4)-Why does Netanyahu not tell Israeli's the truth about what he has agree to? Has he been rolled by Sec Kerry? (See 1 and 1a below.)
---
---When a politician is no long running for office and becomes untethered from his party he can tell the truth and/or what is on his mind. (See 2 below.)
Fr From serious to phony scandals and all within a few days of lies! (See 3 below.)
Di Dick
---------------------------------------------------------
---
--
Israeli11)
Kerry builds a US-Arab superstructure to direct Israel-Palestinian talks - White House reservations
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s willingness to “do everything” to avoid giving the Palestinians a pretext for not turning up for their first encounter with Israeli negotiators in Washington Tuesday, July 30, bodes ill for Israel’s bargaining position right from the start. So too does his proposal to include jailed Israeli Arabs among the 104 Palestinian prisoners to be released. Several threats from Ramallah not to make the Tuesday date had their effect.
Netanyahu sent an open letter to the Israeli people Saturday night, July 27, explaining his “incredibly difficult decision” to free the 104 prisoners as a gesture ahead of the renewal of peace talks. “Sometimes prime ministers are forced to make decisions that go against public opinion – when the issue is important to the country,” he wrote.
That letter arouses less sympathy than concern. It confirms the impression that the Palestinians only have to threaten to walk out of the negotiations in order to extort concessions from Israel, in the knowledge that US Secretary of State John Kerry or his “special envoys” will move in fast to save the process.
If so, how far will Netanyahu go when the substantive talks begin? By including Israeli Arabs in the prisoner deal, is he saying that the Israeli Arab population is part of a future deal with the Palestinians and their regions are on the table for potential land swaps?
If so, he is handing out freebies far too early in the game.
According to sources, the Tuesday meeting in Washington is just a preliminary step to prepare the procedures and modalities for the process. That is all Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and the prime minister’s political adviser Yitzhak Molcho, for Israel, and Yasser Abd Rabbo for the Palestinians will be asked to do in Washington.
For now, the terms of reference for the negotiations have yet to be determined and President Barack Obama has yet to sign the formal letters of assurance promised to Netanyahu and the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas.
There are reasons for this delay. Secretary Kerry wants to be certain that the talks will show real progress before he asks the president to offer formal assurances to the two leaders. Washington sources also report although Obama gave Kerry a free hand for restarting the peace track, he is slowing the Secretary down with reservations of his own, especially with regard to the Secretary’s choices of special envoys to lead the four specialist negotiating tracks or mechanisms.
Leading candidate for the political mechanism is his longtime close adviser on Middle East issues Frank Lowenstein, former Senate Foreign Relations committee chief of staff who acted as policy advisor to Senator Kerry. Another candidate is Martin Indyk, twice ambassador to Israel. It is not clear which would be the senior.
The White House would prefer a member of the National Security Council rather than a State Department loyalist in the seat assigned to Indyk.
Tagged for the military-security track is retired Marine general John Allen, former commander of US forces in Afghanistan and former supreme commander of NATO.
An appointee of this high rank to supervise the negotiations on security matters is intended to give the US the leverage to dictate the pace of this track and override efforts by Israeli security and military officials to bring their will to bear.
The Israeli side will not like this appointment.
The third mechanism will deal with economic issues and the fourth, under the heading of general subjects, will be the framework for Arab League delegates, and especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to take a hand in the process and determining its outcome.
John Kerry has constructed an intricate edifice over and above the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, a kind of US administration superstructure with Arab components, to stand over the Israeli government and its prime minister and the Palestinian Authority and its chairman.
Regardless of he powerful machine Kerry is building to steer the negotiating parties and bend them to Washington’s will, Netanyahu is already racing ahead to put before the cabinet meeting Sunday, July 28, a proposal for a popular referendum that will be called to approve an accord negotiated with the Palestinians. There is a long way to go before that point is reached – if ever.
1a)Observation: Treating Israeli Public (and Cabinet) Like Children
Dr. Aaron Lerner
We know the truth.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu knows the truth.
So the question is: why the "white lies"
"White lie" #1. Israel did not accept the precondition of a building
freeze.
Of course there is a freeze. There won't actually be any truly new
construction approved during this period.
"White lie" #2. The talks won't be based on the ’67 lines.
The Palestinians say it is. The Americans committed to the Palestinians
that it is. And the promise has been made that what transpires when the
"talks on the talks" slated to take place this week will remain a secret.
Do the math.
"White lie #3" the cabinet isn't being asked today to specifically approve
the release of all the pre-Oslo terrorists.
Instead the cabinet will vote on the release of a set number of prisoners,
thus giving these politicians deniability a few years from now, when the
public no longer recalls all the details.
Is #1 and #2 sheer speculation?
Check back in a few months…
R
--------------------------------------------------------
4)2)
Second-Term Nightmare
An appointee of this high rank to supervise the negotiations on security matters is intended to give the US the leverage to dictate the pace of this track and override efforts by Israeli security and military officials to bring their will to bear.
freeze.
construction approved during this period.
that it is. And the promise has been made that what transpires when the
"talks on the talks" slated to take place this week will remain a secret.
the release of all the pre-Oslo terrorists.
thus giving these politicians deniability a few years from now, when the
public no longer recalls all the details.
ObamaCare's chickens come home to roost.
By Pete DuPont
Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. The Obama administration and its allies in Congress are faced with the challenge of trying to convince Americans there are wide-ranging benefits to their 2010 takeover of our nation's health-care system, while at the same time working to delay it so as to minimize the negative consequences before the 2014 elections.
The last thing congressional Democrats want is a repeat of the drubbing their party took in 2010, courtesy of the ObamaCare backlash. But recent events have put ObamaCare and its outcomes front and center, adding to a growing fear on the left that Republicans not only will hold the House but could take the Senate.
Voters anxious for job growth cannot help but notice recent discussions about the law's detrimental effect on employment.The employer mandate, which requires entities with at least 50 full-time employees to provide costly federally approved insurance, acts as an incentive to keep payrolls at 49 or fewer or move workers to part-time status. The administration apparently agrees, as it announced it is postponing the start of the employer mandate by one year, to 2015. Even casual observers of the electoral calendar may note that's on the other side of the midterms.
Leaving aside for a moment whether it is legal for an administration simply to decree that a law won't be enforced until next year, such action keeps ObamaCare in the news. Earlier this month the House passed legislation that would make it legal to delay the employer mandate. The House passed another bill to delay the individual mandate by a year, with the logic that individuals and families deserve the same break busineses are getting. Both bills will languish in the Senate, but they have led to the rather odd situation of the president actually vowing to veto legislation that would put his extralegal action on solid footing.
The administration's problems are not just with Republicans, or the some two dozen House Democrats who joined them. Organized labor, one of the staunchest backers of Democrats in general and ObamaCare in particular, is beginning to foresee the law's negative impact on union members. A recent letter signed by leaders of three large unions and sent to congressional Democratic leaders said the law threatens to "shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class," and that labor's effort for Democrats "has come back to haunt us." Another union head has referred to the "destructive consequences" of ObamaCare.
Add sticker shock to the Democrats' concerns, with recent news of large ObamaCare-driven premium increases in the individual market (for policyholders who do not get coverage through an employer). We were promised that if we liked our current insurance plan, we could keep it. States like Indiana (projected premium increase of 76%), Ohio (88%) and others confirm what many already knew—we cannot keep our current plan if it does not meet what the administration considers "acceptable," and moving to one that meets the ObamaCare requirements can be quite expensive. True, individual-market purchasers in some states will not see these increases, and the pain of these increases will be ameliorated for lower-income families by federal subsidies, but that is small comfort for those in states with large increases who do not qualify for subsidies, and for taxpayers, who will foot the bill for the subsidies.
To top it all off, the president has implicitly admitted what every unbiased observer already knew—that relying on federal and state bureaucrats to revamp one-seventh of our economy will result in missed deadlines, severe disruptions and shortfalls. The president dismissively called these problems "glitches," but Sen. Max Baucus was close to the truth when he used the term "train wreck."
As the inefficiencies of the massive ObamaCare law and the ineptness of its rollout are becoming more obvious, some commentators have joked about then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 2010 statement that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." But the damage this law will inflict on American businesses and families is no laughing matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------
3)When Did Obama Decide That The Scandals He Once Thought Were Serious Are Now ‘Phony’?
by Noah RothmanIsraeli bomb detection equipment! Israel graciously allows bombers to stay attached to their bombs. serious to re are wide-ranging benefits to their 2010 takeover of our nation's health-care system, while at the same time working to delay it so as to minimize the negative consequences before the 2014 elections.
The last thing congressional Democrats want is a repeat of the drubbing their party took in 2010, courtesy of the ObamaCare backlash. But recent events have put ObamaCare and its outcomes front and center, adding to a growing fear on the left that Republicans not only will hold the House but could take the Senate.
Voters anxious for job growth cannot help but notice recent discussions about the law's detrimental effect on employment.The employer mandate, which requires entities with at least 50 full-time employees to provide costly federally approved insurance, acts as an incentive to keep payrolls at 49 or fewer or move workers to part-time status. The administration apparently agrees, as it announced it is postponing the start of the employer mandate by one year, to 2015. Even casual observers of the electoral calendar may note that's on the other side of the midterms.
Leaving aside for a moment whether it is legal for an administration simply to decree that a law won't be enforced until next year, such action keeps ObamaCare in the news. Earlier this month the House passed legislation that would make it legal to delay the employer mandate. The House passed another bill to delay the individual mandate by a year, with the logic that individuals and families deserve the same break busineses are getting. Both bills will languish in the Senate, but they have led to the rather odd situation of the president actually vowing to veto legislation that would put his extralegal action on solid footing.
The administration's problems are not just with Republicans, or the some two dozen House Democrats who joined them. Organized labor, one of the staunchest backers of Democrats in general and ObamaCare in particular, is beginning to foresee the law's negative impact on union members. A recent letter signed by leaders of three large unions and sent to congressional Democratic leaders said the law threatens to "shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class," and that labor's effort for Democrats "has come back to haunt us." Another union head has referred to the "destructive consequences" of ObamaCare.
Add sticker shock to the Democrats' concerns, with recent news of large ObamaCare-driven premium increases in the individual market (for policyholders who do not get coverage through an employer). We were promised that if we liked our current insurance plan, we could keep it. States like Indiana (projected premium increase of 76%), Ohio (88%) and others confirm what many already knew—we cannot keep our current plan if it does not meet what the administration considers "acceptable," and moving to one that meets the ObamaCare requirements can be quite expensive. True, individual-market purchasers in some states will not see these increases, and the pain of these increases will be ameliorated for lower-income families by federal subsidies, but that is small comfort for those in states with large increases who do not qualify for subsidies, and for taxpayers, who will foot the bill for the subsidies.
To top it all off, the president has implicitly admitted what every unbiased observer already knew—that relying on federal and state bureaucrats to revamp one-seventh of our economy will result in missed deadlines, severe disruptions and shortfalls. The president dismissively called these problems "glitches," but Sen. Max Baucus was close to the truth when he used the term "train wreck."
As the inefficiencies of the massive ObamaCare law and the ineptness of its rollout are becoming more obvious, some commentators have joked about then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 2010 statement that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." But the damage this law will inflict on American businesses and families is no laughing matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment