---
Response from dear friend, fellow memo reader on what Obama's inaugural speech could have said. (See 2 below.)
---
According to Obama the Jihadists are a myth. Their leadership has been decapitated. (See 3 below.)
President 'Naive' believes all we have to do is withdraw from the world and al Qaeda will fade into the sand dunes. (See 3a below.)
---
Was Obama able to influence Israel's election results? (See 4 below.)
---
I a reading a biography about Walter Cronkite and how, when he closed his career at CBS there were those who said that was the end of TV Journalism.
Well I felt when Johnny Carson ended his last show and Archie Bunker was no more that too was the end of a slice of America.
Well at least we can watch Archie in his inimitable style: You forget how funny that show really was.
President 'Naive' believes all we have to do is withdraw from the world and al Qaeda will fade into the sand dunes. (See 3a below.)
---
Was Obama able to influence Israel's election results? (See 4 below.)
---
I a reading a biography about Walter Cronkite and how, when he closed his career at CBS there were those who said that was the end of TV Journalism.
Well I felt when Johnny Carson ended his last show and Archie Bunker was no more that too was the end of a slice of America.
Well at least we can watch Archie in his inimitable style: You forget how funny that show really was.
---
The Heritage Foundation deciphers Obama's Inaugural Speech. (See 5 below.)
---
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
1)Economist Roubini: Spreading Austerity to Hobble World Growth
Fiscal austerity will envelop most of the world in 2013, leading to mediocre growth and even outright contraction in some countries, predicts economist Nouriel Roubini.
Fiscal austerity is spreading to the eurozone's core, the U.S. and other advanced economies, writes Roubini in an article for Project Syndicate, a website posting commentary from economic and political leaders.
Substantial economic and political risks abound this year, warns Roubini, an economics professor at New York University and chairman of Roubini Global Economics. Although the chance of all the risks materializing at once is low, any one is enough to prompt a global recession.
For one thing, another ugly political fight over the debt ceiling and government spending could spook financial markets, writes Roubini, known as "Dr. Doom" for his pessimistic forecasts. "And even the current mini-deal implies a significant amount of drag – about 1.4% of GDP – on an economy that has grown at barely a 2% rate over the last few quarters."
Roubini sees global growth averaging about 3 percent, with subpar growth of less than 3 percent in advanced countries and 5 percent growth in emerging markets.
"The entire greater Middle East – from the Maghreb to Afghanistan and Pakistan – is socially, economically, and politically unstable," Roubini writes. "Indeed, the Arab Spring is turning into an Arab Winter."
Although an outright war with Iran is unlikely, a fear premium could prompt a 20 percent jump in oil prices and negative growth worldwide.
For Europe, Roubini sees stagnation and outright recession, low productivity growth, and large and potentially unsustainable private and public debt.
The European Central Bank has reduced risks but has solved the euro zone's fundamental problems, he writes, warning that problems "will re-emerge with full force in the second half of the year."
The risk of a hard landing in China will increase by the end of the year.
The country has relied on stimulus to prop up "an unbalanced and unsustainable growth model based on excessive exports and fixed investment, high saving, and low consumption."
Unfortunately, the conservative Chinese leadership will probably speed up reforms needed to increase incomes, reduce savings, and increase consumption.
Growth is slowing in many emerging markets. Their main problem is their "state capitalism," marked by large state-owned companies and financial protectionism, and it's uncertain if they will embrace reform.
Roubini has not always been right. He incorrectly predicted that Greece would leave the eurozone. Like many, he underestimated European leaders' willingness to save the euro and the Greeks resolve to accept austerity.
"People underestimated these factors,” Roubini told Bloomberg, adding that a Greek exit is “is certainly a less likely event this year, although not a zero probability.”
He now puts the odds of Greece leaving the euro at 30 percent in 2013 and at more than 50 percent in three to five years, according to Bloomberg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)President Obama could have had a message like the one below by President Reagan at his 2nd Inaugural address. Instead of concentrating on the real “big” issues facing our country in his first term ( weak economy, jobs, massive $trillion deficits, $16 trillion debt, unaffordable entitlements, threat from Iran and Islamic militants, unrest in the middle east, etc), Mr. Obama continues to overemphasize and create issues that divide the country. Everyone is a victim in his mind : Businessmen are bad and take advantage of the middle class and the poor, women are exploited, blacks don’t have a fair chance, gays have no rights, immigrants (especially those here illegally) are taken advantage of, etc. He’s the only one who “cares” and it’s the federal Govt that must correct our problems. He positions himself as the next Lincoln or Martin Luther King. I get the feeling he is living in 1963 before the country made all the great progress it has in all of these areas.
