movement

OSCOW — (TCSM) As the Russian Duma rushes through a bill that will drastically raise fines for taking part in an unsanctioned political meeting, more than two dozen people were arrested outside the parliament Tuesday for protesting the hike, which activists say will raise the fines to cost-prohibitive levels, chilling most forms of public activism.

Among those hauled away by police was the leader of the liberal Yabloko party, Sergei Mitrokhin, who says that he and other activists were only standing on the street and handing out leaflets advertising a legally-permitted political protest due to take place later in the morning. Reached on his cellphone, Mr. Mitrokhin said authorities were trying to prevent activists from carrying out even the most basic activities that are considered normal in any democratic society.

"This is how things are going. Soon we will not be able to hold mass meetings or even any sort of street gathering," he says. "The law under preparation is the law of a dictatorship; the crackdown is already underway, not only in Moscow but around the regions of Russia as well."

The bill that's being hurried through its final two readings by the pro-Kremlin majority will impose fines on individuals of 20,000 roubles ($660), or up to 50 hours of community labor, and registered organizations up to 300,000 roubles ($10,000) if any "disorder" takes place, even during the course of a legally-permitted rally. Fines for unsanctioned meetings, even flash mob-type protests, will go up to 200,000 roubles ($6,600). If any injuries take place in the course of public disorders, fines will grow immensely - reaching up to 1 million roubles ($33,000) for organizers.

The potentially steep fines have activists voicing the need to band together. "We need to stress our continuing commitment to peaceful methods," writes Ilya Yashin, a leading protest organizer, in the opposition weekly Novaya Gazeta. "And (in the face of the new laws) we'll have to realize the slogan 'one for all and all for one' in practice. In light of the rise in penalties, we must agree among ourselves that if one of us has to pay a huge fine, we'll all join our efforts to collect the money."

Supporters of the draft law say it corresponds with international norms and fills a legislative hole in Russia, where participants in opposition rallies have traditionally displayed astonishingly peaceful and orderly behavior, at least compared to European protests, where Molotov cocktails, shop-window trashing, car burning and pitched battles with police are often the order of the day.

But everyone was shocked when a downtown Moscow rally on the eve of Vladimir Putin's inauguration last month turned violent after a few protesters allegedly provoked police, who charged the crowd with tear gas and batons, and arrested over 600.

"I wouldn't agree that this law has a repressive character, but rather that it's similar to laws in Europe and the US, which impose tough penalties on those who create disruptions during mass meetings," says Dmitry Orlov, director of the Agency of Political and Economic Communications, a Moscow think tank.

"We needed a law like this, because our previous experience is no guide to the future. Massive gatherings can create serious problems, even those with no political character, like sport events. Meetings should be meetings, and should not change direction. This law has nothing to do with dictatorship, it's just a measure to make organizers feel responsible for the actions of people they have summoned into the street," Mr. Orlov says.

Critics say the law is being rammed through the Duma by the ruling United Russia party virtually without discussion. They say authorities are determined to have the additional legal tools it provides to punish protesters in place by the end of this week, in order to cast a chill over the next big sanctioned opposition rally, which is slated for June 12.

"There has been no debate about this draft law. They are just rushing it through," says Gennady Gudkov, a Duma deputy with the left-wing Fair Russia party, which opposes the legislation. "We are getting ready for the worst. We think this is a law that's appropriate to a police state that's evolving into a dictatorship. We're trying to fight it, but it's awfully hard in this environment."

According to an analysis of the first draft of the law by the international monitoring group Human Rights Watch, the legislation could be invoked by police to punish organizers of sanctioned rallies if any protesters commit even minor infractions, such as walking on park grass, littering, or allegedly interfering with traffic.

"Imposing large fines for violating rules on public events will have a chilling effect on peaceful assembly in Russia," Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, is quoted as saying. "The aim seems to be to curtail demonstrations rather than to properly regulate them."

Among other things, the proposed new rules will bar anyone who's been twice convicted of infractions to ever again be listed as an organizer of a political rally. It would also enshrine the rights of local authorities to create lists of municipal venues that cannot be used for protests.

Until now, Moscow officials have employed subterfuges to prevent opposition groups from gathering at symbolically-important downtown locations. For example, after several small meetings at the central Triumph Square, authorities initiated "repairs," keeping the entire area fenced off from the public for more than a year - though no repairs have taken place.

