Prager on Being an American! Official Seal of New Protection Agency!

One smart lady golfer: 

  *An elderly lady was walking on the golf course on the island of Martha 's
Vineyard. She slipped and fell.*

*Obama who was behind her by chance, helped her to get up promptly.
She thanked him and he answered:*

*"It was a pleasure to help you.  Don't you recognize me?  I am your
President.  Are you going to vote for me in the next election?"*

*The elderly woman laughed and replied:*

*''I fell on my ass ... Not my head!"*

---
Sent to me by a dear friend and fellow memo reader and someone who, with his family,  escaped tyranny with nothing and re-established themselves in America. Posted previously but worth re-posting!


Should be required watching! http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=XNUc8nuo7HI
---
More powers of free protest usurped by our monarch!

'Here is another law that separates citizens from the President and the rest of the trash in DC, on both sides . New law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's presence  This means that, wherever Obama is, or a senator or rep., you do not have a right to  ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR. Are you aware of this new law, signed by "Obama" in early March 2012? View the you tube below… http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium"

---
Victor Hanson and Trayvon.  (See 1 below.)
---
Yes, there are some difference.  (See 2 below.)
---
Obama loses big or wind narrowly.  I still believe he loses and probably by big margin.  Hard to believe a 'pandering loser ' can win big in America but squeaking by has happened before and could again.  If so we are truly doomed and maybe for eternity.. (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
When it comes to Iran, Israel and the U.S. now seem to agree on most things but what and when the response by each remains the separation  question.  (See 4 below.)
---
Setting the settlement record straight.

Israel can do what other nations have done historically but when Israel does it the world community gets anxiety pangs and the U.,N., whose voice is controlled by Arabs and Muslims persist in predictable knee jerk responses . (See 5 below.)
---

Dick

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The Strange Case of Trayvon Martin
By Victor Davis Hanson

Racial-Relations Regression

The Trayvon Martin tragedy, by the time the entire process is played out, will reflect poorly on lots of people and groups, who in mob-like fashion have weighed in before all the facts in the case are fully aired. We have reached the nadir when the civil-rights community decries the release of further pertinent information about Mr. Martin as gratuitously defaming the deceased — with the implicit understanding that incomplete and leaked information so far has been welcomed if it reflected poorly on the alleged perpetrator.

The narrative of the shooting unfortunately changes every 24 hours, which suggests the media saw a preliminary narrative it liked and then adorned it in a manner to ensure sensationalism and polarization. Now as the collective fit subsides, the vigilante becomes a neighborhood watch designee; the German-named, white racist shooter is found to be half-Hispanic with plenty of friends of all races; Trayvon Martin is not, as his widely-circulated photo suggests, a pre-teen with an unblemished school record, but a 6 foot, 2 inch 17-year old who was currently on school suspension, with some evidence of possible past drug possession and assorted disciplinary problems.

The anguished cry for help from a gunned-down victim may turn out to be the assailant’s own call, as he was pounded to the pavement. No one can quite figure out whether Mr. Zimmerman actually chased Mr. Martin; or if so, how he caught someone younger and in apparent better shape; or whether both or neither ever ran at all; or who said what or hit the other first. The supposedly racist police may well have collated eyewitness accounts, reviewed the injuries of Mr. Zimmerman, reexamined Florida law, and had cause not to charge the shooter.

The point in all of these changing narratives is that not only do we not have all the facts, but we are certain that the “facts” we currently have will be different within 24 hours, which is why it was wise to turn the matter over to state authorities for complete review of the original decisions.

The media cannot explain why in this particular case some outlets have adopted the new rubric “white Hispanic” — what is the reasoning behind that, and why all of a sudden now? Nor can it explain why it continues to run photos that give readers the impression that Mr. Martin was a pre-teen middle schooler, when a recent photo is accessible.

The president cannot explain by which criteria he chooses to weigh in on controversial local issues, since to do so by definition makes them “teachable moments” and thus prompts the question: why this case (e.g., or a Gates or Fluke incident), and not others? Fairly or not, by now the president, through his past selective editorializing, has lost a great deal of credibility as a national healer.

While it is natural that African-American activists need answers as to why the armed assailant Mr. Zimmerman was not charged in the shooting, they also cannot explain why their attention is not in commensurate fashion focused on the far greater number of young black males gunned down, many just last week in Chicago, by other black males. Nor can they explain to the non-African-American community why the far greater instances of black-on-white violent crime supports any such notion of a supposed war on young black males.

The net result of the demagoguery will be more racial polarization, as African-Americans believe that young black males are unfairly stereotyped by society and treated less fairly by police, while non-African-Americans will only be further convinced that the African-American leadership is not concerned with the vastly inordinate rates of black violent crime, given the small percentage of the African-American community within the general population, much less the much higher rates of black-on-white crime — and as both sides argue either for more money to be invested in social programs, or that too much has already been spent in counter-productive fashion.

So far all that is clear is that there is a growing anger among African-Americans about a failure to immediately arrest the shooter that in turn is provoking an even greater backlash against the antics of Al Sharpton, the creepy bounty offered by the New Black Panther Party, and others who inflame for their own careerist advantage, and no one — not the president, not the media, not the civil rights leadership, not the politicians — seems willing or able to call for a time-out until all the facts are reviewed and released. We have collectively regressed to the days of Rodney King and the L.A. riots and the O. J. Simpson trial — or to something far worse. Hope and change came and went.

Tom Wolfe, Where Are You?

The Trayvon Martin tragedy keeps becoming more Orwellian and the facts of what actually happened that sad evening even more remote.

In this unhinged culture of instantaneous imagery and obsessions with race, we can distort reality quite easily: In one scenario, a young, almost baby-faced Trayvon Martin’s photo (that so struck President Obama) is juxtaposed with George Zimmerman’s mug shot, where he looks sinister, sullen, and quite white, and in jail orange. Supporters of the idea that Martin was murdered prefer this imagery of Martin as pre-teen and Zimmerman as a jailbird.

Or, alternatively, one can choose to print a different pair of photos: a more recent picture of a mature Trayvon Martin in hoodie paralleled with George Zimmerman, with neatly trimmed beard and mustache, smiling in suit and tie, and appearing in some sense more identifiably Latino. Supporters of the idea that Zimmerman acted in self-defense prefer photos of either a Martin hooded or with gold-plated teeth and tattoos, with Zimmerman appearing as an upbeat businessman of some sort.

After demonizing Zimmerman for a week as an unhinged white racist wannabe vigilante, Sharpton, Jackson, et al., are upset that the tables are turning and Martin is emerging not quite as a model pre-teen, Skittle-eating student with a slight truancy problem, but as a 6 foot 2 inch teen with troubled Twitter allusions to criminal activity, an obscene n-word Twitter ID, and suspensions entailing possible drug use and theft. Either such past information is irrelevant for both parties or it is useful in trying to reconstruct their behaviors on the night of the shooting — but either way it should be equitably applied to both.

Finally, how absolutely insane American has become: The mainstream media both wishes to portray Martin as the innocent-looking pre-teen of his old photo even as the rarer appearing, politically-incorrect hoodie picture resonates far more with Martin’s supporters; had Zimmerman just used his mother’s maiden name, much of the current outrage would have dissipated; the country beats itself up over whether Zimmerman may have used a racial epithet — even as Twitter messages are released of Martin self-identifying himself with the n-word; Martin’s mother is worried about publicity warping the name of her deceased son even as she seeks proprietary merchandising rights to it; Al Sharpton by day agitates and demagogues and, by evening, reports on Al Sharpton agitating and demagoguing for MSNBC — and on and on and on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)

THE ELEPHANT AND THE JACKASS By Burt Prelutsky Some people insist that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. It is true that in some basic ways, all politicians are alike. After all, they all want to get re-elected, so they have to spend an inordinate amount of time diving into various pockets seeking campaign contributions. They also have to compromise unless they have overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, as Obama did from 2009-2011, and even he had to finally use bribery and intimidation in order to get ObamaCare, his signature piece of legislation, passed. It’s among civilians that one sees the greatest differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives, as you’d know if you’ve ever attended a Tea Party gathering, tend to be civil, respectful of opposing points of view, religious and in awe of the Founding Fathers. Liberals, on the other hand, enjoy behaving like barbarians, whether it’s at Wisconsin’s state capitol, on Wall Street or in Watts; do everything they can to deprive conservatives of free speech; oppose all religious symbols and ceremonies, while pretending that’s the intention of the 1st Amendment; and regularly demonstrate their contempt of people like Washington, Madison and Jefferson, whom they dismiss as slave-owning white guys. Russian Pres. Dimitry Medvedev When white conservative politicians are disgruntled, they express their grievances to the media. When black liberal politicians are disgruntled, they start shouting during a committee hearing or during a House session, as Sheila Jackson Lee and Bobby Rush have done in recent months. Even when the chairman tries to silence their outbursts by pounding his gavel, they take it as nothing more than a musical accompaniment. And because white congressmen are a spineless bunch of toadies, ever fearful they’ll be branded racists, they never even think of disciplining these obnoxious yahoos. The good news is that Obama, mainly through his hand puppet, Eric Holder, has displayed his own racism so often that I expect he will experience the appropriate blowback in November. I am convinced that a large number of Independents who voted for him last time because they wanted to feel good about voting for the first black president have experienced a depressing change of heart. Frankly, even though I have never regarded Obama as particularly bright, his tossing in his two cents during the recent Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman contretemps struck me as being particularly idiotic. After all, he had no more facts at hand than the rest of us, but he couldn’t resist pointing out that if he had a son, he’d look like young Martin. Right, and if he donned a hoodie and a pair of sunglasses the way that Rep. Rush did, he, too, would resemble the young ne’er-do-well. So what? The truth is, if Obama’s dad had been Peruvian instead of Kenyan, it’s George Zimmerman he’d look like. The political fact of life is that Obama doesn’t have to suck up to blacks. After all, they’re obviously every bit as willing to overlook the fact that he’s half white as he is. He received 97% of their votes in 2008, and the only way he could receive a higher percentage is if Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Jesse Lee Peterson and Clarence Thomas, all took leave of their senses this November. All Obama did by jumping into the fray was to remind us that he did the same thing when he condemned the Cambridge Police Department without knowing what had actually transpired between his friend, Prof. Henry Gates, and the cops. He is clearly the most racist president we’ve had since Woodrow Wilson, but because it’s white folks he dislikes -- unless, of course, they’re underlings doing his bidding or millionaires financing his re-election -- nobody dares condemn him for it. Recently, Obama was overheard telling President Medvedev that he would have greater flexibility after his election. Inasmuch as Obama has already denied Poland and the Czech Republic a promised missile defense system and, for good measure, offered to drastically reduce our nuclear capability, while getting absolutely nothing in return from Russia, I assume Medvedev and his puppet master, Putin, took that to mean he’ll somehow bend over even further in the future. Speaking for conservatives, anxious to see him gone, we hope that greater flexibility means that after next January, Obama will be able to sleep till noon, work on his putting, have lunch regularly with the likes of Bill Ayers, Van Jones and Jeremiah Wright, and still have plenty of time to take the kids to Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Obama Wins Close or Loses Big By J. Robert Smith President Barack Obama: narrow winner or big loser in November.  Presidential election history gives us indications that Mr. Obama either squeaks back into the White House or gets an undignified boot in the back of his designer trousers.  In modern presidential elections, only Jerry Ford lost his re-election bid narrowly.  Odds are, if Mr. Obama loses, it will probably be on the order of Hoover (1932) or Carter (1980).  If Mr. Obama wins, it's closer to George W. Bush's re-election in 2004.  But the conditions are dramatically different in the country from 2004, and not to Mr. Obama's advantage.    A narrow win by Mr. Obama would be thanks to bungling by Mitt Romney and the Republicans, because based on the president's record alone, Mr. Obama has richly earned a pink slip from voters. The Obama presidency is a big, fat failure, despite all the spin emanating from the White House, Democrat flaks, and the left's petting-zoo media.  Americans are living Mr. Obama's economic failure daily; their dreary experiences (or those of family and neighbors) cut right through the liberal-manufactured smoke and fog.  Campaigns of distraction distract only monetarily.    Incumbents are always about their performances, their records.  A politician up for re-election is a referendum-in-the-making; an up or down vote by the electorate.  That's the core strategic consideration of Romney's General Election campaign.  In a referendum election, all Mr. Romney has to do is satisfy voters that he's competent, advocates sensible remedies to the nation's economic dilemma, and plans to stop Uncle Sam's profligate spending and not raise taxes.  Romney is well-suited to accomplish all three aims.  Romney's character hasn't been an issue through a grueling intraparty vetting; it shouldn't be one in the General Election, despite anticipated efforts by Mr. Obama's team and the left to do so.        The heavy lift for Challenger Romney is keeping voters focused on Mr. Obama's dreadful policies.  President Obama will be throwing an estimated $1 billion against Mr. Romney.  Democrat and liberal allied groups and super PACs will drop some serious ching into the presidential election, too.  That's daunting, but can be overcome.  Losing incumbents and their allies tend to have the money edge in re-election contests.     Romney needs to underscore Mr. Obama's policy failures with the fact that the president is a committed left-winger, which contradicts Mr. Obama's stated moderation in 2008.  Doing so bypasses Mr. Obama's likeability by damning the president with his own words and actions.  Mr. Obama's immoderation is the central reason for the ObamaCare fiasco and a floundering economy.    Romney raising questions about Mr. Obama's inability to deliver on promises, his economic policies, his false moderation, and his evasion of constitutional checks and balances dovetails nicely with the argument that Barack Obama, lame duck, will prove more reckless and more ineffective, driving the economy further down, which spells grave trouble for the nation.    A president's likeability is much overrated.  Hoover may have been unliked, but the same can't be said about incumbent losers Ford, Carter, and George H. Bush.  Those presidents lost their re-elections because voters perceived them as unsuccessful in their jobs.  Most voters would have gladly sat down over beers with any of those three men. This opinion from veteran elections analyst Charlie Cook: Some analysts mistakenly think that personal feelings and favorability ratings are the same as job-approval ratings. Although it is always better for a candidate to be liked than disliked, for an incumbent the perception of performance and effectiveness matters far more than likability. Voters didn't turn sour on President Ford in 1976; they just voted for change. Independent voters like President Obama, but the question is whether they think he has done a good job. Indeed, Barack Obama is liked, according to polling.  When push comes to shove, though, when it's about voters' jobs, homes, and financial security, likability takes a distant second place.  Likeable employees are fired every day for nonperformance; they may get better severances, but off they go.  Voters have historically proven to be tough employers.            National polling at this stage in the election game is interesting in that it tends to show Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney in a tight race.  If Mr. Obama were cooking with gas, he'd enjoy much wider margins nationally among likely voters.  Close indicates serious trouble ahead for Mr. Obama. But national polls are chimeras, finally.  Presidents are elected state-by-state.  Come September, it's the state polls of likely voters that matters.  Reapportionment has shifted critical electoral votes to red states, favoring Romney.  Taking the states of Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are keys to a Romney victory (presuming he retains McCain's states from 2008, as well he should).  If voters are truly sour on the president, then other states like Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Mexico may well be in play after Labor Day.  Indiana is already expected to swing back into the GOP column.  After Labor Day, if momentum breaks Romney's way, anticipate that he will carry independent and undecided voters in the aforementioned states.  Once the tide starts shifting against an incumbent, it tends to move hugely.  Look at FDR's landslide victory in 1932 against the beleaguered Herbert Hoover.  Roosevelt ran a campaign highlighting Hoover's failures.  Contrary to the conventional wisdom, FDR didn't run on a bold progressive platform; a chief focus was on balancing the federal budget.  In 1980, Ronald Reagan wrapped the misery index around Jimmy Carter's neck (that and his diffident handling of the Iranian hostage crisis).  Still, Carter led in the polls most of the way.  But in the autumn, when voters really started to concentrate on Carter's feeble record, and decided that Reagan was no wild-eyed radical, the dam broke and Carter was swept from office.                          Successful presidents don't run "Campaigns of Distraction."  President Barack Obama, whose economic stimuli failed to stimulate the economy, but instead lined the pockets of powerful Democrat constituencies, needs to distract.  A president -- the very same Barack Obama -- whose federal credit card spending has dug the nation into a cavernous debt hole needs distractions.  The president's signature legislative achievement, ObamaCare, never popular, now risks being overturned by the Supreme Court in late June.  If the Court overturns the individual mandate or the whole enchilada, the president and his fellow Democrats are relieved of the burden of having to defend so unworkable and freedom-depriving a program.  What the president isn't off the hook on is explaining to voters why he wasted valuable time and resources pursuing a colossal dud-of-a-government-run health care program at the very time the economy was sinking.  Expect Mt. McKinley-sized distractions if the Supreme Court rules against Mr. Obama's health care scheme.  This isn't to suggest complacency or smug self-assurance on the part of Republicans or conservatives... or Romney and his campaign.  History illuminates but doesn't dictate.  Run scared is the best advice for Mitt Romney.  To win in November, run scared and keep the focus relentlessly on Mr. Obama's magnificent failures. Response to ccommenter: JackKemp, you are correct.  Jerry Ford was appointed, not elected president.  A distinction I should have made in the article.  Nonetheless, he was the incumbent.  Thanks for the catch. 3a)The Election's X Factor By Eugene Robinson WASHINGTON -- It may not be the economy, stupid. Then again, James Carville's famous maxim about the 1992 presidential campaign might well be valid in 2012. But it's quite possible that on Election Day, voters' most urgent concerns -- economic or not -- will be driven by overseas events that neither President Obama nor his Republican opponent can predict or control. Analysts, commentators and, yes, columnists will fill the days between now and November with sage assessments of the campaigns. Does Obama have the right strategy? Does Mitt Romney have the right message? Which party has the better ground game? Which candidate's loose-remark-of-the-day qualifies as a certified gaffe? But it might be more pertinent to ask, for example, what the North Korean news agency meant Monday with its threat to reduce parts of Seoul to ash with a military attack "by unprecedented peculiar means and methods of our own style." North Korea's apocalyptic rhetoric can usually be written off as bluster. But the Stalinist dynasty in charge of the world's most isolated country has an inexperienced young leader whose first attempt to cover himself in glory -- testing a provocative new long-range missile -- was a humiliating failure. Could Kim Jong Eun actually be thinking the unthinkable? We have to assume the North Korean regime cares most about its own survival and thus will not launch a suicidal war. But if Kim and the generals have decided to push the envelope, perhaps with a new nuclear weapons test, the possibility for miscalculation is greater than in the past. Kim's father, the late Kim Jong Il, was a master at knowing just how far he could go without triggering Armageddon. Let's hope the kid was taking notes. As Obama has made clear, our nation's geopolitical strategic focus is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific -- where American interests run into those of the other emerging global superpower, China. This is why anyone trying to predict the course of the U.S. election campaign ought to pay attention to the scandal and turmoil that have gripped the Chinese government at a delicate moment of transition. It's a convoluted story involving money, sex, corruption, betrayal and an alleged homicide. The central fact is that one of China's most charismatic and powerful politicians -- Bo Xilai, until recently the Communist Party boss in Chongqing, an inland metropolis of nearly 30 million people -- has been sacked. His wife is accused of murdering a shadowy British businessman who may have helped the couple transfer untold millions of ill-gotten dollars into illegal offshore accounts. Why might any of this matter to U.S. voters? Because the scandal exposes the most serious threat to the Chinese government's legitimacy -- widespread corruption -- just as the hierarchy prepares to name a new president this fall. The collective leadership is acting, basically, like a man caught with his pants down. As a way of shoring up patriotic support, officials may be tempted to be more aggressive in pushing China's territorial claims in the South China Sea. The United States might feel compelled to push back. Then what? There are other, more obvious international situations that could have a big impact on the presidential race -- beginning, of course, with the war in Afghanistan. Both Obama and Romney lag well behind the public mood, which is for bringing the troops home now. Both may be tempted to catch up. Meanwhile, there will likely be mounting pressure to do something about the brutal war of repression being waged by Bashar al-Assad in Syria. It is hard to imagine what that "something" might be; an intervention robust enough to make a difference would have more in common with the all-out Iraq invasion than with the more limited Libya campaign. But an atrocity can change attitudes overnight. There's also the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. It may not happen -- but if it does, there's plenty of political danger here for both campaigns. And if the Carville dictum turns out to be right? Well, stock markets around the world swooned on Monday -- not because of anything U.S. officials said or did but because of events in Europe that made investors nervous. The Dutch government fell, after failing to win approval of new austerity measures, while French President Nicolas Sarkozy finished second in his bid for re-election and faces a runoff. It may be that in 2012 it's the eurozone crisis, stupid. And there's nothing Obama or Romney can do about it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4)As Israeli leaders wrangle over Iran, a new US spy agency will deal with Tehran  T Some fear they've missed the boat. Israeli leaders were harshly criticized on the eve of Israel’s 64th Independence Day for too much speechifying and no real action against a nuclear Iran, whereas the US in contrast finally made a move by establishing a new Pentagon spy agency for gathering intelligence inside Iran. April 24 and 25, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak addressed memorial ceremonies for the fallen, they reiterated the same old “Israel will not permit Iran to acquire nuclear arms” – a remark which the Israeli street has stopped taking seriously. Many members of military and intelligence circles are quoted as believing that Israel may have waited too long and, along with the US, lost the initiative. Jerusalem and Washington are still at odds on Iran, but the theme of their dispute has shifted. It is no longer about Iran’s timeline for building a bomb, but what kind of dev No longer are they arguing about when to determine that Iran has begin building a nuke, but what kind. They agree that Tehran will not possess advanced nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles capable of penetrating the US and Israeli missile defenses any time soon. Israel is now worried about more primitive devices like the ones in the North Korean and Pakistani arsenals which Israeli believes are in the final stages of constructions. The question in Israeli intelligence circles is this: Why is the impending North Korean nuclear test considered by the US, Japan and South Korea a major menace while no one seems to care about devices identical to the one Pyongyang plans to explode on the way to operational capability. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya’alon said publicly earlier this month that by the end of 2012, Iran would have a dirty bomb. His disclosure drew no reactions, although it was a warning. A dirty bomb combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. Its chief danger is the spread of radioactive contamination. Cruder and cheaper to producer than a nuclear bomb, counter-terror agencies have long appreciated that it is easily transferred to terrorists. Ya’alon’s warning therefore means that Iran may soon be able to transfer dirty bombs to the Lebanese Hizballah units sitting on Israel’s northern border and the Paletinian Hamas and Jihad Islami in Gaza. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA expert, has written in the Weekly Standard edition for publication on April 30 the following sentence: “The supreme leader and his guards can have a nuclear weapon in their hands in as little as 43 days, provided Iran’s nuclear scientists have mastered the manufacture of a nuclear trigger – technically much less difficult than enrichment.” The UN nuclear watchdog in Vienna and US intelligence officials have reported tests on nuclear materials conducted in recent weeks at the Parchin site near Tehran, to which access has been denied UN inspectors. In Washington, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced was the formation of a new Pentagon spy agency called the Defense Clandestine Service. Defense Department sources said the new organization would expand the military’s intelligence and secret war efforts outside war zones in areas insufficiently covered until now, indicating deep penetration inside hostile territory, primarily Iran. Other sources point out that by creating a new in-house Pentagon spy agency, Panetta and President Obama demonstrated their opinion of the quality of intelligence they were receiving from the CIA, of which the defense secretary was director until recently. As for the Israeli case against Iran, security sources pointed at the new US spy agency is an example of what Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak should be doing in practice to deter Iran and make the ayatollahs sit up, instead of trotting out the same tired old phrases ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5)West Bank Jewish Communities in Existence for Two Decades Now LegalBy Edmund Sanders

	View of "settlement" life

  

ERUSALEM— (MCT) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that his Cabinet has decided to retroactively legalize three West Bank outposts that previous governments had conceded were built without permission, marking the first step toward what critics fear will become Israel's first official new settlements since 1990.

Government officials said it was inaccurate to characterize the legalization process as establishing new settlements, noting that the three outposts were founded in the 1990s, reportedly with the government's blessing. Officials said the outposts only lack certain technical authorizations and planning permits, which now will be given.

"This decision does not change the reality on the ground whatsoever," said a government official who was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. "It does not establish new settlements or expand existing ones."

The decision late Monday by a Cabinet committee begins a long administrative process to authorize the small settlements of Rehalim, Sansana and Bruchin.

Although most of the international community views all Israel settlements to be illegal, Israel makes a distinction between settlements it has authorized and the so-called outposts, most of which sprang up over the past 20 years. Although outposts have not been formally recognized by the government, they do receive substantial support in the form of security, roads and infrastructure.

The move infuriated Palestinians and frustrated the international community, which has been pushing Israel to freeze settlement construction in the West Bank and refrain from taking actions that might hinder efforts to restart peace talks.

Netanyahu's right-wing coalition government has been under pressure in recent weeks because of court-mandated deadlines to dismantle some outposts, such as Migron, now due to be evacuated by August, and Givat Haulpana, which is facing eviction by May 1.

The Cabinet also decided Monday to ask the court to delay the Givat Haulpana deadline in order to avoid the evacuation of 30 families living on land claimed by Palestinians. A year ago, the government had conceded that the homes should be dismantled and promised to do so by May.

A similar government request to delay until 2015 the evacuation of Migron was rejected by the court last month.

Some see the move to legalize the other three outposts as a way to appease conservative lawmakers and settlers' groups, who have accused Netanyahu of betraying them.

Over the weekend, Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon, who opposes dismantling the outposts, predicted the government might collapse if Givat Haulpana is evacuated. "If the demolition of Ulpana Hill (Givat Haulpana) requires the dissolution of the government, then so be it," Yaalon said.

Adding to the domestic tension over Israel's settlements, a Jerusalem court ruled last week that a building taken over by Jewish settlers in Hebron in 2005 was not legally purchased as claimed by the settlers and must be evacuated within four weeks.

The settlers had claimed that they purchased the building from a member of the Palestinian family that owned it, but the court found that the sale documents were invalid.

That decision comes just two weeks after Israel's military forcibly evicted another group of settlers who had taken possession of a vacant building in a Palestinian neighborhood of Hebron that they claimed to have purchased. The government removed the settlers pending verification of their sale documents, which Palestinian leaders in Hebron say may be forged.

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