What is remarkable about this President is his ability to be sincere when he calls for us all to work together while at the same time he shows an air of disdain for the other side. Rather than trying to build relationships with the Republicans and work honestly to negotiate compromises good for the American people, he works hard to beat his opponents, demagogue them and make them look bad. He wants people to believe that the GOP wants to suppress women, minorities & gays. In his rhetoric, the GOP is against minorities; and they don’t care about seniors: they want to do away with social security, Medicare and Medicaid, Obama is a uniquely polarizing figure. This worked for him in the election, but now he must govern. Unfortunately , if Monday’s speech is any indication of how he will act in this term, we are in for another four years of inaction on critical issues. Chuck
Ronald Reagan speaking of American 'golden years' in his Second Inaugural Address.
Ronald Reagan's second inaugural address, Jan. 21, 1985:
When I took this oath four years ago, I did so in a time of economic stress. Voices were raised saying we had to look to our past for the greatness and glory. But we, the present-day Americans, are not given to looking backward. In this blessed land, there is always a better tomorrow.
Four years ago, I spoke to you of a new beginning and we have accomplished that. But in another sense, our new beginning is a continuation of that beginning created two centuries ago when, for the first time in history, government, the people said, was not our master, it is our servant; its only power that which we the people allow it to have.
That system has never failed us, but, for a time, we failed the system. We asked things of government that government was not equipped to give. We yielded authority to the National Government that properly belonged to States or to local governments or to the people themselves. We allowed taxes and inflation to rob us of our earnings and savings and watched the great industrial machine that had made us the most productive people on Earth slow down and the number of unemployed increase.
By 1980, we knew it was time to renew our faith, to strive with all our strength toward the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society.
We believed then and now there are no limits to growth and human progress when men and women are free to follow their dreams.
And we were right to believe that. Tax rates have been reduced, inflation cut dramatically, and more people are employed than ever before in our history.
We are creating a nation once again vibrant, robust, and alive. But there are many mountains yet to climb. We will not rest until every American enjoys the fullness of freedom, dignity, and opportunity as our birthright. It is our birthright as citizens of this great Republic, and we'll meet this challenge.
These will be years when Americans have restored their confidence and tradition of progress; when our values of faith, family, work, and neighborhood were restated for a modern age; when our economy was finally freed from government's grip; when we made sincere efforts at meaningful arms reduction, rebuilding our defenses, our economy, and developing new technologies, and helped preserve peace in a troubled world; when Americans courageously supported the struggle for liberty, self-government, and free enterprise throughout the world, and turned the tide of history away from totalitarian darkness and into the warm sunlight of human freedom.
My fellow citizens, our Nation is poised for greatness. We must do what we know is right and do it with all our might. Let history say of us, "These were golden years—when the American Revolution was reborn, when freedom gained new life, when America reached for her best."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Jihadists' Surge in North Africa Reveals Grim Side of Arab Spring
Robert F. Worth - The New York Times, January 20th, 2013
WASHINGTON — As the uprising closed in around him, the Libyan dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi warned that if he fell, chaos and holy war would overtake North Africa. “Bin Laden's people would come to impose ransoms by land and sea,” he told reporters. “We will go back to the time of Redbeard, of pirates, of Ottomans imposing ransoms on boats.”
In recent days, that unhinged prophecy has acquired a grim new currency. In Mali, French paratroopers arrived this month to battle an advancing force of jihadi fighters who already control an area twice the size of Germany. In Algeria, a one-eyed Islamist bandit organized the brazen takeover of an international gas facility, taking hostages that included more than 40 Americans and Europeans.
Coming just four months after an American ambassador was killed by jihadists in Libya, those assaults have contributed to a sense that North Africa — long a dormant backwater for Al Qaeda — is turning into another zone of dangerous instability, much like Syria, site of an increasingly bloody civil war. The mayhem in this vast desert region has many roots, but it is also a sobering reminder that the euphoric toppling of dictators in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt has come at a price.
“It's one of the darker sides of the Arab uprisings,” said Robert Malley, the Middle East and North Africa director at the International Crisis Group. “Their peaceful nature may have damaged Al Qaeda and its allies ideologically, but logistically, in terms of the new porousness of borders, the expansion of ungoverned areas, the proliferation of weapons, the disorganization of police and security services in all these countries — it's been a real boon to jihadists.”
The crisis in Mali is not likely to end soon, with the militants ensconcing themselves among local people and digging fortifications. It could also test the fragile new governments of Libya and its neighbors, in a region where any Western military intervention arouses bitter colonial memories and provides a rallying cry for Islamists.
And it comes as world powers struggle with civil war in Syria, where another Arab autocrat is warning about the furies that could be unleashed if he falls.
Even as Obama administration officials vowed to hunt down the hostage-takers in Algeria, they faced the added challenge of a dauntingly complex jihadist landscape across North Africa that belies the easy label of “Al Qaeda,” with multiple factions operating among overlapping ethnic groups, clans and criminal networks.
Efforts to identify and punish those responsible for the attack in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed in September, have bogged down amid similar confusion. The independent review panel investigating the Benghazi attack faulted American spy agencies as failing to understand the region's “many militias, which are constantly dissolving, splitting apart and reforming.”
Although there have been hints of cross-border alliances among the militants, such links appear to be fleeting. And their targets are often those of opportunity, as they appear to have been in Benghazi and at the gas facility in Algeria.
In the longer term, the Obama administration and many analysts are divided about what kind of threat the explosion of Islamist militancy across North Africa poses to the United States. Some have called for a more active American role, noting that the hostage-taking in Algeria demonstrates how hard it can be to avoid entanglement.
Others warn against too muscular a response. “It puts a transnational framework on top of what is fundamentally a set of local concerns, and we risk making ourselves more of an enemy than we would otherwise be,” said Paul R. Pillar of Georgetown University, a former C.I.A. analyst.
In a sense, both the hostage crisis in Algeria and the battle raging in Mali are consequences of the fall of Colonel Qaddafi in 2011. Like other strongmen in the region, Colonel Qaddafi had mostly kept in check his country's various ethnic and tribal factions, either by brutally suppressing them or by co-opting them to fight for his government. He acted as a lid, keeping volatile elements repressed. Once that lid was removed, and the borders that had been enforced by powerful governments became more porous, there was greater freedom for various groups — whether rebels, jihadists or criminals — to join up and make common cause.
In Mali, for instance, there are the Tuaregs, a nomadic people ethnically distinct both from Arabs, who make up the nations to the north, and the Africans who inhabit southern Mali and control the national government. They fought for Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, then streamed back across the border after his fall, banding together with Islamist groups to form a far more formidable fighting force. They brought with them heavy weapons and a new determination to overthrow the Malian government, which they had battled off and on for decades in a largely secular struggle for greater autonomy.
Even the Algeria gas field attack — which took place near the Libyan border, and may have involved Libyan fighters — reflects the chaos that has prevailed in Libya for the past two years.
Yet Colonel Qaddafi's fall was only the tipping point, some analysts say, in a region where chaos has been on the rise for years, and men who fight under the banner of jihad have built up enormous reserves of cash through smuggling and other criminal activities. If the rhetoric of the Islamic militants now fighting across North Africa is about holy war, the reality is often closer to a battle among competing gangsters in a region where government authority has long been paper-thin.
Among those figures, two names stand out: Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the warlord who led the attack on the Algerian gas field, and Abdelhamid Abu Zeid, a leader of Al Qaeda's North African branch.
“The driving force behind jihadism in the Sahara region is the competition between Abu Zeid and Belmokhtar,” said Jean-Pierre Filiu, a Middle East analyst at the Institut d'Études Politiques in Paris.
Mr. Belmokhtar has generated millions of dollars for the Qaeda group through the kidnapping of Westerners and the smuggling of tobacco, which earned him one of his nicknames, “Mr. Marlboro.” But Mr. Belmokhtar bridles under authority, and last year his rival forced him out of the organization, Mr. Filiu said.
“Belmokhtar has now retaliated by organizing the Algeria gas field attack, and it is a kind of masterstroke — he has proved his ability,” Mr. Filiu said.
Both men are from Algeria, a breeding ground of Islamic extremism. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, as the regional branch is known, originated with Algerian Islamists who fought against their government during the bloody civil conflict of the 1990s in that country.
Algeria's authoritarian government is now seen as a crucial intermediary by France and other Western countries in dealing with Islamist militants in North Africa. But the Algerians have shown reluctance to become too involved in a broad military campaign that could be very risky for them. International action against the Islamist takeover in northern Mali could push the militants back into southern Algeria, where they started. That would undo years of bloody struggle by Algeria's military forces, which largely succeeded in pushing the jihadists outside their borders.
The Algerians also have little patience with what they see as Western naïveté about the Arab spring, analysts say.
“Their attitude was, 'Please don't intervene in Libya or you will create another Iraq on our border,' ” said Geoff D. Porter, an Algeria expert and founder of North Africa Risk Consulting, which advises investors in the region. “And then, 'Please don't intervene in Mali or you will create a mess on our other border.' But they were dismissed as nervous Nellies, and now Algeria says to the west: 'Goddamn it, we told you so.' “
Although French military forces are now fighting alongside the Malian Army, plans to retake the lawless zone of northern Mali have for the past year largely focused on training an African fighting force, and trying to peel off some of the more amenable elements among the insurgents with negotiations.
Some in Mali and the West had invested hopes in Iyad Ag Ghali, a Tuareg who leads Ansar Dine, or Defenders of the Faith, one of the main Islamist groups. Mr. Ghali, who is said to be opportunistic, was an ideological link between the hard-line Islamists of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the more secular nationalist Tuareg group, known as the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad.
But so far negotiations have led nowhere, leaving the Malian authorities and their Western interlocutors with little to fall back on besides armed force.
David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting from Cairo, and Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt from Washington.
3a)New York Post
3a)New York Post
Al Qaeda on the rise
The grim news from Africa
Accepting his party’s renomination for president on Sept. 6, Barack Obama boasted, “Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” The crowd roared its approval.
It’s now painfully clear that someone wasn’t listening. Five days later, terrorists attacked in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Other terrorists in northern Mali, affiliated with al Qaeda, were in the process of seizing territory the size of Texas, and still others just carried out a daring raid in Algeria resulting in 38 or more hostages killed.
The US and Western response to date has been disjointed and with decidedly mixed results. If President Obama doesn’t soon jettison his ideological blinders about the threat of international terrorism, we could see a series of further attacks — not unlike the 1990s series that culminated in the 9/11 strikes.
Obama has attempted verbally and politically to narrowly define the terrorist threat in order to declare victory. In his acceptance speech, for example, he said: “I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. We have.” By continually restricting and narrowing “terrorism” to al Qaeda in Waziristan (thereby excluding the Taliban, al Qaeda components elsewhere and in fact nearly everyone except bin Laden’s own cadre), the administration hoped to reach the point where it could proclaim the war on terror finished.
Yet events in Libya, Mali and now Algeria have shredded that budding myth, at a tragic cost in human life.
By demanding the release of terrorists imprisoned in America in exchange for their hostages, the Algerian marauders in particular demonstrated that we are still top of mind in the terrorist world.
In Libya, Obama walked away after Moammar Khadafy’s overthrow. Terrorists took root, leading to the Benghazi tragedy. Meanwhile, Khadafy’s mercenaries fled, carving out a sanctuary in Mali that radicals from around the world could use as a safe haven. And in Algeria, where the military fought a bloody civil war 20 years ago against Islamicists, the embers flared again.
One terrorist attack didn’t cause another, but the correlation of forces underlying these mortal threats now stands unambiguously exposed. Khadafy’s overthrow, touted by Obama’s White House as vindication of its Middle East policies, has simply exposed the reality that the terrorist threat had metastasized well beyond bin Laden. Killing him and al Qaeda leaders in Waziristan hasn’t reduced threats that now grow daily: Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb; Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in Iraq — the list of thriving franchises continues to grow.
And when the Taliban recapture power in Afghanistan, as Obama’s policies are almost surely guaranteeing, we can count on al Qaeda re-emerging there as well.
The hostage-taking at BP’s In Amenas natural-gas facility was purportedly in retaliation for Algeria permitting French military over-flights in support of their mission against the Mali terrorist enclave, as was the little-reported execution of a French hostage in Somalia. But the terrorist attack in Algeria certainly required extensive prior preparation.
Moreover, while hostage-taking was its most salient objective, it is quite significant that the terrorists assaulted a critical economic target. Oil and gas production is central to Algeria’s economy; if energy facilities there are now targets, others around the region will soon be as well — with potentially sizable effects on volatile energy prices. And the affair may presage broader attacks on infrastructure, financial institutions or Western economic targets.
Yet the massive defense cuts of Obama’s first term (with another $500 billion looming through sequestration) will substantially reduce America’s ability to project force internationally to protect our interests. Europe is in even worse shape: Even though France’s Mali operation is in its colonial backyard, Paris’s capacity to continue for an extended period is doubtful.
If the terrorists can hold their own, they can plan and stage operations worldwide. Timbuktu may sound far away, but it’s only two plane rides from Manhattan. Precisely because terrorism doesn’t operate through corporate hierarchies or military command-and-control structures, we can’t easily “decapitate” it. Al Qaeda isn’t simply an organization but an excrescence of extremist ideology that has swept across the Middle East and beyond.
Under Obama, the United States is whistling past the graveyard while the Middle East descends into chaos. Beyond North Africa, the wars in Syria and Yemen wind on. The Arab Spring, far from yielding peaceful alternatives to al-Qaeda-style terrorism, has instead become an adjunct and even an enabler of terrorism — with radical Islamism in power in Egypt and threatening regimes friendly to the United States.
Now safely re-elected, will Obama care even less about external threats to America than he did previously? We have a long four years ahead. And our adversaries know it well.
John R. Bolton is a former US ambassador to the United Nations.
The grim news from Africa
John Bolton
Accepting his party’s renomination for president on Sept. 6, Barack Obama boasted, “Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” The crowd roared its approval.
It’s now painfully clear that someone wasn’t listening. Five days later, terrorists attacked in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Other terrorists in northern Mali, affiliated with al Qaeda, were in the process of seizing territory the size of Texas, and still others just carried out a daring raid in Algeria resulting in 38 or more hostages killed.
The US and Western response to date has been disjointed and with decidedly mixed results. If President Obama doesn’t soon jettison his ideological blinders about the threat of international terrorism, we could see a series of further attacks — not unlike the 1990s series that culminated in the 9/11 strikes.
Obama has attempted verbally and politically to narrowly define the terrorist threat in order to declare victory. In his acceptance speech, for example, he said: “I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. We have.” By continually restricting and narrowing “terrorism” to al Qaeda in Waziristan (thereby excluding the Taliban, al Qaeda components elsewhere and in fact nearly everyone except bin Laden’s own cadre), the administration hoped to reach the point where it could proclaim the war on terror finished.
Yet events in Libya, Mali and now Algeria have shredded that budding myth, at a tragic cost in human life.
By demanding the release of terrorists imprisoned in America in exchange for their hostages, the Algerian marauders in particular demonstrated that we are still top of mind in the terrorist world.
In Libya, Obama walked away after Moammar Khadafy’s overthrow. Terrorists took root, leading to the Benghazi tragedy. Meanwhile, Khadafy’s mercenaries fled, carving out a sanctuary in Mali that radicals from around the world could use as a safe haven. And in Algeria, where the military fought a bloody civil war 20 years ago against Islamicists, the embers flared again.
One terrorist attack didn’t cause another, but the correlation of forces underlying these mortal threats now stands unambiguously exposed. Khadafy’s overthrow, touted by Obama’s White House as vindication of its Middle East policies, has simply exposed the reality that the terrorist threat had metastasized well beyond bin Laden. Killing him and al Qaeda leaders in Waziristan hasn’t reduced threats that now grow daily: Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb; Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in Iraq — the list of thriving franchises continues to grow.
And when the Taliban recapture power in Afghanistan, as Obama’s policies are almost surely guaranteeing, we can count on al Qaeda re-emerging there as well.
The hostage-taking at BP’s In Amenas natural-gas facility was purportedly in retaliation for Algeria permitting French military over-flights in support of their mission against the Mali terrorist enclave, as was the little-reported execution of a French hostage in Somalia. But the terrorist attack in Algeria certainly required extensive prior preparation.
Moreover, while hostage-taking was its most salient objective, it is quite significant that the terrorists assaulted a critical economic target. Oil and gas production is central to Algeria’s economy; if energy facilities there are now targets, others around the region will soon be as well — with potentially sizable effects on volatile energy prices. And the affair may presage broader attacks on infrastructure, financial institutions or Western economic targets.