"What is basically objectionable about this law is that, out of all possible threats to society, it singles out the threat of disorders at mass rallies and massively raises the penalties," says Sergei Davidis, a lawyer who works with the opposition Solidarity movement.

"How can it be that the punishment for some petty infraction committed at a protest rally is greater than that for some minor criminal offenses? Of course big gatherings of people are difficult, by their very nature, to regulate administratively. But there is a general principle followed in most democratic societies that 'everything that's not specifically prohibited is permitted.' This draft law seems to be based on the premise that everything is prohibited unless it is specifically permitted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6)

Obama: Abbas may not want peace In meeting with Orthodox Jewish leaders, US president says he fears window of opportunity in peace process may be closing, worries that Palestinians no longer interested in advancing peace By Yitzhak Benhorin

US President Barack Obama told Orthodox Jewish leaders on Tuesday that President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians may not want a peace agreement and that he fears that the window of opportunity for a deal is closing.

Nevertheless, Obama said he intends to continue to promote the two-state solution. In a meeting with Orthodox Union leaders at the White House Obama said that he was consistent in his support forIsrael throughout his first term as president.

Obama said that differences with Israel were in part due to the quirk of history of a centrist US government and a right-wing Israeli government coexisting. He noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to act without restraints, but that most leaders want to the same. Netanyahu does not was to be seen as bowing to the US administration and being perceived as weak, he said.

Nevertheless, he stressed that he and Netanyahu get along well. He noted that his statement on settlement construction freeze was based on the position of the four previous administrations.

Asked about lessons learned from efforts to promote the peace process, he replied that Egypt and Syria were examples for the burning need to resolve the Palestinian issue. He said he had learned that the process was truly a tough one and that there were many opportunities for misunderstandings.

Obama noted that both Israel and the Palestinians felt the US pressure to reach a compromise which created tensions. He stressed that although Israel felt it was the only one being pressed, Washington did the same with the Palestinians. Obama added that the fact that the US was more responsive toward Israel created a problem with the Palestinians.

'US is pro-Israeli'

The US president stated that the fact that the White House declared that Israel's needs were the most important in the two-state solution proves it is pro-Israeli. He expressed hope that the parties will go forward with the peace process but admitted it was possible that the Palestinians were not interested in an agreement.

He noted that their position regarding the peace process had suffered a setback.

Obama stressed that his commitment to Israel can not be questioned but that he cannot be expected to agree with Israel on all matters.

The meeting was also attended by Obama's Jewish chief of staff Jack Lew, Orthodox Union President Dr. Simcha Katz, OU Public Policy Director Nathan Diament and other Jewish leaders.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7)Ilya Shapiro: Why Obama Strikes Out In Court

Three unanimous Supreme Court decisions against the government suggest that the administration has a faulty view of federal power.

By ILYA SHAPIRO

As the world awaits the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare, there's a larger story that the pundits are missing: the court's rejection of the Obama administration's increasingly extreme claims on behalf of unlimited federal power.

This term alone, the high court has ruled unanimously against the government on religious liberty, criminal procedure and property rights. When the administration can't get even a single one of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areas of the law, that's a sign there's something wrong with its constitutional vision.

Let's take these cases in order:

First, in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the government sued a church school that fired a teacher for violating one of the church's religious tenets: threatening to sue over an employment dispute rather than resolving the disagreement internally. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claimed this violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because the firing was related to the teacher's health issues.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in January that punishing a church for failing to retain an unwanted teacher "interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs." Such interference, it concluded, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.

In United States v. Jones, also decided in January, the government claimed the power to attach a GPS device to a suspected drug dealer's car and electronically monitor his movements, all without a warrant. This claim drew opposition not just from the ACLU and the Cato Institute, but from the conservative Rutherford Institute, the liberal Constitution Project and organizations ranging from the Gun Owners of America to the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

President Barack Obama.

While the justices had differing opinions on why this action violated the Fourth Amendment—was it a physical trespass, a violation of privacy expectations, or something else?—all agreed it was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, last week the Justice Department was back in a lower court, using technicalities in Jones to claim again (United States v. Pineda-Moreno) that it could attach GPS devices without seeking warrants.

Third, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the government denied the right of property owners to judicial review of an EPA order to stop building a house it claimed was in violation of the Clean Water Act. In March the court unanimously rejected that position. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion, called access to courts the least the government could provide in response to "the strong-arming of regulated parties" by government agencies. "In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion, the government's "treatment [of the homeowners] is unthinkable."

Later in March, the administration claimed in the ObamaCare case that the government could require people to buy something as a means of regulating a broader national market. And a month later in Arizona v. United States, the government said that a federal policy decision regarding immigration enforcement priorities could by itself trump state law—a position that seemed to trouble even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the president's own nominees.

More recently, the Justice Department has been suing states over voter-ID laws. Attorney General Eric Holder makes speeches claiming these laws herald the return of Jim Crow. Never mind that the Supreme Court has found them to satisfy the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, most recently by 6-3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), where plaintiffs claimed that needing a photo-ID placed an undue burden on their right to vote.

The government's arguments across a wide variety of cases would essentially allow Congress and the executive branch to do whatever they wanted without meaningful constitutional restraint. This view is at odds with another unanimous Supreme Court decision, Bond v. United States (2011). Bond vindicated a criminal defendant's right to challenge the use of federal power to prosecute her. As Justice Kennedy wrote, "[F]ederalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake."

If the government loses in the health-care or immigration cases, it won't be because its lawyers had a bad day in court or because the justices ruled based on their political preferences. It will be because the Obama administration continues to make legal arguments that don't pass the smell test.

Mr. Shapiro is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and editor in chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8) Economic Warfare against Iran

by Avi Jorisch
Gatestone Institute

The world is aware of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its sponsorship of terrorist organizations. What is less understood is Tehran's abuse of the financial sector, banks, front companies, and other deceptive techniques to evade the controls responsible countries have instituted to stop it from achieving nuclearization. Yet it is precisely these techniques that make Iran vulnerable to economic warfare, and such warfare, if deployed intelligently and strategically, could hurt the regime where it is weakest—its pocketbook.

Securing Uranium Ore

Iran is scouring the earth in search of countries that possess uranium deposits, searching in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Iranian engineers have reportedly mapped out all of the world's uranium deposits to assess countries most likely to sell them the coveted mineral. Iran has reportedly decided that Congo, Nigeria, Senegal, and Zimbabwe are the countries with uranium most likely to do business with it.

If Iran secures large quantities of uranium that can ultimately be converted into yellowcake, this would likely be the nail in the coffin in preventing Iran from achieving nuclearization. Policymakers around the world must be vigilant in tracking Iran's efforts to secure uranium

Crude Oil and Liquefied Natural Gas

The United States has spent tremendous resources to cut off refined petroleum sales to Iran. Although it is a major producer of crude oil, Iran imports 40% of its gasoline needs because it lacks the refining capacity to meet its consumption. Some companies have been identified, and sanctioned, for supplying gasoline to Iran.

Yet we should be targeting not only what goes into Iran, but also, what comes out. The biggest source of revenue for Iran, which has the world's third-largest known oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves, is export of crude oil and liquefied natural gas. Both the oil and natural gas industries are heavily subsidized by the government.

Targeting and sanctioning the countries and companies that buy oil and gas from Iran would make a significant contribution toward cutting off this source of income.

Banking

There are currently thirty Iranian banks around the globe, and twenty have been designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for illicit behavior. At this point, no U.S. banks are providing Iranian banks with financial services, and Treasury has informed major foreign financial institutions that if they offer such services to designated Iranian banks, they could lose access to the U.S. market. Furthermore, global banking organizations, such as SWIFT, are finally turning their backs.

However, some international financial institutions still offer services to blacklisted Iranian banks, and while many have operations in the United States and/or access to the U.S. market through local partners, Treasury has not yet sanctioned a single one. The United States must start to take advantage of the leverage it possesses over these banks.

Bonyads (Iranian Charities)

Bonyads are tax-exempt Iranian charitable trusts that control an estimated 20–40% of Iran's GDP. Subsidized by the government, they answer only to Iran's Supreme Leader. Bonyads represent an important target for sanctions because they control such a large share of Iran's economy.

As charities, they supposedly provide social services to the poor and the needy, but in fact, they are also involved in every major industry, including soybean and cotton production, hotel administration, soft drink firms, shipping line ownership and car manufacturing.

The United States should publicly name, shame, and blacklist all major bonyads, thus making it illegal to make a charitable contribution to them.

The United States and its allies have all the tools necessary to punish the banks, corporations and charities helping Iran achieve nuclearization. If we are truly going to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, we must use as many of the bows in our quiver as possible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------