.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.PNG)
Our son and his wife and their daughter, Stella, came to visit their new nephew and cousin and while in Orlando and Dagny (no picture) and Stella were taken to Disney to celebrate.
Another picture of Dagny and her baby brother with dad, Brian.
Blake Abraham Nelson age 8 days old.
===
While I was in Orlando I did a lot of reading and catching up on e mails so this is long but I leave for a family funeral Tuesday and then to Orlando Saturday to retrieve my wife and then off to California the following week for our oldest grandson's wedding so this will be it for a while but so much is happening I thought it necessitated a memo.
===
A little bit of history.
Once again Carter was wrong. (See 1 below.)
My wife's great Uncle Avram was a very close friend of Begin and served with him in the Irgun. I never had the pleasure of meeting Begin but when I was involved in Bush 41's Administration ,I had the opportunity to hear the President's claim that Begin had lied to him abut expanding settlements and I did not doubt the president's view but I also was able to tell Bush that Begin was a man of his word and that I thought the two would eventually resolve their differences. Sec. Baker was the one who,I believe, colored the President's thinking.
The end of the wrong side of history. (See 1a below.)
Surviving Obama according to Glick. More parsing of the Goldberg - Obama interview. (See 1b below.)
And, then lets hear it from Melanie Phillips. (See 1c below.)
===
Ne'eman discusses demography. (See 2 below.)
Palestinians continue to remain outcasts even among their own.
They are used as footballs and to some degree the facts support this because, though Palestinians are productive, they have proven to be troublesome wherever they land. (See 2a below.)
===
My friend Stella Paul writes a tongue and cheek piece on Obamacare. (See 3 below.)
===
The first woman president. (See 4 below.)
===
Wharton Professor, Siegel, sees earnings driving Dow higher. (See 5 below.)
Grennspan concurs. That might prove scary! (See 5a below.)
===
Kim Strassel adds up the election dollars and the unions win and Sen. Reid lies again. (See 6 below.)
===
Some Jewish trivia but it also ends with a telling story of acceptance. (See 7 below.)
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) How Menachem Begin Made Peace With Israel’s Greatest Enemy: Egypt
Carter thought he was a psycho, but the man the British called ‘Terrorist No. 1’ proved himself to be a canny negotiator
By Daniel Gordis|Bibi’s Political Inheritance
What remains of Revisionist Zionism, the ideology of the late Benzion Netanyahu, is its 11th commandment: Don’t be a fool.Blowing Up the King David Hotel
Sunday marks the anniversary of the 1946 attack on the British. My 91-year-old grandfather helped carry it out.By Niv ElisSecrets From Israel’s Archives
How did Menachem Begin’s Cabinet handle the truth about the Sabra and Shatila massacre? Here are the transcripts.Four years after the Yom Kippur War, when Menachem Begin was elected prime minister of Israel, he made it clear that he was willing to negotiate with Egypt. In late August 1977, he visited Romania and asked President Nicolae Ceausescu for his help; given Ceausescu’s close relationship with Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat, Begin believed this avenue had a better chance of success than almost any other. He also sent Moshe Dayan, his minister of foreign affairs, to Morocco to secretly convene with King Hassan and express Israel’s desire for peace talks with EgyptWhen Sadat visited Romania shortly after Begin, Ceausescu said to him: “Begin wants a solution.” Sadat replied, “Can an extremist like Begin really want peace?” Ceausescu answered him, “Let me state categorically to you that he wants peace.” He added, “Begin is a hard man to negotiate with, but once he agrees to something he will implement it to the last dot and comma. You can trust Begin.”Perhaps knowing this, Sadat made his move on Nov. 9, 1977, during a parliamentary address. Israel “will be stunned to hear me tell you that I am ready to go to the ends of the earth, and even to their home, to the Knesset itself, to argue with them, in order to prevent one Egyptian soldier from being wounded.”His Egyptian audience, which included PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, was incredulous. In Israel, Begin—understanding that his message had been received—was both receptive and wary. In a Nov. 11 radio broadcast aimed directly at the Egyptians, Begin invited Sadat to Jerusalem, saying he hoped that the biblical model in which “Egypt and Eretz Israel were allies; real friends and allies” could be restored. Following the radio address, Begin sent an official and cordial invitation to Sadat, unsure whether Sadat would even consider it. Two days later, Sadat accepted.Preparations proceeded for Sadat’s arrival on Nov. 19. As Sadat descended the steps of his plane, Begin met him at the bottom. The two men embraced, awkwardly for a moment, and then more comfortably. The following day, after praying at the Al-Aqsa Mosque and visiting Yad Vashem, Sadat delivered his momentous address in Arabic at the Knesset.It was the first time that an Arab leader spoke in the Israeli parliament. Sadat laid out five conditions for peace: Israel’s complete return to the 1967 borders, independence for the Palestinians (a notion that he left entirely undefined), the right for all to live in peace and security, a commitment not to resort to arms in the future, and the end of belligerency in the Middle East.Not surprisingly, Begin’s speech was laced with biblical references, and stressed the Jewish people’s historical connection to the Land of Israel. He also repeated Israel’s willingness since 1948 to engage in negotiations with Egypt among other Arab nations. Lastly, he offered a prayer “that the God of our common ancestors will grant us the requisite wisdom of heart in order to overcome the difficulties and obstacles, the calumnies and slanders.”Sadat and Begin were in many ways an emotional and political mismatch, and even with American mediation, negotiations quickly got bogged down and became acrimonious. Begin, the lawyer, understood that the devil was in the details and wished to proceed exceedingly carefully. Ceausescu had warned Sadat that Begin would be a tough negotiator, but trustworthy once a deal was reached; Sadat, however, was unprepared for the belabored give-and-take over so many details. Carter pushed Begin to accede to Sadat’s demands. But Begin insisted on moving deliberately. There were principles that had animated him his entire life, and he was not about to abandon them now, even for peace with Egypt. But what to him seemed careful and responsible chess playing on the domestic front struck Sadat and Carter as foot-dragging. The relationships became increasingly fraught. At a joint summit in Ismailia on Dec. 26, 1977, it became quite clear that the two sides faced “an unbridgeable abyss of misunderstanding and deadlock.”Begin was depressed, and to those who knew him well, there were signs of physical decline. He had been hospitalized for heart issues in 1977, and in May 1978, he collapsed and was hospitalized again. His mounting physical health problems led a Hadassah Hospital physician to wonder about his mental health. “The problem is that he has to take conflicting medications—some dealing with his diabetes, other with heart problems—and as a result he’s suffering from frequent and extreme ups and downs in mood swings,” the doctor said. Begin could rise to the occasion when needed, but it seemed that he could not sustain his energy or his focus.Carter had his own concerns. Fearful that the collapse of peace talks could send Egypt back into the orbit of the Soviet Union, he decided on a Hail Mary pass: an intense 12-day summit in the secluded woods of Camp David. Seemingly a perfect setting for the summit, Camp David was guarded by U.S. marines and was isolated from the outside world and the press. Begin called it a “concentration camp deluxe.”As he boarded the plane to the United States, Begin mentally girded himself for a challenging series of negotiations by calling to mind the words of his master and teacher, Ze’ev Jabotinsky: “The only way to achieve an agreement in the future is by utterly abandoning all attempts to achieve an agreement in the present.”
From the first day of the Camp David summit, on Sept. 5, 1978, the arguments were heated. Sadat demanded Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza in order to pave the way for a future Palestinian state. To Begin, the request was ludicrous. The PLO had been founded in Cairo with Egypt’s support, had been sworn to Israel’s destruction from the very outset, and Sadat was demanding not only that Israel weaken its buffer by giving back the Sinai to him, but that it create a state for those who remained expressly committed to Israel’s destruction. Sadat also demanded financial compensation to the Egyptian government for damages during and after the October War of 1973. Though he had apparently informed Carter in advance that he was willing to compromise on all these issues, he felt he had to make a strong initial showing. (Ambassador Samuel Lewis later related that Sadat had also been warned by his aides that if he compromised too readily, he might be killed.)Begin rejected all of those demands, calling them “chutzpah.” The negotiations quickly descended into bitter acrimony. Carter wrote, “All restraint was now gone. Their faces were flushed, and the niceties of diplomatic language and protocol were stripped away. They had almost forgotten I was there.” Within the first two days of the summit, Carter decided that there would be no more face-to-face meetings between Begin and Sadat at Camp David.The Americans themselves were divided in their assessment of Begin. Sam Lewis felt that “Begin was not able personally to wrap himself around options and alternatives and possibilities and subtleties,” but Cyrus Vance, Carter’s secretary of state, thought he was “one of the finest poker players” he had ever seen. So determined was he to ensure that no detail was out of place that he stonewalled Carter to his breaking point. Subtleties in language, for example, the differences among “Palestinians,” “Palestinian people,” and “Palestinian Arabs,” were the bricks on which Begin built his case. Carter, who undoubtedly did not understand the existential vulnerabilities Begin felt the president was pressuring him to accept, lost all regard for the Israeli leader. Begin is a psycho, he apparently told his wife.But what Begin was actually doing was carefully angling for a “compromise” that would ensure that the issue of Palestinian autonomy did not spin out of control. He was unwilling to give up any part of the Land of Israel, and was buttressed by Dayan, who believed that the West Bank was critical to Israel’s security. What the parties slowly inched toward was an agreement in which the Palestinians would have a self-governing authority that would be elected for a period of five years. During that five-year period, a final-status agreement would be discussed—but the agreement was subject to the approval of all sides. That meant, in essence, that every side would have a veto. That arrangement both satisfied everyone in the short term and doomed any Palestinian prospects for real autonomy to failure. The Palestinians would demand Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, and Israel would veto it; Israel would demand that it retain control over the West Bank, and the Arabs would veto it.Begin ensured that nothing beyond the limited autonomy he was willing to consider would develop. Begin would be satisfied with that stalemate, and intuited that Sadat would, as well. Sadat would get both peace and the Sinai, and would be able to claim that he had tried to secure at least something for the Palestinians. Indeed, Aryeh Naor, who was cabinet secretary under Begin and was present at Camp David, believed that Sadat gave up on nothing that mattered to him. He “couldn’t care less” about the Palestinians, Naor insisted; as the leader of the most populous Arab nation, he simply had to be able to claim that he’d done his utmost to make the Palestinian case.Carter, who made no attempt to hide his disdain for Begin, went to Ezer Weizman, Moshe Dayan, and Aharon Barak (then Israel’s attorney general, and later President of the Supreme Court) directly. But that was a tactical error of no small proportions, for in doing so, he estranged Begin from the process, giving the aging man the impression that no one was interested in speaking with him. Several times in the second week, Begin attempted to extricate himself from the entire ordeal and return home. The heightened tension, as his body continued to fail him, was too much to bear.Curiously, the president of the United States also seemed unable to grasp the challenges that a democratically elected leader such as Begin would face in selling peace to the citizens of Israel. Sadat, of course, had no democracy with which he had to deal; but Carter, who knew well the challenges of governing a democracy, seems to have had no awareness or concern for the political challenges that any deal Begin agreed to would face in the Knesset.Even more bewildering to Carter was Begin’s resolute refusal to even discuss the subject of dividing Jerusalem. When the topic was broached, Begin related to Carter the story of Rabbi Amnon of Mainz, the eleventh-century Jewish scholar who was pressured by the archbishop of Mainz to convert to Christianity. Rabbi Amnon asked the archbishop for three days during which to consider, but immediately regretted having done anything at all that might be interpreted as his even considering such an unthinkable act. When he did not appear before the archbishop on the third day, he was dragged in by guards. Rabbi Amnon, when accused that he had broken his pledge to appear after three days, admitted his guilt and asked that his tongue be cut out, since it was with his tongue that he had expressed doubt of his everlasting commitment to Judaism. But the archbishop ruled that instead of his tongue, Rabbi Amnon’s hands and feet should be cut off. Dying, Rabbi Amnon asked that he be brought into the synagogue, as it was Rosh Hashanah. There, in his last moments, he recited a prayer called the U’netaneh Tokef, which became one of the central prayers of the High Holiday liturgy. And then he died.Begin’s point was clear. Rabbi Amnon sinned by even suggesting that he would consider conversion. Begin was not going to pretend for a moment that Jerusalem was up for discussion. He had struggled to procure the Altalena’s arms for his fighters defending the city in 1948, the Jordanians had desecrated it after his fighters could not hold on, and Israel had recaptured it in 1967 through the sheer grit and bravery of its young sons. This point, at least, Carter understood. Begin was making it clear that he would not make Rabbi Amnon’s mistake; when it came to Jerusalem, there was nothing to talk about. Carter shared the story with Sadat, and the issue of Jerusalem was dropped.But there was nothing Begin could do to get the Sinai settlements off the table. Many observers felt then, and still believe, that one of Begin’s concerns was that an agreement to dismantle the Sinai settlements would later be used as a precedent for the West Bank. The settlements would also be one of the critical political battles he would have to face upon coming home. Undoubtedly, moving Jews out of their homes was also deeply painful for Begin.Sadat was not going to be moved on this issue, and everyone on the Israeli team understood that if a deal were to be reached, Begin was going to have to back down. It was Ariel Sharon who apparently convinced Begin that leaving the Sinai would not set a precedent for having to evacuate the West Bank and that the political battles ahead could be managed. The two men, who were linked by Begin’s father’s friendship with Sharon’s grandfather in Brisk and whose most complex collaboration was still to come, partnered in moving the proposal forward. Begin agreed to dismantle the Sinai settlements and dislodge their inhabitants, if the Knesset approved.Little by little, despite the manifold challenges, progress was made. In the end, Begin sacrificed the Sinai but kept the West Bank, and the Egyptian president got the Sinai back by selling out Palestinian hopes for sovereignty.Both Begin and Sadat had moved significantly from their opening positions. At the signing ceremony on Sept. 17, Sadat thanked Carter for his commitment, but failed to mention either Menachem Begin or the State of Israel. But Begin complimented Sadat profusely, frequently referring to him as a friend. “In Jewish teachings,” Begin lectured the small audience, “there is a tradition that the greatest achievement of a human being is to turn his enemy into a friend, and this we do in reciprocity.”An agreement in hand, Begin returned to Israel more popular than ever before. The renewed popularity and momentum in the peace process seemed to revive Begin; suddenly, he was not failing, but was leading the charge once again. But many of his former Etzel comrades were devastated, and in the Knesset, divisions ran deep. It took a full seven hours of heated deliberation to convince his cabinet to sign off on the Camp David agreement and to bring it to the Knesset. In the 17-hour marathon Knesset session that followed, Begin defended his position passionately, reminding his listeners both of the imperative of peace and of the enduring vulnerability of the Jewish people and how Israel would be perceived if they turned the deal down.On Sept. 28, 1978, at roughly three o’clock in the morning, the Knesset voted 84 “yes,” 19 “no,” and 17 abstentions in favor of the Camp David agreement. The man the British had once called Terrorist No. 1 had made peace with Israel’s most powerful enemy.
1a) The End of the ‘Wrong Side of History’
Of tyranny and clichés and who gets to write history.
By Jonathan Spyer
President Barack Obama, in criticizing Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s conquest of the Crimean Peninsula, described Putin as standing “on the wrong side of history.” This curious and arresting phrase has become a frequent cliché among western liberals.
It is testimony to their self-confidence, and to their belief that they have accurately read the deeper currents and inevitable direction of human affairs. These, in the view of the president and his supporters, point inexorably toward greater cooperation between peoples; a decline in attachment to particularist ethnic, national or religious histories; and a decline in the use of force to settle disputes between states.
The unspoken assumption behind all this, of course, is that being on the right side of history also means accepting the unmatched dominance of the U.S. in global affairs, and in turn the unchallengeable domination of the U.S. by people supporting the particular progressive world view of the president and his supporters.
That is, Obama and his supporters use the word “history” to refer to themselves.
The problem with all this is that in the last five years, many players on the world stage have learned that if “history” and “Obama” are synonyms, being on the wrong side of Obama is a not particularly uncomfortable or worrying place to be. So the threat of it has rather less impact than the president might hope or assume.
This is not a marginal point. Rather, it is the key factor defining the direction of strategic affairs globally, and in the Middle East in particular.
Let’s examine the record:
In the Middle East, declining respect for being on the wrong side of the United States is the single factor which underlies the direction of events in the key conflict zones of the region.
In Egypt, the current de facto administration of General Abd al Fattah al-Sisi came into being on July 3, 2013, as a result of a military coup against a U.S.-supported Muslim Brotherhood government. Sisi as of now appears to command immense popularity among the Egyptian population.
He has paid no apparent price for directly challenging the will of the U.S. administration. He is likely to win the Egyptian presidency this year and to set in motion another long period of de facto military rule in Egypt. He is also in the process of reviving Cairo’s relations with Russia.
In Syria, an anti-American dictatorship is holding its ground, despite ostensible U.S. support for its overthrow, and despite the dictator Assad’s responsibility for the deaths of over 140,000 of his countrymen over the last three years. Iranian and Russian aid to the Assad regime have proved decisive. Bashar Assad was smart enough to stick with allies who would stick by him.
1b) Surviving Obama
By Caroline B. Glick
Obama's newfound courage to begin abandoning his pretense of supporting Israel presents Israel with a new challenge
Bloomberg columnist Jeffrey Goldberg minced few words in discussing the interview that President Barack Obama gave him on the eve of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's latest visit to Washington.
Speaking with Charlie Rose, Goldberg equated Obama's threat to stop supporting Israel in international forums to the talk of a mafia don. Obama told Goldberg, that if Israel doesn't cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, "our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited." He added, "And that has consequences."
That statement, Goldberg noted, was a "veiled threat" and "almost up there with, 'Nice little Jewish state you've got there. Hate to see something happen to it.'"
Goldberg saw the interview as Obama's way of showing that he is beginning to abandon the pretense of supporting Israel, now that he no longer faces reelection. In Goldberg's words, "It's not that the gloves are coming off. It's more that the mask of diplomatic language is coming off a little bit."
Goldberg added that due to the fact that Obama, "doesn't have to run again for anything," he doesn't need to pretend feelings for Israel that he doesn't have, by among other things, going to AIPAC annual policy conference.
And indeed, Obama has achieved a comfort level with implementing anti-Israel policies. His threat to step aside and let Israel-haters have their way in places like the United Nations or in certain quarters of Europe is of a piece with several steps the he is already reportedly undertaking to harm Israel in various ways.
Before he was reelected in 2012, Obama felt it necessary to align his policies on Iran to the preferences of the public. And as a consequence, although he voiced harsh criticism of Congressional sanctions bills against Iran, he grudgingly signed them into law. (He then proceeded to use the sanctions he opposed but signed as proof that he supported Israel in speeches before Jewish audiences.)
Now that he no longer has to concern himself with the wishes of the American public and its representatives in Congress, Obama has dropped the mask of opposition to Iran and forged ahead with a diplomatic process that all but ensures Iran will acquire nuclear weapons
The same is apparently the case with joint US-Israeli missile defense programs. Wednesday it was reported that the administration has slashed funding of those programs by two-thirds for the 2015 fiscal year. Obama touted his previous willingness to fully fund those programs — manifested in his decision not to veto Congressional appropriations, despite his stated desire to slash funding — as proof of his administration's "unprecedented" security cooperation with Israel.
Then there are the low-level bureaucratic sanctions that Obama began enacting against Israel last year. These involve State Department activities that are not subject to easy Congressional oversight.
For instance, last week it was reported that last year the State Department drastically decreased the number of Israeli tourist visa applications it approved. The rise in rejection rates has prevented Israel from participating in the visa waiver program. Foreign Ministry officials told reporters they believe this is a deliberate, premeditated policy.
And this week we learned that last year the State Department rejected hundreds of visa requests from members of Israel's security services.
Although White House spokesman Jay Carney was quick to claim that Israel's interception of the Iranian missile ship en route to Gaza Wednesday morning was the result of US-Israeli intelligence cooperation, the fact is that the US continues to undermine Israel's covert operations in Iran. Earlier this week, CBS reported that the Obama administration has demanded that Israel stop its reported covert campaign to kill Iranian nuclear scientists in order to delay or block Iran's nuclear progress.
Obama's new willingness to threaten Israel and to take the actions he feels it is safe to take to downgrade Israel's relations with the US, will likely only grow after November's midterm elections. After the Congressional elections, Obama will feel entirely free to attack the US's closest ally in the Middle East.
So what can Israel do? How can Israel safeguard its interests at a time when the US President publicly trashes and threatens those interests and privately undermines them?
Israel already did the most important thing in this regard when voters reelected Netanyahu to lead the government last year. During his trip to the US this week, Netanyahu made clear that he understands the challenge and is competent to handle it.
Since Netanyahu returned to the premiership in January 2009, he has implemented a policy of waiting Obama out. Over the past five years, Netanyahu has only directly challenged Obama when he had no choice. And that has been the right course. Little good comes to Israel from open fights with the White House. Such fights should only be engaged when the consequences of having a fight are less bad than the consequences of not fighting
I
n his speech at the AIPAC Conference on Tuesday, Netanyahu rebutted every position Obama has staked out on the Palestinians and Iran without ever mentioning Obama's name. By doing so he energized Israel's supporters while denying Obama the ability to claim that Netanyahu is unsupportive of his policies.
In other words, he humored the White House while staking out an independent Israeli policy for which he secured the support of Israel's American backers.
But Netanyahu's skill in maneuvering around Obama is not enough for Israel to safely weather his presidency. Israel needs an overall strategy for securing its interests.
Such a multi-pronged strategy begins with Iran.
Israel needs to directly attack Iran's nuclear installations — by covert action as well as through overt military strikes, as required.
According to CBS, after Obama's diplomatic capitulation to Iran became public, Netanyahu ordered Israel's intelligence services to concentrate their efforts in Iran on exposing the fraudulence of Iran's purported commitment to freezing its nuclear progress. But while this is important, exposing Iran's duplicity is not nearly as important as incapacitating Iran's nuclear sites.
With Obama now joining Kerry in openly threatening to passively support a European trade war against Israel, it is imperative that Israel develop every economic opportunity it has to expand its markets. As Netanyahu made clear in his speech to AIPAC, Israel's technological prowess has already made it a magnet for global investors. But these opportunities should be maximized through further economic liberalization.
In a conversation with Haaretz earlier this week, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz noted that "President Obama has been the president most hostile to the nation of Israel in modern times."
In a conversation with this writer on Tuesday, Cruz placed the blame for Obama's success in implementing his anti-Israel policies on the Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Henry Reid.
In his words, "The challenge we are facing is that the number one protector of Obama's foreign policy has been Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats."
On the sidelines of the AIPAC conference, Cruz blasted what he views as the hypocrisy of Senate Democrats. "At the same time they block the Kirk-Menendez sanctions [bill against Iran] and blame Israel for the impasse in peace negotiations, they proclaim their support for Israel," he said.
And Cruz is certainly correct.
There can be no doubt that Israel's strongest supporters today are in the Republican Party.
But it is important to remember that most Democrats also support Israel. They are simply unable politically to withstand the pressures that Obama has brought to bear to force them to stand with him against Israel.
In his speech to AIPAC, Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, who chairs the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee confessed that he was forced to stand down on Iran sanctions due to partisan pressure. In his words, "When it comes to Iran, I have stood with you and have stood against so many in my own party."
Menendez's admission that he couldn't withstand the pressures that Obama and Reid brought to bear against him indicates that among some Democrats, support for Israel remains strong, but that under Obama, Israel's Democrat supporters are weak.
While deeply problematic, this is a problem with a limited shelf-life.
If Obama views the midterm elections as the final restraint on his ability to act against the will of the American public, his fellow Democrats likely view the elections as the last time Obama will serve as the head of their party during an election cycle. In the 2016 elections, the Democrat Presidential nominee will set the tone for the party, not Obama. Moreover, as the full economic impacts of Obamacare, Obama's signature domestic policy become known after the midterm elections, Obama will be even more severely weakened. Consequently, his ability to pressure his Democrat colleagues to toe his line will be diminished.
Finally, given Obama's obsessive focus on demanding that Israel surrender its land to the Palestinians, it is imperative that Israel develop a strategy for waiting Obama out on this issue.
Obama told Goldberg that Israel must surrender to the Palestinians forthwith because it has no other option. In his words, "I have not yet heard… a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution.
In my book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, which was released on Tuesday,
(Buy it at a 24% discount by clicking here or order in KINDLE edition at a 56% discount, just $10.99 by clicking here)
I explain Israel has a viable alternative. It involves applying Israeli law to all of Judea and Samaria and integrating the Palestinians into Israeli society.
Israel would not be endangered demographically or democratically if it adopted this approach and it would certainly be better off militarily.
Netanyahu has stated his support for establishing a Palestinian state. But he has made clear that he will only agree to a peace deal that protects Israel's vital interests. While maintaining faith with that position, it would be prudent for him to discuss publicly and at length the fact while a negotiated peace is his preference, there is a fine alternative to a Palestinian terror state in Israel's strategic and historic heartland.
If the Palestinians are uninterested in negotiating a viable agreement with Israel, then Israel will feel free to adopt an alternative course of applying its laws to Judea and Samaria.
At a minimum, such a move by Netanyahu would discredit end Obama's demographic threats, which are based on falsified Palestinian census data. It would also place pressure on the Palestinians to show their hand — either embracing peace in a genuine manner, or demonstrating the basic falsity of their protestations of peaceful intentions. Either way, Israel would be better off.
Obama's new found courage to begin abandoning his pretense of supporting Israel presents Israel with a new challenge. But it is far from insurmountable. With the proper mix of policies, Israel can absorb Obama's blows and even to blunt them, as Obama becomes an independent, unrestrained, and weak lame duck president.
1c) Delivering the West on a Platter
By Melanie Phillips
The consequences of the Obama administration’s frivolous malevolence over foreign policy are now starting to become clear. The inevitable result of Obama’s decision to pull all troops out of Iraq has been to create a power vacuum – into which has stepped al Qaeda. Its operatives have surged into Anbar province, where so many American and Coalition soldiers gave their lives in an attempt to secure the peace.
Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth and panicky promises by the US to send ‘support’ – whatever that might be in the absence of troops. The cause of the panic? That all those American and other coalition soldiers who died in Iraq will be soon seen to have died in vain, as America’s scuttling away from the battlefield turns fragile victory into baleful defeat and Iraq stares into the abyss of civil war.
A horribly similar débâcle is about to take place in Afghanistan, where the precipitate decision to withdraw Coalition troops, on top of a series of serious strategic errors in fighting the war there, will soon be seen to have delivered Afghanistan straight back to the Taleban. The outcome will be that these two regions, over which the west rightly went to war because they were viewed as a threat to be neutralised, will return once more to being a threat, if not an even more dangerous one than before.
Blame for this lethal shambles cannot altogether be laid at Obama’s door. He merely delivered the coup de grâce. The deeper reason is the current confusion and moral spinelessness of the west, both in failing to acknowledge the nature and extent of the threat to the free world and in failing also to have the bottle to see its defense through to the bitter end.
Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were dogged throughout by poisonous western cultural self-loathing and defeatism – which turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy as the public refused to countenance the measures needed to win in either theater of war, especially the commitment to stay engaged for as long as it took until victory was achieved.
On top of all that should be factored in the arrogance, hubris and rank incompetence of political leaders in the US and Britain in particular, from Bush and Blair to Obama and Cameron. They refused to acknowledge that what the west was facing was not a couple of isolated, terror-promoting regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan but the complex, many-headed hydra of Islamic religious war against the west. Utterly failing to understand the region and what they were dealing with, they came up with one cock-eyed idea and strategy after another.
The third element in this unholy trinity of foreign policy catastrophes in the Muslim world was the capitulation to Iran at Geneva, where the US, UK and EU agreed implicitly to allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium, as a result of which – even absent a final deal – the prospect of sanctions relief has caused Iran’s economy to boom. So relaxed has Iran now become, indeed, that a senior Iranian lawmaker has bragged that the country’s uranium enrichment program could allow it to build a nuclear weapon ‘in two weeks’ in order to ‘put down Israel’.
Even the eye-popping fact that the terrorist and genocidal Iranian regime has now become America’s new best friend still didn’t lessen the astonishment at US Secretary of State John Kerry’s bizarre suggestion that Iran might play a role in the Syrian peace talks – which, since Iran is Assad’s patron and has fomented chaos and violence not just in Syria but in the region is, as has been said, tantamount to calling on an arsonist to put out a fire.
The other side of all this has been the Obama administration’s obsession with Israel, and its truly fatuous belief that a Palestine state is the key to defusing Muslim rage. Here on display is the same combination of hubris and abject ignorance in assuming that the US can broker a peace deal, when it refuses to acknowledge the true nature of the conflict and stupidly and arrogantly refracts the way the Palestinian Arabs think through the wholly inappropriate prism of western cultural assumptions.
Kerry says he is frustrated by the PLO’s refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state. But to anyone who looks at the Palestinian Arabs or Middle East history without rose-tinted or hate-infused blinkers, this is hardly a surprise. The Palestinian Arabs brainwash their children into hating and murdering Jews and Israelis.
They glorify terrorists as heroes and martyrs – not least because, according to Mahmoud Abbas back in 2005, their atrocities were perpetrated on the orders of his Palestinian Authority.
They openly preside over terrorist atrocities themselves: one of Abbas’s policemen was amongst those arrested for the recent attempted bomb attack against an Israeli bus in Bat Yam.
And let’s not forget the ‘Palestine ambassador’ who blew himself up by accident in Prague a few days ago when he reportedly ‘opened a safe’ in his ‘embassy’ – following which the Czech police were even more astonished to discover there a store of enough weapons to arm ten people. Former Czech Chief of Staff Jiri Sedivy said he was afraid that
‘…apart from Prague, similar arms arsenals may also be secretly kept at other Palestinian embassies in Europe and overseas.’
Ya think?
Yet these are the people with whom Kerry is bullying Israel to negotiate away its existential safety and the security of its civilians. These are the people with whom Kerry is negotiating their reward for such unending bigotry and aggression in the offer of a state of their own.
Now the PLO has made clear yet again that this whole ‘peace process’ is a sick farce, since a state of Palestine would serve merely as a stage towards its goal of destroying Israel altogether.
‘In an interview on Syrian TV, senior Palestinian official Abbas Zaki said the PA will only agree to a treaty with Israel if the Palestinian state is established on the 1967 lines. However, he stressed that '67 lines would only be the beginning. After that, the Palestinians will continue with the stages plan:
“Even the most extreme among us, Hamas, or the fighting forces, want a state within the '67 borders. Afterward, we [will] have something to say, because the inspiring idea cannot be achieved all at once. [Rather] in stages.”
‘In an interview on Al-Jazeera TV in 2011, Zaki also mentioned this PA stages plan and referred to “the inspiring idea,” explaining that it means the end of Israel. He said that Mahmoud Abbas shares the goal of eliminating Israel in stages, but that the PA says it only wants a state along the 1967 borders because it is unacceptable politically to say you want to destroy Israel: “You can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself.”’
‘Zaki stressed that the goal is clear-cut because if Israel were to return to the 1967 lines, it certainly could not survive: “Israel will come to an end.”
Yet it is precisely these 1967 lines – known in Israel as the ‘Auschwitz borders’ – that Obama and Kerry are applying the thumbscrews upon Israel to accept.
Of course, all those who have bayed for years that the US was displaying its inherent colonialism and racism by intervening in Iraq and Afghanistan strangely raise no such objection to its grotesque interference with Israel’s defence against extermination.
But then, those people would also like nothing better, or at the very least would not be the slightest bit disturbed, if Israel were to disappear altogether. In this, there is no real moral difference between them and the fanatical jihadis of the Muslim and Arab world – to which the Obama administration appears intent on delivering the west on a platter.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-The Great Demography Debate
By Yisrael Ne'eman
Whenever there are serious discussions concerning conflict resolution between Israel and the Palestinians the Israeli/Jewish side of the table suddenly finds itself confronting the ten year old debate over how many Palestinians really do live in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). There is no intent to bore readers to tears with long demographic explanations but a few statistics are in order. In 2004 the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics estimated the population of the West Bank to be 2.42 million and of the Gaza Strip to be 1.41 million (total 3.83 million Palestinian Arabs). These statistics were challenged in a survey by the Bar Ilan Begin-Sadat research center entitled "The Million Person Gap: The Arab Population in the West Bank and Gaza" which claimed these numbers to be inflated. They cited the West Bank population as 1.41 million and Gaza at 1.08 million (total 2.49 million). This issue of demographics is seen as crucial since Israel is confronted with making peace whereby a two-state solution was and continues to be widely discussed in what is generally described as politically Left and Centrist forums. In much of the Right (but not all) and especially religious circles a one state solution is advanced as the preferred option.
Nowadays the Left/Centrists fear a one state option will lead to an Arab majority in the Land of Israel (from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea) and the Right/Religious believe the Land of Israel must remain one unit not only as an ideological point but assuring Israeli sovereignty over all will provide the most security. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005 during PM Ariel Sharon's second government thereby leaving any debate concerning Gaza annexation with its over one million residents (whether 1.08 or 1.41 million) as a statistical exercise.
Although he did not write the report, former diplomat Yoram Ettinger is the name most associated with the Bar Ilan survey and insistence that Israel should annex the West Bank. In opposition more than anyone else are Prof. Arnon Soffer, the well known geographer from the Univ. of Haifa and demographer Prof. Sergio Della Pergola from the Hebrew University. Over the past decade both dispute the Bar Ilan statistics claiming the Palestinian population to be much larger. Each side accuses the other of massive distortions. The exact ins and outs of the decade old debate are less important than where we stand now.
So where are we? Even should we take the minimalist 1.41 million figure from the Bar Ilan/Ettinger report and multiply it by a annual growth rate of 1.8% as claimed by the researchers (Bennet Zimmerman, Roberta Seid and Michael L. Wise) over the next decade and arrive at 2014 there are 1.77 million Palestinians in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Including Israeli Arabs (and East Jerusalem) in the 2013 Israel census we can add another 1.6 million which brings us to 3.37 million at minimum. Israel's Jewish population is 6.1 million plus another 348,000 non-Arab Christians mostly from Eastern Europe. The total population of Israel including the West Bank comes to approximately 9.8 million and we have not included African refugees and other non-legal residents. The non-Jewish population comes to at least 38% of the total. If we are only counting Arabs (Israeli and Palestinian) we are at a minimum of 34% of the population total. These are the minimalist numbers if we relate to the Bar Ilan report.
Now from the other side. The CIA World Factbook, the IDF (Israel Civil Administration), the Shin Bet (Israel's General Security Service), the UN and the Palestinians agree that the West Bank Arab population including East Jerusalem (about 305,000) adds up to some 2.7 million in 2013. Add in the Israeli Arab population minus East Jerusalem (1.3 million) and one arrives at some 4 million.
One other general figure from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics in April 2012: There are said to be 12 million people from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea (including the Hamas ruled Gaza Strip). Two years ago there were 5.9 million Jews and 6.1 million non-Jews. In Israel itself the Jewish population was calculated at 75.4%. Over 20% were Arabs and some 4% were non-Jewish Europeans.
In speaking of the one-state solution using the minimalist statistics (34% Arabs) we need to ask ourselves about Arab representation in the Israeli legislature should there be an annexation where everyone is extended citizenship. The Arab potential for representation out of a body of 120 members of Knesset (MKs) would be 41 mandates. The Druze population of 1% is counted in due to language affiliation despite their overall loyalty to the State of Israel so we will round down to 40. Arab representation will be split between the secular Fatah types like Ahmed Tibi and Hanin Zuabi and Hamas style Islamists like Raid Salah (who is once more going to jail for incitement). Based on estimated support for Hamas in Israel and the West Bank we can figure about 15 Islamists entering the Knesset and 25 Fatah style secular Palestinian nationalists. As a counterpoint many right wing/religious politicians claim that Israeli Arabs either do not participate in elections or vote for Zionist parties so even should the Palestinians be included the Arab MKs will never reach 40. Such is wishful thinking, once the Arab population realizes that political power is certainly within their grasp, much fuller political participation will ensue. And lest we forget Jewish participation in national elections has dropped from a high of 80% to around 60% in recent years. This is as optimistic as it gets.
If we look at the less optimistic stats for 2013 of 4 million Arabs vs. 6.1 million Jews plus the 4-5% non-Jews, non-Arabs there are 38% Arabs (45 MKs) and 58% Jews (70 MKs). No one can be sure who the other 4-5% would vote for under such conditions. And to be more realistic – How many of those counted as Israeli Jews live abroad?
I
n the Bar Ilan minimalist (call it optimistic) case there will be at least one-third of the population representing an anti-Zionist stand and even moderates amongst them will demand the dismantlement of the Jewish State as a national entity. Now to the Jewish side. Do not forget the Askenazi ultra-orthodox non-Zionist United Torah Judaism (UTJ) who within such an expanded context would poll some 5 MKs (in today's Knesset there are 7). The Sephardi Shas would poll some 8 MKs (today there are 11) and although for the most part considered pro-state there is some support from non-Zionist elements. Optimistically – 45 MKs will represent anti and non-Zionist platforms.
On the other hand political ramifications based on the less optimistic 2013 census leave us with at least 50 MKs representing anti or non-Zionist positions. Now add in the highest birthrates in the country led by the Arab and haredi populations. We already know that in 2017 half the children entering kindergarten in Israel proper will be either Arab or haredi. This number does not include West Bank Arabs of whom 40% are 14 years of age or under (and population growth rate of 2% according to the CIA World Factbook). Overall Arab birthrates are still higher than Jewish and the only reason Jewish birthrates are not low by western standards is because of the haredi population growth.
Want more? Why not? The per capita income in Israel is estimated at some $32,000 and in the West Bank it is one tenth or about $3,200. With full rights as citizens after annexation virtually the entire West Bank Arab population will be entitled to unemployment benefits (2013 unemployment figures are 22.5%), child allowances and massive welfare payments not to mention government subsidies to West Bank municipalities. Furthermore Israel has the honor of supporting the school system where despite state standards we can expect Fatah and Hamas doctrines to be taught. What about law enforcement against such acts? Expect these new Palestinian citizens to join the police force and other security services and if rejected for these functions they will go to court to demand their rights. Also, if the haredim (ultra-orthodox) can have their own independent schools separate from the independent state system, why should religious Palestinian Muslims not enjoy the same rights?
We will see massive wealth redistribution from the Jewish sector to the Palestinian West Bank Arab community to the tune of tens of billions of shekels. Taxes will need to rise to be in line with the law (social welfare payments, etc.) or if not we can watch the social gap explode when whipped up with Arab nationalist and Islamist sentiment (which may happen in any case). We will begin the process of self-immolation catalyzed by the newly incorporated Arab/Muslim West Bank community demanding the destruction of the Jewish State. To repeat – all West Bank residents will now be citizens with full equal rights. Moderate Israeli Arabs already demand de-Zionization, meaning Israel should not serve as the nation state homeland of the Jewish People. West Bank Arabs will be more in line with demanding Israel's complete demise.
Israel can expect widening boycotts and diplomatic ruptures especially from Europe should there be annexation. There will be much less support from America, if at all, and a serious split with the mainstream Jewish community known for its liberalism. On the military level, could Israel be considered a dependable ally of the US? Now ask yourself another question, "How many of your solid middle class, entrepreneurial, army serving (incl. reserves), tax-paying, loyal Zionist Jews will remain in the country for long? And what future will their children see?" Will they see Israel as the realization of the Zionist dream? It is true that some of the supporters of the modern orthodox national religious settler movement may expect a Messianic End Time to be on its way but this number is negligible.
Consider the above to be the reasons why neither right wing PMs Menachem Begin (1977-83), Yitzchak Shamir (1983-84 and 1986-92), Ariel Sharon (2001-06) nor Benyamin Netanyahu (1996-99 and 2009-present) would annex the Palestinian territories. All are said to have believed in keeping all the Land of Israel from the Jordan River to the Sea. Whether speaking of massive aliyah (Jewish immigration) or a slowing of Palestinian Arab population growth, the issue is about sustainability of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Annexing Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) will ensure that Israel is neither Jewish nor democratic. We might want to look at the Christian Lebanese and their fate in the second half of the 20th century to get an inkling of what awaits us.
It might be a good idea to actually count all the Palestinian Arab residents of the West Bank just to get an accurate demographic accounting. However, the truth of the matter is that whether the number is 1.8 million or 2.4 million is of no real significance. Socially, economically and security wise Israel will not survive an annexation of the Palestinian Arab West Bank.
So who's to blame? We Jews are. (More about that in the next article.)
2a) Egypt to 'revoke citizenship' of thousands of Hamas members
Egyptian security services have started to collect information about thousands of Hamas members who were granted Egyptian citizenship during the rule of ousted president Mohamed Mursi, according to Egyptian media.
Egypt's Day Seven news website reported that Egyptian authorities plan to revoke the citizenship of 13,757 Hamas members for being "affiliated to an offshoot of the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood."
Egyptian authorities are investigating whether Hamas members have been involved in what they describe as "terrorist attacks," adding that the prime minister has the right to revoke the citizenship of Hamas members without a court ruling if it is deemed that they endanger public security.
The Egyptian news site blamed Mursi for facilitating the entry of Hamas supporters into Egypt and granting them citizenship.
On Tuesday, an Egyptian court banned the activities of Hamas and ordered its assets seized.
"The Egyptian judge who made the decision did not bring a single evidence incriminating Hamas. Thus, the movement considers the Egyptian decision a pure political decision rather than a judicial decision, and that decision serves the Israeli occupation," a Hamas official said following the ruling.
Ties between Cairo and Hamas flourished during president Mohamed Morsi's year in power but have drastically deteriorated since a military coup in July last year which saw the Muslim Brotherhood leader ousted from power.
Cairo's new military-installed authorities launched a deadly crackdown on protests by supporters of Morsi, killing in excess of 1,400 people.
Egyptian troops have also destroyed hundreds of smuggling tunnels under the border with Gaza used to supply the Palestinian enclave with fuel and construction materials due to Israeli restrictions.
Hamas has denied accusations by Egyptian officials that it is involved in fighting in the Sinai Peninsula, where militant attacks on security forces have surged since July.
2a) Egypt to 'revoke citizenship' of thousands of Hamas members
Egyptian security services have started to collect information about thousands of Hamas members who were granted Egyptian citizenship during the rule of ousted president Mohamed Mursi, according to Egyptian media.
Egypt's Day Seven news website reported that Egyptian authorities plan to revoke the citizenship of 13,757 Hamas members for being "affiliated to an offshoot of the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood."
Egyptian authorities are investigating whether Hamas members have been involved in what they describe as "terrorist attacks," adding that the prime minister has the right to revoke the citizenship of Hamas members without a court ruling if it is deemed that they endanger public security.
The Egyptian news site blamed Mursi for facilitating the entry of Hamas supporters into Egypt and granting them citizenship.
On Tuesday, an Egyptian court banned the activities of Hamas and ordered its assets seized.
"The Egyptian judge who made the decision did not bring a single evidence incriminating Hamas. Thus, the movement considers the Egyptian decision a pure political decision rather than a judicial decision, and that decision serves the Israeli occupation," a Hamas official said following the ruling.
Ties between Cairo and Hamas flourished during president Mohamed Morsi's year in power but have drastically deteriorated since a military coup in July last year which saw the Muslim Brotherhood leader ousted from power.
Cairo's new military-installed authorities launched a deadly crackdown on protests by supporters of Morsi, killing in excess of 1,400 people.
Egyptian troops have also destroyed hundreds of smuggling tunnels under the border with Gaza used to supply the Palestinian enclave with fuel and construction materials due to Israeli restrictions.
Hamas has denied accusations by Egyptian officials that it is involved in fighting in the Sinai Peninsula, where militant attacks on security forces have surged since July.
According to today’s New York Times,the conceit behind President Obama’s recent attacks on Israel was to redress what he felt was an imbalanced approach to American diplomacy. Apparently the president thinks Secretary of State John Kerry has been too nice to the Israelis during the course of his effort to revive peace talks with the Palestinians. Thus, the president has decided to play “bad cop,” to Kerry’s “good cop” in dealings with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. While the president’s assumption of the role of the bully inhis Bloomberg interview with Jeffrey Goldberg was entirely convincing, the Israelis may be forgiven for wondering when the good cop will start making nice with them. This is, after all, the same secretary that has threatened Israel with boycotts and even a third intifada if they were not sufficiently forthcoming in the negotiations, leaving the impression that the American tandem was conducting a coordinated campaign of pressure rather than a more nuanced effort to convince Jerusalem to make concessions.
Having paid for Palestinian participation in the talks with the release over 100 terrorist murderers and reportedly already conceded a withdrawal from at least 90 percent of the West Bank once the talks began, the Israelis had good reason to be surprised by Obama’s decision to pile. But while Washington has been obsessively focused on forcing the Israelis to accept a two-state solution and a framework for negotiations that they have already agreed to, the administration seems equally determined to ignore what the Palestinians are doing. Thus the statements from Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, who received fulsome praise from the president for his commitment to peace, that he will never agree to a key element of Kerry’s framework is being ignored by the White House.
In a statement released by the official PA press agency WAFA, Abbas reiterated what he has been saying for months. He will not sign on to any framework, let alone a peace treaty that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. In Abbas’ words, “There is no way. We will not accept.” The question now is what are Obama and Kerry going to do about it? Their answer will speak volumes not only about the future of Kerry’s talks but their commitment to a genuine peace that will ensure rather than endanger Israel’s survival.
Abbas’ latest “no” leaves President Obama and Kerry with a crucial choice.
They can insist that Abbas budge on the Jewish state issue because they know that without it the Palestinians are not conceding the end of the conflict. Unless Abbas says those two little words it will be obvious that despite Obama’s praise for him, he is just as committed to a vision of Palestinian nationalism that is inextricably tied to a war on Zionism as was his predecessor Yasir Arafat. By walking away from the talks over this point, Abbas will be delivering the fourth Palestinian no to an Israeli offer of statehood after previous rejections in 2000, 2001 and 2008.
If so, Obama will be placed in a position where he would be obligated to place the blame for Kerry’s failure just as President Bill Clinton had to blame Arafat for the collapse of the 2000 Camp David Summit as well as the subsequent Taba Conference. But given his antipathy for Netanyahu, the Israelis have to be wondering whether the president will find some reason to let Abbas off the hook.
Even worse is the possibility that they will cave in to Abbas’ demands rather than sticking to their commitment to Israel on the Jewish state issue.
While the Palestinians’ unwillingness to give up their hope of swamping Israel with refugees via a “right of return” and the pressure exerted on the PA from Hamas and Islamic Jihad has always made Kerry’s effort seem like a fool’s errand, he has conducted himself as if the chances for success were good. That’s why he readily accepted the notion that the Palestinians would acknowledge Israel as the Jewish state because in exchange for such a statement they would be rewarded with the territory and sovereignty they say they want.
In other words, while Kerry has always been prepared to give the Palestinians a peace deal that was more favorable to their ambitions than to Israel’s rights, he was still insisting that the end result must be genuine peace rather than a pause in the conflict. If his framework is altered to allow Abbas to avoid saying those two words, Kerry is aware that Israel can have no confidence that it will get peace no matter how much land they give up.
Obama and Kerry believed their bad cop/bad copy routine would be enough to bludgeon the Israelis into giving away the West Bank and perhaps even a share of Jerusalem and they appear to be right about that assumption. But, like all other would-be Middle East peacemakers they forgot or ignored the need to get the Palestinians to agree to peace.
If the administration allows Abbas to escape accountability on this crucial point it will expose their peace efforts as worse than a sham. As I wrote yesterday, the Jewish state is not a contrived controversy but a concept that lies at the heart of the conflict. Israelis have repeatedly shown their willingness to take risks for peace but the Palestinians are still stuck with a historical narrative that won’t allow them to give up their dream of Israel’s extinction.
Abbas has no intention of ever signing a peace treaty with Israel or granting it legitimacy as a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn or how much of Jerusalem they obtain. But if the United States can’t be honest about this even when Abbas gives them a flat no to one of the basic principles of peace, then it is clear that the purpose of the negotiations isn’t a resolution of the conflict but another excuse to bash Israel. If, after Kerry’s mission fails or even if it continues on terms that are incompatible with peace, Israelis should expect to be blamed no matter what they have conceded or how many times Abbas has said no. But so long as Abbas refuses to say two words, those charges will be lies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Delay ObamaCare Till the 3016 Election
President Obama just ordered yet another delay of ObamaCare, to hide its damage till after the 2016 election. Clearly, Democrats don’t want it, Republicans hate it, and the American people despise it – yet it remains the law.
So I have a simple suggestion. Congress should unanimously vote to delay ObamaCare till after the 3016 election.
The logic is impeccable. A thousand years should be enough time for the Republicans to get their act together (if we get lucky). And by 3016, even Nancy Pelosi will have retired, assuming she ran out of bat blood transfusions.
Democrats can still boast of their once-in-a-millennium legislative achievement. And Americans get to keep their doctors, if they like their doctors, for the next thousand years.
What’s not to like?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The First Woman President
As for profits, reported earnings for companies in the S&P 500 rose 16 percent last year from 2012, Siegel said. "We didn't have a real good economy last year, and we got 16 percent earnings growth."
"That's not to say we may not be near highs, but you don't get the buoyancy, the type of movements — what I would call the equity premium that characterizes a bubble or euphoria," he tells CNBC.
"Two or three years ago, we were at the highest level of equity premium, a rate of return on equity that the markets require. We had had the highest equity premium in 50 years. It's come down a bit."
Greenspan says the Fed can't prevent bubbles. "You can try to defuse it. You'll fail, as we did in 1994," he explains. "Unless you break the back of the actual euphoria that generates the bubbles, you're bound to fail. And the result of that is something that is outside the hands of the Fed."
Asked if there's a bubble in Silicon Valley acquisitions, Greenspan answers, "Bubbles are not the problem. Bubbles, by definition, will deflate. It's the institution which holds toxic assets which is a critical issue."
For example, when the dot-com stock bubble burst in 2000, huge losses resulted. "But it was essentially in those types of institutions which were not leveraged," he notes.
"At the time, households, they weren't. Other pension funds, mutual funds, they took a huge hit. But to get a crisis, you need serial default."
And, of course, no serial default occurred then. "If you look at the effect on the GDP, it was virtually negligible," Greenspan argues.
He is very concerned about banks being adequately capitalized. "There's nothing superior to that." But he's not too impressed with the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
"Coming from what's in Dodd-Frank, the diagnosis is basically wrong," he maintains.
"We're getting into a situation where the problem is wholly in the capital area. We went into the Lehman Brothers [crisis] with Lehman holding 3 percent tangible capital. You can't function that way."
Dodd-Frank is holding back the economy. "The difficulty is when I was at the Fed we had a few rulings a year," Greenspan says.
"Those rulings were extended because you had to go through all sorts of loops and circles of discussing with your colleagues and regulatory areas. And we managed to do that."
But Dodd-Frank includes a huge number of requirements, he adds. "I don't think there's enough time to do it," he said. "And I don't think it's going to work. In fact, I wrote an op-ed piece immediately after Dodd-Frank carried on. I said this isn't going to work, and it hasn't."
Many other experts don't see a bubble in the stock market either.
Jeffrey Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial, tells CNNMoney that stocks can achieve "mid- to high-single-digit gains" before dividends over the next 10 years, though not without increased volatility.
So the stock rally isn't winding down, he says. "In fact, the bull market may be getting a second wind."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The First Woman President
So long have I waited for the glass ceiling to be shattered, for the barrier to be breached, for the blessed moment to arrive. I had thought that the day that begins with a woman in the Oval Office, with more than 50 percent of our population feeling truly represented, was a day long in coming. I had thought 2008 would be the year we made history, with Hillary Clinton coming so close to the Democratic nomination, with Sarah Palin becoming the first woman on the Republican ticket.
But it was not to be. America reverted to her old habits of sexism and gynophobia, denying Clinton her place in the sun, even questioning the maternity of Palin’s youngest child. Barack Obama was elected to the White House. The contest four years later was, in sheer numbers, a regression: In 2012 no women were present on any major party ticket. Obama won his second term.
Only now do I see how mistaken I have been, how shallow my thinking, how guilty of succumbing to the confines of the hetero-normative imagination. If Bill Clinton “displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas,” and for that reason could be named by a Nobel laureate as “our first black President,” “blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime”; if Barack Obama “had to come out of a different closet,” had to learn “to be black the way gays learn to be gay,” if his “discovery in adulthood of a community not like your own home and the struggle to belong in both places, without displacement, without alienation” mirrors “the gay experience,” making him “the first gay president”; and if his positions on Israel make him, in the words of a former employee, “the first Jewish president,” then our ascription of gender identity need not be based on chromosomes or sexual characteristics, on hair style or costume, on self-identification, on arbitrary and socially constructed discourses of macho and feminine. It is clear to me now that we have had a woman president since January 20, 2009. Barack Obama’s story is America’s story. It is our story. It is the female story.
Strong women have surrounded Obama since childhood: his mother, who raised him after his deadbeat dad fled to Kenya; his grandmother, “who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to become vice president at a local bank”; his magnificent wife and First Lady Michelle Obama, before whom we all bow down; Michelle’s mother Marian Shields Robinson; the fierce pixie Valerie Jarrett; his billionaire heiress secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker; the gaunt and severe and silver-haired Kathleen Sebelius. Obama’s ascent to power, Sharon Jayson pointed out long ago, testifies to both the struggles and successes of single moms. From these ladies and others Obama drew lessons in how to raise his two beautiful daughters, in the value of women to American society, in the art of wearing mom jeans.
Throughout his presidency Obama has displayed sensitivity to women’s issues, women’s concerns, women’s priorities. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court. He established the game-changing Council on Women and Girls. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law. The mascot of his 2012 campaign was a woman. He is a staunch defender of reproductive rights, supporting sex-selective and partial-birth abortions, opposing any restrictions on abortions in the final trimester of pregnancy, calling Sandra Fluke to affirm his support, demanding th! e Little Sisters of the Poor provide contraception to their nun employees. His is a nurturing presidency, emphasizing children’s nutrition, early childhood education, primary and secondary school reform, the affordability of higher education, the challenges facing boys and young men of color, universal health care, the high cost of hip replacement for aging parents. He knows that “when women succeed, America succeeds.” And women know he is one of them. In 2012 he won their vote 55 percent to 44 percent.
This is not my opinion: Harvard professor Joseph Nye, citing his colleague Steven Pinker, has noted, “The parts of the world that lag in the decline of violence are also the parts that lag in the empowerment of women.” In America women are becoming more empowered all the time. What Pinker teaches, Nye says, is that “women have evolutionary incentives to maintain peaceful conditions in which to nurture their offspring and ensure that their genes survive into the next generation.”
Barack Obama shares these incentives. His foreign policy abjures the stereotypically male, the reflexively violent, the stubbornly confrontational, and the unthinkingly gruff. He is not afraid to be called a wimp, not only because using such language is a micro-aggression, not only because such harmful words depend on categories and expectations of “male” behavior that are hopelessly outdated in the twenty-first century, but also because he is better than that “bored, tough guy shtick.”
Discussion, consultation, negotiation, and open hands are preferable to violence and clenched fists. Violence is not the answer. If violence were the answer then Bashar Assad would still be in power (he is), and would still maintain his chemical weapons (he does). If violence were the answer then Vladimir Putin would not have left Georgia alone (his troops occupy it), nor would he have left Ukraine alone (he invaded last weekend). If the world still operated along antiquated notions of hegemony and primacy, China would not be disarming (its defense budget is up 12 percent over last year).
Words are more powerful than bombs. Words scared Assad into not using chemical agents against his own people (he’s gassed them repeatedly). Words stopped Putin from invading Crimea (the invasion was rapid and successful). Words convinced China to rescind its Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea (it’s still there, and the Chinese are planning another for the South China Sea). Words persuaded the Iranians to give up their nuclear program (they say they will never surrender the right to enrich). Words ended construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank (construction doubled in 2013), and established peace in the Middle East (Abbas won’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state).
“In terms of stereotypes, various psychological studies show that men gravitate to the hard power of command,” Joseph Nye wrote in 2012, “while women are collaborative and intuitively understand the soft power of attraction and persuasion.” He adds, “Recent leadership studies show increased success for what was once considered a ‘feminine style.’” Collaborate, intuitive, soft, attractive, persuasive—these attributes of the “feminine style” are perfect descriptors of Barack Obama’s relation to the world, or at least to those parts of the world that are not Republican or Israeli.
Nye describes the path women must travel to reach power: “Women are generally not well integrated into male networks that dominate organizations,” he writes, “and gender stereotypes still hamper women who try to overcome such barriers.” What he writes about women could also be written about Obama, who disdains glad-handing and networking, who “doesn’t really like people,” who in domestic politics has given up entirely negotiations with the “male networks that dominate organizations” such as the House of Representatives, who every day is hampered by the stereotype that he is brilliant, logical, debonair, pragmatic, witty, world-changing, deeply read, hip.
Yet Obama has overcome such barriers. He is one of a kind. Knowing their struggles, sharing their opinions, committed to abortion whenever and to contraception for all, supportive of equal pay for equal work, practicing the soft power of defense cuts, of negotiations, of needling, of chiding, delivering geopolitical statements from pre-school classrooms, snapping selfies with the girls at state funerals, displaying almost every trope of womanhood outlined by the theoretician of soft power himself, Barack Obama has as much of a claim as the next girl to being the first woman president. Do not “mother” him. Love him. Celebrate him. Open your mind, as I have. And Hillary: Take note. We already have a woman in the White House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Penn Prof. Siegel: Strong Earnings Will Lift Dow to 18,000
Buoyant corporate earnings will send stocks higher, says Jeremy Siegel, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Fair value for the Dow Jones industrial average is 18,000, or 10 percent above Tuesday's close of 16,395.88, he told CNBC. And fair value for the Standard & Poor's 500 Index is 2,000, or 7 percent above Tuesday's close of 1,873.91, Siegel said.
As for the Dow, "it could get there [to 18,000] by the year-end, it could get there sooner, it might be later," Siegel said. "But I certainly don't think that we're in the ninth inning of the bull market yet."
As for profits, reported earnings for companies in the S&P 500 rose 16 percent last year from 2012, Siegel said. "We didn't have a real good economy last year, and we got 16 percent earnings growth."
This year, earnings are expected to rise 20 percent, he said. "If any of these earnings estimates pan out—and they are bullish—hey, we're in about the fourth or fifth inning of this bull market," Siegel said. "This could be . . . much more than 18,000 on the Dow."
Others are bullish on stocks, too.
"On a very short-term basis, everything you’ve seen in the market has everything to do with the Ukraine," Kevin Caron, a market strategist at Stifel Nicolaus, told Bloomberg.
"But over last two weeks, the market has moved higher with the exception of [Monday]. The bet has been made that the economy continues to expand and most of the disruption we’ve seen has been from the weather."
5a) Greenspan: Stocks Aren't in Bubble Territory
While some financial commentators argue that the stock market has turned into a bubble, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees.
"That's not to say we may not be near highs, but you don't get the buoyancy, the type of movements — what I would call the equity premium that characterizes a bubble or euphoria," he tells CNBC.
"Two or three years ago, we were at the highest level of equity premium, a rate of return on equity that the markets require. We had had the highest equity premium in 50 years. It's come down a bit."
Greenspan says the Fed can't prevent bubbles. "You can try to defuse it. You'll fail, as we did in 1994," he explains. "Unless you break the back of the actual euphoria that generates the bubbles, you're bound to fail. And the result of that is something that is outside the hands of the Fed."
Asked if there's a bubble in Silicon Valley acquisitions, Greenspan answers, "Bubbles are not the problem. Bubbles, by definition, will deflate. It's the institution which holds toxic assets which is a critical issue."
For example, when the dot-com stock bubble burst in 2000, huge losses resulted. "But it was essentially in those types of institutions which were not leveraged," he notes.
"At the time, households, they weren't. Other pension funds, mutual funds, they took a huge hit. But to get a crisis, you need serial default."
And, of course, no serial default occurred then. "If you look at the effect on the GDP, it was virtually negligible," Greenspan argues.
He is very concerned about banks being adequately capitalized. "There's nothing superior to that." But he's not too impressed with the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
"Coming from what's in Dodd-Frank, the diagnosis is basically wrong," he maintains.
"We're getting into a situation where the problem is wholly in the capital area. We went into the Lehman Brothers [crisis] with Lehman holding 3 percent tangible capital. You can't function that way."
Dodd-Frank is holding back the economy. "The difficulty is when I was at the Fed we had a few rulings a year," Greenspan says.
"Those rulings were extended because you had to go through all sorts of loops and circles of discussing with your colleagues and regulatory areas. And we managed to do that."
But Dodd-Frank includes a huge number of requirements, he adds. "I don't think there's enough time to do it," he said. "And I don't think it's going to work. In fact, I wrote an op-ed piece immediately after Dodd-Frank carried on. I said this isn't going to work, and it hasn't."
Many other experts don't see a bubble in the stock market either.
Jeffrey Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial, tells CNNMoney that stocks can achieve "mid- to high-single-digit gains" before dividends over the next 10 years, though not without increased volatility.
So the stock rally isn't winding down, he says. "In fact, the bull market may be getting a second wind."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)-The Really Big Money? Not the Kochs
By Kim Strassel
Harry Reid is under a lot of job-retention stress these days, so Americans might forgive him the occasional word fumble. When he recently took to the Senate floor to berate the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch for spending "unlimited money" to "rig the system" and "buy elections," the majority leader clearly meant to be condemning unions.
It's an extraordinary thing, in a political age obsessed with campaign money, that nobody scrutinizes the biggest, baddest, "darkest" spenders of all: organized labor. The IRS is muzzling nonprofits; Democrats are "outing" corporate donors; Jane Mayer is probably working on part 89 of her New Yorker series on the "covert" Kochs. Yet the unions glide blissfully, unmolestedly along. This lack of oversight has led to a union world that today acts with a level of campaign-finance impunity that no other political giver—conservative outfits, corporate donors, individuals, trade groups—could even fathom.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Capitol Building, Jan. 25. Associated Press
Mr. Reid was quite agitated on the Senate floor about "unlimited money," by which he must have been referring to the $4.4 billion that unions had spent on politics from 2005 to 2011 alone, according to this newspaper. The Center for Responsive Politics' list of top all-time donors from 1989 to 2014 ranks Koch Industries No. 59. Above Koch were 18 unions, which collectively spent $620,873,623 more than Koch Industries ($18 million). Even factoring in undisclosed personal donations by the Koch brothers, they are a rounding error in union spending.
Mr. Reid was similarly heated over the tie-up between outside groups and politicians, by which he surely meant the unions who today openly operate as an arm of the Democratic Party. The press may despise the Kochs, but even it isn't stupid enough to claim they are owned by the GOP. Most outside conservatives groups, including the Koch-supported Americans for Prosperity, back candidates and positions that challenge the Republican line. And in any event, every conservative 501(c)(4) is so terrified of the hay the media and regulators would make over even a hint of coordination with the GOP, they keep a scrupulous distance.
Unions, as 501(c)(5) organizations, are technically held to the same standards against coordination with political parties. Yet no Democrat or union official today even troubles to maintain that fiction. Hundreds upon hundreds of the delegates to the 2012 Democratic convention were union members. They were in the same room as party officials, plotting campaign strategies. The question therefore is how much of that $4.4 billion in union spending was at the disposal of the Democratic Party—potentially in violation of a bajillion campaign-finance rules?
As for Mr. Reid's complaint that some "rig the system to benefit themselves," that was undoubtedly a reference to the overt, transactional nature of union money. Nobody doubts the Kochs and many corporations support candidates who they hope will push for free-market principles. Though imagine the political outcry if David or Charles Koch openly conditioned dollars for a politician on policies to benefit Koch Industries?
In the past months alone, unions demanded an exemption to a tax under ObamaCare; the administration gave it. They demanded an end to plans to "fast track" trade deals; Mr. Reid killed it. They wanted more money for union job training; President Obama put it in his budget. Everybody understands—the press matter-of-fact reports it—that these policy giveaways are to ensure unions open their coffers to help Mr. Reid keep the Senate in November. The quid pro quo is even more explicit and self-serving at the state level, where public-sector unions elect politicians who promise to pay them more. If the CEO of Exxon tried this, the Justice Department would come knocking. The unions do it daily.
Democrats hope to make a campaign theme out of conservative "dark" money, something else Mr. Reid knows about. In addition to other spending, unions have been aggressively funneling money into their own "dark" groups. One of these is the heavyweight 501(c)(4) Patriot Majority USA. Patriot Majority doesn't disclose its donors, though a Huffington Post investigation found it had been "fueled" in 2012 by $2.3 million in union donations. Amusingly, Patriot Majority used its undisclosed money on a campaign to expose the Koch brothers' "front" groups. Oh, and Patriot Majority is run by Craig Varoga, a former aide and close ally of . . . Harry Reid.
The unions have had a special interest in funding attacks on conservative groups, since it has led to the IRS's regulatory muzzling of 501(c)(4) speech. Under the new rule, conservative 501(c)(4)s are restricted in candidate support; unions can do what they want. Conservative groups are stymied in get-out-the-vote campaigns; unions can continue theirs. Conservative outfits must count up volunteer hours; not unions.
So now, in addition to a system in which organized labor spends "unlimited money" to "rig the system to benefit themselves" and "buy elections," (to quote Mr. Reid), Mr. Obama's IRS has made sure to shut up anyone who might compete with unions or complain about them.
Supporters of campaign-finance rules never want to acknowledge that their maze of regulations serve primarily as a tool for savvy politicians to manipulate and silence opponents. For proof, they need only listen to Mr. Reid—who is pretty savvy, and who didn't misspeak after all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Subject: Jewish Trivia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1940s, it was obligatory for Jews in the performing arts, especially the movies, to
hide their Jewishness behind Gentile names.
Thus, Ella Geisman became
June Allyson;
Bette Perske,Lauren Bacall:,
Bernie Schwartz,Tony Curtis
Issur Danielovich,Kirk Douglas;
Frances Rose Schorr,Dinah Shore;
Marion Levy,Paulette Goddard;
Muni Weissenkopf,Paul Muni;
Julie Garfinkel,John Garfield;
Allan Koenigsberg,Woody Allen;
Benny Kubelsky,Jack Benny;
Asa Yoelson,Al Jolson;
Charles Bushinsky,Charles Bronson;
Sara Gabor,Zsa Zsa Gabor;
Archibald Leach,Cary Grant;
Chaim Liebovitz,Lorne Green;
David Kaminsky,Danny Kaye;
Dorothy Kaumeyer,Dorothy Lamour;
Mike Orowitz,Michael Landon;
Joseph Levitch,Jerry Lewis;
Leonard Rosenberg,Tony Randall;
Tula Finklea,Cyd Charisse,
The easiest name transition of all, from Jew to Irishman, was made by Lee Jacob,to Lee J. Cobb. He hardly needed to change his stationery.Jeff Goldblum is just one well-known Jewish actor who uses his real name. And,of course, the very Jewish "Seinfeld" was just about the most popular TV sitcom of the 1990s.
So, the Golden Age of American Jewry can be defined as that period during which Jews began
to feel secure enough to be Jews openly; the waning of that period can be defined by the erosion of Judaism caused by the very freedom American Jews
have won to be Jews openly.
No comments:
Post a Comment