Yet the massive defense cuts of Obama’s first term (with another $500 billion looming through sequestration) will substantially reduce America’s ability to project force internationally to protect our interests. Europe is in even worse shape: Even though France’s Mali operation is in its colonial backyard, Paris’s capacity to continue for an extended period is doubtful.
If the terrorists can hold their own, they can plan and stage operations worldwide. Timbuktu may sound far away, but it’s only two plane rides from Manhattan. Precisely because terrorism doesn’t operate through corporate hierarchies or military command-and-control structures, we can’t easily “decapitate” it. Al Qaeda isn’t simply an organization but an excrescence of extremist ideology that has swept across the Middle East and beyond.
Under Obama, the United States is whistling past the graveyard while the Middle East descends into chaos. Beyond North Africa, the wars in Syria and Yemen wind on. The Arab Spring, far from yielding peaceful alternatives to al-Qaeda-style terrorism, has instead become an adjunct and even an enabler of terrorism — with radical Islamism in power in Egypt and threatening regimes friendly to the United States.
Now safely re-elected, will Obama care even less about external threats to America than he did previously? We have a long four years ahead. And our adversaries know it well.
John R. Bolton is a former US ambassador to the United Nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Stunning election defeat for Prime Minister Netanyahu
Early returns from today’s parliamentary elections in Israel show that the ruling party, headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has suffered a stunning defeat. The party, Likud Beyteinu, entered the elections with 42 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, but saw its strength reduced by about 25 percent, and will now have only 31 seats. Moreover, the Likud component within the Liku Beyteinu party has been reduced from 27 to 20 seats. Netanyahu may still become prime minister, but he will be an exceedingly weak prime minister totally dependent on the whims of his coalition partners.
Early returns from today’s parliamentary elections in Israel show that the ruling party, headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has suffered a stunning defeat.
Losers
The Likud, Netnayahu’s party, had twenty-seven seats in the outgoing parliament. Last October, the Likud announced it would merge its parliamentary list of delegates with Israel Beyteinu party, a nationalist right-wing party headed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman.
The Likud, Netnayahu’s party, had twenty-seven seats in the outgoing parliament. Last October, the Likud announced it would merge its parliamentary list of delegates with Israel Beyteinu party, a nationalist right-wing party headed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman.
Libernan’s party had fifteen seats in the last parliament.
The new party, named Likud Beyteinu, thus entered the elections with forty-two seats.
One of the main promoters of the idea that the two parties should run as a single party was the American conservative pollster Arthur Finkelstein, who persuaded Netanyahu and Liberman that if the two parties were to run as one party, it would increase its number of seats from the current forty-two to about forty-five or even forty-seven.
The early results from today’s elections show that Likud Bbeyteinu, rather than increase its strength, has lost about 25 percent of its strength: from forty-two seats in the outgoing parliament, Likud Beyteinu has been reduced to thirty-one seats.
What is more, the Likud component within Likud Beyteinu has been reduced from twenty-seven seats to twenty seats.
Shas, the Sephardic religious party, was hoping that the return to leadership role of the charismatic Arieh Derei (after spending a few years in jail on corruption charges) would increase its strength, but he managed merely to maintain Shas’s twelve seats.
Winners
The big winner of the elections is the new Yesh Atid party, headed by Yair Lapit. The centrist, secular, free market-oriented party has won nineteen seats in the 120 seat parliament, and emerged as the second-largest party.
The big winner of the elections is the new Yesh Atid party, headed by Yair Lapit. The centrist, secular, free market-oriented party has won nineteen seats in the 120 seat parliament, and emerged as the second-largest party.
The second winner is the Jewish Home party, a nationalist, religious party most closely associated with the Jewish settlers in the West Bank. The party last November anointed a new leader, a young former high-tech entrepreneur named Naftali Bennet, and he led the party to an impressive twelve seats in parliament (although, in early January, polls showed it gaining around 15-16 seats).
The Labor Part became the third largest party in the Knesset with seventeen seats.
What happens now
Nationalist-religious coalition
Under the most optimistic scenario, what Netanyahu describes as the Likud’s “natural partners” – the bloc of religious and nationalist parties – will have no more than 60-63 seats in parliament, a bare majority. Even if Netanyahu manages to cobble together a right-wing nationalist-religious coalition, it will be an exceedingly weak and unstable coalition.
Nationalist-religious coalition
Under the most optimistic scenario, what Netanyahu describes as the Likud’s “natural partners” – the bloc of religious and nationalist parties – will have no more than 60-63 seats in parliament, a bare majority. Even if Netanyahu manages to cobble together a right-wing nationalist-religious coalition, it will be an exceedingly weak and unstable coalition.
Moreover, within such a coalition, Netanyahu will emerge as a weak prime minister, utterly dependent on every whim of his smaller coalition partners.
The two dominant parties in such a coalition will be Shas and Jewish Home. This means that even more funds will be directed at West Bank settlements and subsidies to religious schools and housing projects.
Centrist coalition
Netanyahu could turn toward the center, forming a coalition whose two pillars will be the Likud and Lapid’s Yesh Atid. It is likely that former foreign minister Tzipi Livini (whose party won seven seats) would join, and the Ashkenazi religious parties, too (their demands are typically more modest than those of Shas).
Netanyahu could turn toward the center, forming a coalition whose two pillars will be the Likud and Lapid’s Yesh Atid. It is likely that former foreign minister Tzipi Livini (whose party won seven seats) would join, and the Ashkenazi religious parties, too (their demands are typically more modest than those of Shas).
Such a centrist coalition would roll back many of the laws and regulations that raised questions about the direction of Israel’s democracy, reduce the influence of religion in Israel’s life, limit the influence of the settler movement on Israeli politics, and move more decisively toward a resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Center-left coalition
Although the numbers indicate that a center-left coalition, led by Yesh Atid and Labor, is mathematically possible, it is not very likely. The only way such a coalition could be formed is with the support of the Arab parties (three parties with about ten seats among them), and Yesh Atid has made it clear that the only coalition it would consider joining would be a coalition with a majority of Zionist parties (the Arab parties are Israeli parties, but are not considered Zionist parties).
Although the numbers indicate that a center-left coalition, led by Yesh Atid and Labor, is mathematically possible, it is not very likely. The only way such a coalition could be formed is with the support of the Arab parties (three parties with about ten seats among them), and Yesh Atid has made it clear that the only coalition it would consider joining would be a coalition with a majority of Zionist parties (the Arab parties are Israeli parties, but are not considered Zionist parties).
Tentative conclusions
There is a new king-maker in Israeli politics: Yair Lapid, the former journalist who, only a year ago, launched his new Yesh Atid party.
There is a new king-maker in Israeli politics: Yair Lapid, the former journalist who, only a year ago, launched his new Yesh Atid party.
He could lend Netanyahu crucial support, but condition it on Netanyahu distancing himself and his policies from the narrow religious-nationalist path Netanyahu has pursued. Both Netanyahu and Lapid are pro-free market, so there is already a foundation for cooperation between them.
Or he can withhold his support from Netanyahu, leaving Netanyahu to form again a narrow – this time, much narrower — religious-nationalist coalition which is not likely to survive for very long, leading to new elections soon.
Either way, at least in the near future, the most powerful politician in Israel is no longer Benjamin Netanyahu. It is Yair Lapid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Obama's Second Inaugural Address, Translated
Members of Congress who are about to debate raising the debt ceiling tomorrow should have paid attention yesterday. The President was very clear that he sees no urgency about reducing the debt and cutting the deficit. In fact, in his second inaugural address, President Barack Obama was honest about his intentions to grow government in order to remake our country along his progressive vision.
To sell his agenda, the President borrowed imagery and terminology from America' s first principles. But he twisted the American founding idea of b We the people into the liberal It takes a village.
His rhetoric on the issues only thinly disguised his true meaning. Let's translate some of his key points.
Obama on we the people : b For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers web ll need to equip our children for the future. Or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.b
Translation: In case you didn't hear me the first time,you didn't build that.
He may have surrounded these words with lip service to the Constitution and America's promise of freedom, but the President revisited his core message here: It takes a taxpayer-subsidized village to build things. According to his philosophy, entrepreneurs don' t create jobs the government does.
Obama on the fiscal crisis: We, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it &.We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.
Translation: I will continue to push for more tax increases instead of reforming Medicare and Social Security.
On this point, the President followed up his promise that he will not negotiate on the debt ceiling by digging in his heels on taxes and entitlement programs. The hard choices he refers to on health care and the deficit are more tax increaseb because he b reject[s] the belief that entitlements must be reformed if they are going to stay around for the next generation.
The debt limit showdown continues this week: The House will vote tomorrow on a plan that would extend the debt ceiling for three months while forcing Congress specifically, the Senate to pass a budget. If they do not pass a budget by April 15 under this plan, Members of Congress would stop getting paid. If House Republicans so much as blink, the President and his allies will steamroll them.
Obama on green energy: We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition.
Translation: I will continue to increase regulations on the energy sources we use and throw taxpayer money into green energy companies.
Despite the ever-growing Green Graveyard of companies like Solyndra that took taxpayer money only to go bankrupt, the President clings to this unworkable and expensive policy. And his linking of climate change to b more powerful storms points to a renewed push for policies like a carbon tax to punish people for using energy a policy that would harm the economy and produce no tangible environmental benefits.
Obama on foreign policy: We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war &.We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully. Not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.
Translation: The terrorists are on the run, and I still think we can negotiate with nuclear bullies like Iran.
Even as Obama pulls troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the hostage crisis in Algeria shows that al-Qaeda is alive and well. Though Iran continues to rebuff international inspectors and basically do whatever it wants, Obama seems perpetually optimistic that more talks with this hostile regime and others like it could make them change their behavior.
The President said yesterday that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges. Though the plans he laid out are not new, they definitely require a response if we are to preserve the founding principles we cherish, including our individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Congress has been warned, and by the President no less, that he is in no mood to compromise. If they give in, a liberal agenda like we've never known before will be implemented, while needed reforms to our entitlement programs will not take place. Holding the line is more important now than ever.
5)Obama's Second Inaugural Address, Translated
To sell his agenda, the President borrowed imagery and terminology from America' s first principles. But he twisted the American founding idea of b We the people into the liberal It takes a village.
His rhetoric on the issues only thinly disguised his true meaning. Let's translate some of his key points.
Obama on we the people : b For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers web ll need to equip our children for the future. Or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.b
Translation: In case you didn't hear me the first time,you didn't build that.
He may have surrounded these words with lip service to the Constitution and America's promise of freedom, but the President revisited his core message here: It takes a taxpayer-subsidized village to build things. According to his philosophy, entrepreneurs don' t create jobs the government does.
Obama on the fiscal crisis: We, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it &.We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.
Translation: I will continue to push for more tax increases instead of reforming Medicare and Social Security.
On this point, the President followed up his promise that he will not negotiate on the debt ceiling by digging in his heels on taxes and entitlement programs. The hard choices he refers to on health care and the deficit are more tax increaseb because he b reject[s] the belief that entitlements must be reformed if they are going to stay around for the next generation.
The debt limit showdown continues this week: The House will vote tomorrow on a plan that would extend the debt ceiling for three months while forcing Congress specifically, the Senate to pass a budget. If they do not pass a budget by April 15 under this plan, Members of Congress would stop getting paid. If House Republicans so much as blink, the President and his allies will steamroll them.
Obama on green energy: We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition.
Translation: I will continue to increase regulations on the energy sources we use and throw taxpayer money into green energy companies.
Despite the ever-growing Green Graveyard of companies like Solyndra that took taxpayer money only to go bankrupt, the President clings to this unworkable and expensive policy. And his linking of climate change to b more powerful storms points to a renewed push for policies like a carbon tax to punish people for using energy a policy that would harm the economy and produce no tangible environmental benefits.
Obama on foreign policy: We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war &.We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully. Not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.
Translation: The terrorists are on the run, and I still think we can negotiate with nuclear bullies like Iran.
Even as Obama pulls troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the hostage crisis in Algeria shows that al-Qaeda is alive and well. Though Iran continues to rebuff international inspectors and basically do whatever it wants, Obama seems perpetually optimistic that more talks with this hostile regime and others like it could make them change their behavior.
The President said yesterday that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges. Though the plans he laid out are not new, they definitely require a response if we are to preserve the founding principles we cherish, including our individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Congress has been warned, and by the President no less, that he is in no mood to compromise. If they give in, a liberal agenda like we've never known before will be implemented, while needed reforms to our entitlement programs will not take place. Holding the line is more important now than ever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment