I hope Charlie will give me permission to send his write up of our trip because he does a much better job than I do.
Suffice it to say Wisconsin is one of the cleanest, most beautiful states I have ever been to. Door County is quaint and charming.
The people of Wisconsin are friendly and they drive like they are sane. They respect speed limits , even when they are at 25 MPH, and Milwaukee and Madison are gems but the former cannot be beat
More will follow but digging myself out from under being away for 19 days.
===
My wife and I hosted a dinner party for both sides of our entire family and everyone was encouraged to bring all their children.
During dinner, my four-year-old niece stared at me sitting across from her. The little girl could hardly eat her food for staring.
I checked my shirt for spots, felt my face for food, patted my hair in place but nothing stopped her from staring at me.
I tried my best to just ignore her but finally it was too much for me. I finally asked her, "Why are you staring at me?" Everyone at the table had noticed her behavior and the table went quiet waiting for her response. My little niece said, "I'm just waiting to see how you drink like a fish." |
All of these posting were made before I left on 9/9.
===
My friend, Avi, testifies before House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee. (See 1 below.)
===
Keep those heads coming! (See 2 below.)
===
While away I thought about charges against Republicans, Conservatives, even myself,that we want Obama to fail because a) he is black and b) because he is a Democrat.
As I have written in many memos, I do not wish any president to fail and certainly not because of his color.
Then I began to think about (b) and why, in fact, I would I want Obama to succeed if most everything he proposes is against what I believe to be best for my country. By succeeding with his folly he would be wrecking my nation so yes, I do want Obama to fail so our nation can succeed.
I want Obamacare to fail because it is the wrong policy, costly and will probably fall of its own weight
but why suffer in the meantime.
Yes, I do want Obama to fail with respect to his animus towards Netanyahu and our only dependable and democratic ally in the Middle East - Israel.
Yes, I do want Obama to fail when it comes to decapitating our military preparedness and ability to defend our interests, both political and economic.
Yes, I do want Obama to fail, 1f, by succeeding, Iran is allowed to go nuclear which, perhaps, it already has.
Yes I want Obama to fail when he tells me obvious scandals are in the eyes of the beholder because bad things have been going on at VA Hospitals, at The IRS, at The Justice Department, at The EPA and The NLRB.
And finally, yes I want Obama to fail because his economic program is a disaster, has held employment back, energy development back and turned Americans against each other economically speaking.
Yes, I do want Obama to fail when he lies and looks me in the face and tells something knowing he is lying.
So yes, I guess I have been wanting Obama to fail because I do not trust anything he tells me, based on experience, I do not trust his judgement to do what is best for America, again based on experience and yes, I do want him to fail because he has thrown salt in wounds that were well on thei way to mending when it comes to civil rights and race relations .
So yes, I am guilty of wanting Obama to fail whenever his succeeding means failure for my country.
As for him being a Democrat perhaps success and their progressive agenda of radical policies encouraging big government, dependency upon big government which leads to deficit spending just do not make for policies I believe are good for America.
Can Republicans do better? First, that depends upon whether they offer a president who can lead, not only America, but The West and one who has the vision of where he wants to take us, ability to explain
why and the strategy to effectuate his/her goal.
Secondly, Republican members of Congress must get together among themselves and then support their president should he be elected. They must stop the political nonsense, be honest about the hard choices and why they are necessary and will pay off in the long run and do what is right by the nation and not their careers.
If Republicans cannot bring themselves to do this then who needs either party?
===
President flip flop flops in a poll regarding his success as a president. (See 3 below.)
===
Gov. Deal came to Savannah but I was unable to hear him
This is a synopsis of his comments:
Governor Nathan Deal Remarks at Luncheon in Savannah Sept. 9
Deal heralded his track record of growing job opportunities in Georgia since he became governor. He referenced now Georgia’s number 1 ranking as a state in which to do business, from several sources.
Anecdotally he mentioned Baxter International Labs decision to build a $1 billion facility in Georgia near Interstate 20.
Since January 2011 Georgia has hosted 0ver 12000 new businesses, almost 300,000 new jobs and over $17 billion in new investment in business opportunities.
The port of Savannah now exports over $37 billion in goods.
His policies that have encouraged this type of expansion include:
. Lower sales tax for energy used in manufacturing
. Hope Grants for technical colleges, where there are seven categories for 100% tuition reimbursement, including: welding, medical technology and diesel machinery.
The impetus for choosing the different fields in which to offer programs was an analysis of job openings for which employers could not find enough qualified applicants here in Georgia.
The Hope scholarship funding is now at a level of over $900 million a year.
He is currently pushing more apprenticeship programs at the high school level, as well as computer programming language being considered a foreign language with respect to qualifying for an academic subject. Georgia Tech University now considers computer programming as a leading major in producing job offers at graduation with the highest starting salaries.
In the Q&A session, he pointed out that Common Core support by Georgia was done prior to his term as governor, and he continued to support it.
On replacing The Affordable Care Act, he strongly supports the states leading the way instead of federal government mandates. He defended his rejection of Medicaid expansion and building a state exchange. He acknowledged that there are plenty of GOP recommended replacement programs, possible four of which have emanated from Georgia sources.
===
Kissinger on the world! (See 4 below.)
Must burn Obama to know Cheney was right! (See 4a below.)
And don't forget about Iran while trying to do something about ISIS because ISIS is becoming a cover for the Ayatollah! (See 4b below.)
Hamas keeps digging their own graves! (See 4c below.)
===
Before we left for our bus man holiday I had a lengthy conversation with my oldest grandson and we talked about a lot of things, particularly an explanation of bond reactions to interest rate movements and Obama's speech this evening (Wed 9/10.)
After explaining about interest rate impact on bond prices I told him that it seemed to me the best presidents in my lifetime have been ones who did not seek power and had it thrust upon them. That would be Truman, Ford and in the case of Reagan a president who , if he sought power, did so to return America to its roots.
In the case of Truman he was selected because he would be no problem for FDR. Harry was a lonely Senator, considered a puppet of The Pendergast Machine, but once the presidency was thrust
upon him he accepted the responsibility of the office, was a reader of history and the rest is history.
In the case of Ford, he had one of the best staffing of the Oval Office, now is seen having done the nation a service for pardoning Nixon and had a solid handle on the nation's tiller but he got blindsided
by the economy and press and media who painted him as a bumbler because he stumbled coming down the steps of Air Force One due to a football injury.
In the case of Reagan he did not hunger for power but sought the power of the office to assure that America would recover from the Carter disaster and then went on to become one of the more beloved and effective presidents who accomplished most of what he set out to do.
The press and media hounded him for what he did to supply arms to those in Nicaragua but , I daresay, we would love to have him back.
This is why I believe Romney, who did not need to be president, had no interest in power but ran a lousy campaign, would have made a decent, and maybe even a great, president.
===
Castro brought change and killed a nation's spirit. Obama brought change and is doing the same thing.
Dick
While away I thought about charges against Republicans, Conservatives, even myself,that we want Obama to fail because a) he is black and b) because he is a Democrat.
As I have written in many memos, I do not wish any president to fail and certainly not because of his color.
Then I began to think about (b) and why, in fact, I would I want Obama to succeed if most everything he proposes is against what I believe to be best for my country. By succeeding with his folly he would be wrecking my nation so yes, I do want Obama to fail so our nation can succeed.
I want Obamacare to fail because it is the wrong policy, costly and will probably fall of its own weight
but why suffer in the meantime.
Yes, I do want Obama to fail with respect to his animus towards Netanyahu and our only dependable and democratic ally in the Middle East - Israel.
Yes, I do want Obama to fail when it comes to decapitating our military preparedness and ability to defend our interests, both political and economic.
Yes, I do want Obama to fail, 1f, by succeeding, Iran is allowed to go nuclear which, perhaps, it already has.
Yes I want Obama to fail when he tells me obvious scandals are in the eyes of the beholder because bad things have been going on at VA Hospitals, at The IRS, at The Justice Department, at The EPA and The NLRB.
And finally, yes I want Obama to fail because his economic program is a disaster, has held employment back, energy development back and turned Americans against each other economically speaking.
Yes, I do want Obama to fail when he lies and looks me in the face and tells something knowing he is lying.
So yes, I guess I have been wanting Obama to fail because I do not trust anything he tells me, based on experience, I do not trust his judgement to do what is best for America, again based on experience and yes, I do want him to fail because he has thrown salt in wounds that were well on thei way to mending when it comes to civil rights and race relations .
So yes, I am guilty of wanting Obama to fail whenever his succeeding means failure for my country.
As for him being a Democrat perhaps success and their progressive agenda of radical policies encouraging big government, dependency upon big government which leads to deficit spending just do not make for policies I believe are good for America.
Can Republicans do better? First, that depends upon whether they offer a president who can lead, not only America, but The West and one who has the vision of where he wants to take us, ability to explain
why and the strategy to effectuate his/her goal.
Secondly, Republican members of Congress must get together among themselves and then support their president should he be elected. They must stop the political nonsense, be honest about the hard choices and why they are necessary and will pay off in the long run and do what is right by the nation and not their careers.
If Republicans cannot bring themselves to do this then who needs either party?
===
President flip flop flops in a poll regarding his success as a president. (See 3 below.)
===
Gov. Deal came to Savannah but I was unable to hear him
This is a synopsis of his comments:
Governor Nathan Deal Remarks at Luncheon in Savannah Sept. 9
Deal heralded his track record of growing job opportunities in Georgia since he became governor. He referenced now Georgia’s number 1 ranking as a state in which to do business, from several sources.
Anecdotally he mentioned Baxter International Labs decision to build a $1 billion facility in Georgia near Interstate 20.
Since January 2011 Georgia has hosted 0ver 12000 new businesses, almost 300,000 new jobs and over $17 billion in new investment in business opportunities.
The port of Savannah now exports over $37 billion in goods.
His policies that have encouraged this type of expansion include:
. Lower sales tax for energy used in manufacturing
. Hope Grants for technical colleges, where there are seven categories for 100% tuition reimbursement, including: welding, medical technology and diesel machinery.
The impetus for choosing the different fields in which to offer programs was an analysis of job openings for which employers could not find enough qualified applicants here in Georgia.
The Hope scholarship funding is now at a level of over $900 million a year.
He is currently pushing more apprenticeship programs at the high school level, as well as computer programming language being considered a foreign language with respect to qualifying for an academic subject. Georgia Tech University now considers computer programming as a leading major in producing job offers at graduation with the highest starting salaries.
In the Q&A session, he pointed out that Common Core support by Georgia was done prior to his term as governor, and he continued to support it.
On replacing The Affordable Care Act, he strongly supports the states leading the way instead of federal government mandates. He defended his rejection of Medicaid expansion and building a state exchange. He acknowledged that there are plenty of GOP recommended replacement programs, possible four of which have emanated from Georgia sources.
Kissinger on the world! (See 4 below.)
Must burn Obama to know Cheney was right! (See 4a below.)
And don't forget about Iran while trying to do something about ISIS because ISIS is becoming a cover for the Ayatollah! (See 4b below.)
Hamas keeps digging their own graves! (See 4c below.)
===
Before we left for our bus man holiday I had a lengthy conversation with my oldest grandson and we talked about a lot of things, particularly an explanation of bond reactions to interest rate movements and Obama's speech this evening (Wed 9/10.)
After explaining about interest rate impact on bond prices I told him that it seemed to me the best presidents in my lifetime have been ones who did not seek power and had it thrust upon them. That would be Truman, Ford and in the case of Reagan a president who , if he sought power, did so to return America to its roots.
In the case of Truman he was selected because he would be no problem for FDR. Harry was a lonely Senator, considered a puppet of The Pendergast Machine, but once the presidency was thrust
upon him he accepted the responsibility of the office, was a reader of history and the rest is history.
In the case of Ford, he had one of the best staffing of the Oval Office, now is seen having done the nation a service for pardoning Nixon and had a solid handle on the nation's tiller but he got blindsided
by the economy and press and media who painted him as a bumbler because he stumbled coming down the steps of Air Force One due to a football injury.
In the case of Reagan he did not hunger for power but sought the power of the office to assure that America would recover from the Carter disaster and then went on to become one of the more beloved and effective presidents who accomplished most of what he set out to do.
The press and media hounded him for what he did to supply arms to those in Nicaragua but , I daresay, we would love to have him back.
This is why I believe Romney, who did not need to be president, had no interest in power but ran a lousy campaign, would have made a decent, and maybe even a great, president.
===
Castro brought change and killed a nation's spirit. Obama brought change and is doing the same thing.
===
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)-
Hamas' Benefactors: A Network of Terror
by Avi Jorisch
Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa & Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-Proliferation and Trade
September 8, 2014
Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa & Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-Proliferation and Trade
September 8, 2014
Good morning, Chairmen Ros-Lehtinen, Poe, Ranking Members Deutch and Sherman and distinguished members of the subcommittees. My name is Avi Jorisch and I serve as a Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism at the American Foreign Policy Council. I have previously served at the Treasury Department's office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, as a liaison to the Department of Homeland Security and as a consultant for the Department of Defense. I am honored to appear before this distinguished Committee to address a subject of great importance to our country and the world.
One of the most effective ways of countering radical Islamic organizations such as Hamas is to have an exhaustive understanding of their sources of funding in order to cut off the economic lifeblood that enable terrorist operations to function. Today, the Hamas budget is between $500 million and 1 billion annually. These funds derive principally from state sponsors such as Iran; "frenemy" states such as Qatar and Turkey; and from the heavy taxation of Hamas constituents in Gaza. To a lesser extent, the funds come from radical organizations such as Hizballah; Arab and Islamic institutions that also carry out relief and developmental projects; and private donations through various non-governmental organizations.
It is in the highest interests of the United States, as a liberal democracy, to force radical organizations to pay a political and economic price for their barbaric policies
and governance, and ultimately, to close them down entirely for all time. Unfortunately, in recent years, political considerations have progressively displaced or rolled back the serious progress that had been made on draining the financial swamp in which terrorists and terror-supporting regimes operate.
and governance, and ultimately, to close them down entirely for all time. Unfortunately, in recent years, political considerations have progressively displaced or rolled back the serious progress that had been made on draining the financial swamp in which terrorists and terror-supporting regimes operate.
As the recent hostilities in Gaza demonstrate, Hamas is a rogue regime that deliberately seeks civilian casualties on both sides as the major thrust of its military strategy. The battle being fought by Israel is part of a long-term war that other liberal societies will ultimately have to fight. Sooner or later, most democracies will face the same challenge with which Israel is struggling today: how to defend themselves from ruthless enemies who deliberately place civilians in harm's way, while also retaining the basic values upon which open societies are based. It is unlikely that the United States will avoid this challenge at home: terrorists are carefully monitoring how the world responds to the tactics employed by organizations such as Hamas in Gaza and ISIS in Iraq and Syria as part of their future planning.
The challenge, of course, is to make this new kind of war -- with its deliberate effort to ensure civilian casualties on both sides -- unacceptable, while protecting the values that democracies cherish. Certainly, U.S. lawmakers and policymakers have the highest responsibility to learn all they can from Israel's experience with terrorist organizations that seize power.
Brief Background
Hamas, an acronym for "Islamic Resistance Movement," is a militant Palestinian Sunni Islamist organization that has governed the Gaza Strip since 2007. Created in 1987, it is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and gained notoriety for multiple suicide bombings and other attacks directed against civilians – including American citizens – as well as against Israeli military and security forces. Hamas, however, has also established an extensive network of social services, hospitals, education systems, and libraries for the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza.
A major cause of the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hamas was the organization's economic woes and declining revenue. Traditionally, Hamas has had three sources of funding: taxation of residents of Gaza; taxation of goods entering or leaving Gaza Strip through Israel or Egypt; and financial largesse from "sugar daddy" regimes. All three sources have come under heavy fire in recent years.
Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip beginning in 2007, following Hamas' rise to power there. The blockade included most exports and imports, which hampered domestic business activity and reduced the taxes Hamas collected. Moreover, since 2007 the Gazan economy has relied on Israel's permitting a limited quantity of goods to enter and leave the Strip—legal commerce that has been supplemented by a robust smuggling business through Egypt.
When the regime of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood under Mohammed Mursi fell in 2013, Hamas lost a second vital source of income. During his time in office, Mursi allowed goods and materiel freely to enter Gaza, which enabled Hamas to secure cash and hard goods, in addition to taxing anything that went over land or underground in tunnels. By contrast, the current Egyptian regime, headed by General Abdel Fatah el-Sisi, has shown a strong desire to remove Hamas from power. To that end, the Sisi government ordered the destruction of all tunnels and cut off Hamas economically and politically. [1] Losing this source of income was a catastrophic fiscal blow to Hamas.
Additionally, Iran has traditionally served as one of Hamas' largest donors. In 2011, however, when Hamas began supporting Sunni jihadis fighting the Syrian regime, both the Islamic Republic and the Assad regime cut off aid. To fill that void, Hamas began relying on Qatar and Turkey.
It is revealing that, even as Hamas was negotiating the latest cease-fire with Israel, its chief demands included economic concessions such as lifting the Israeli blockade, opening border crossings to Egypt and Israel, and building an airport and seaport. Hamas sees economics as the primary means to consolidate power, while Israel views the group's demands as an attempt to continue importing weapons and thus to perpetuate a long war of attrition.
With the end of hostilities, Hamas has extracted from the cease-fire much-needed political and economic gains that will allow it to revive itself. For example, under the terms of the deal, Israel agreed to open border crossings and allow humanitarian assistance and building material to enter Gaza. Additionally, the fishing zone off the coast of Gaza has now been extended to six miles. For its part, Egypt agreed to open the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Sinai. Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesperson gloatingly declared, "We announce the victory today after achieving our goals."[2]
Budgets from 2009-Present
Any analysis of Hamas' finances must focus on the organization's budget. When it seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, Hamas took responsibility for some million and a half Palestinians. With each passing year, it has submitted an ever-larger budget to its legislative council. Not surprisingly, these budgets have lacked transparency, accuracy, or professionalism
Before 2007, Hamas' budget was estimated at about $4-5 billion per month. Its first budget following its 2006 electoral victory was submitted in 2009 and valued at $428 million. In 2010, it grew to $540 million; in 2011, to $630 million; and in 2012, it reached $769 million. Its 2013 budget, the last submitted, was for $897 million
The last budget submitted projected $243 million in domestic revenue, or 27% of the total. The estimated deficit of $654 million, equaling 73% of the total, was to be covered by foreign donations. Each budget principally consists of four items: wages, operating expenses, social welfare programs and development projects.[3]
Going through the motions of passing a budget are part of an attempt by the organization to secure international recognition and prove that it is managing the Strip in a professional manner.[4]
Domestic Revenue
The draconian Hamas tax regime provides a window into how the organization has been able to maintain power and provide its constituents with basic government services, while funding the construction of smuggling tunnels through which goods and weapons were transferred.
It is estimated that Hamas has collected about $175 million in annual tax revenues from the tunnels,[5] which are a main source of domestic revenue collection. Prior to 2007, tunnels were built to smuggle weapons to the Palestinians. Since the imposition of the Israeli blockade, they have also been used to import food, medicine, cigarettes, building materials, cash-filled bags, and drugs. Some of the tunnels were crudely built; others were sophisticated and included rail tracks and fuel pipes.
Some of the most lucrative – and heavily taxed - items coming through the tunnels appear to have been fuel, gravel, cement, and steel.[6]
· Fuel: In Egypt, a liter of gasoline costs approximately 1.6 NIS (New Israeli Shekels, the currency used in Gaza), while in Israel, a liter costs 7.5 NIS. Hamas would reportedly buy its gasoline in Egypt, smuggle it into Gaza, and charge 3 NIS per liter in taxes alone. At roughly 4.5 NIS a litter, Gazans considered it to be a bargain.
· Building Material: According to TheMarker, an open-source financial newspaper in Israel, smugglers paid Hamas 20 NIS ($5.83) for each ton of cement, 10 NIS for every ton of gravel, and 50 NIS for every ton of steel. These materials alone reportedly netted Hamas up to 4.2 million NIS per month ($1.2 million).[7]
State Sponsorship
International donations to Hamas and arms for the organization have historically come from U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror, including Iran, Syria, and Sudan. But more recently, "frenemy" states such as Qatar and Turkey have stepped up their giving, thus providing an important lifeline in aiding and abetting Hamas' ability to engage in terror.
Iran/Hizballah
The Iranian government, a U.S-designated sponsor of terrorism, has for years used state-owned banks, an array of front companies, and other deceptive techniques to evade the controls of responsible financial institutions and support radical Islamist organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Jihad, and Hizballah. From 2006-2011, Iran served as Hamas' single largest foreign donor, contributing some $250-$300 million annually. [8]
Historically, Iran has served as Hizballah's primary enabler of terrorism. In addition to money, Iran has provided weapons, technical assistance, and military training to Hamas. This all-inclusive package of support strengthened the organization's military capabilities as well as enriched its government bureaucracy.
In 2011, there was a near-total rupture in the relationship, caused by Hamas' refusal to support the Assad regime in Syria, an adherent of the Islamic Republic's radical policy. Moreover, Assad's Alawi sect is a loosely affiliated offshoot of Shia Islam, the dominant strain of Islamic belief in Iran. Hamas, a Sunni organization, actively supported the Sunni jihadis fighting Assad.
As a result of this rift, Hamas removed its permanent representative from its embassy in Tehran, and Iran stopped the flow of funds to Hamas and significantly reduced the flow of arms.
Traditionally, Iran has viewed Palestinian extremist organizations as an integral part of its "axis of resistance" against Israel. Both the Islamic Republic and Hizballah in Lebanon have supported Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to gain a foothold in the Gaza strip and thereby establish a strong base of support there.
Israel's Operation Protective Edge, which began in earnest in early July 2014, has brought Hamas and Iran closer and we are now witnessing a significant re-establishment of bilateral relations. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has once again called for arming the West Bank and Gaza, which senior Iranian officials and policy analysts on both sides of the Atlantic interpret as an operative directive to resume military aid to Hamas.
Iran's support for radical organizations is a direct continuation of its policy to use terror as a tool against Israel and the West. In the months ahead, it is all but certain that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and specifically, its Qods Force, will increase contact with and support of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Syria
Since Hamas' founding in 1987 and particularly since the late 1990s, the group has received extensive moral, political, material, and to a small degree, financial support from Syria. Additionally, its top military brigade leadership received extensive military training there. Syria served as critical base for Hamas, without which the organization could not have operated effectively for many years.
Beginning in 1999, the group's leadership began using Damascus as its primary base of operations. Until the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the organization's highest decision-making body, the Political Bureau, operated in Syria. Additionally, Khalid Mashaal, the political leader of Hamas, lived and operated in Damascus until he fled to Qatar in 2012.
After the outbreak of the civil war in 2011, Hamas members began leaving Syria and distancing themselves from the Assad regime. In 2012, group officials announced its support for the Syrian opposition,[9] which prompted the Syrian government to kill some Hamas leaders still in the country and to close all local Hamas offices.[10] Finally, in 2013, Hamas was reported to be training the opposition Free Syrian Army.[11]
Qatar
For years, Qatar has been attempting to raise its profile as a major regional player. Fundamentally, Qatar is interested in power. To that end, it will do business with anyone that serves their interest, be it al-Qaeda, Hamas, Israel or the United States. They have also maintained a major rivalry with Saudi Arabia and have a propensity to engage in anything that will overshadow their giant neighbor. In line with Qatar's regional aspirations, it serves as an operational headquarters for Hamas and is home to the group's most important leader, Khalid Mashaal.
When Hamas lost the funding and support of Syria and Iran, it turned to other Sunni regional powers, principally Qatar and Turkey. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other Middle Eastern states have accused the two of undermining regional security by supporting this radical organization. While it is difficult to say precisely how much financial support Qatar provides to Hamas, in October 2012, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Qatar's emir at the time, pledged more than $400 million.
Politically, Qatar has been indispensible to Hamas. In addition to serving as the group's chief negotiator with Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States in the recent Gaza hostilities, Doha has played a key role in strengthening the relationship between Hamas and various European countries. It has also acted as a mediator between Hamas and Jordan, arranging a meeting in January 2012 between Khalid Mashaal – who was banished from Jordan in 1999 - and Jordan's King Abdullah II.[12]
Turkey
Turkey serves as Hamas' other strong Sunni regional ally, second only to Qatar. It provides political support and is rumored to donate up to $300 million annually to Hamas.[13] Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been a staunch supporter of Hamas, propping up the organization throughout the international arena. Ideologically speaking, Turkey, above and beyond Hamas' other donors, has supported the Hamas world-view and their barbaric agenda.
Ankara also provides comfort and support to some of the organization's most important leaders. For example, Saleh al-Arouri, a founder of the Hamas military wing, the Izz al-Dinal Qassam Brigades, resides in Turkey. According to Israeli intelligence, Hamas' Turkish office is responsible for directing, funding, and providing the organizational infrastructure for terror activity in the West Bank. The Turkish office also serves as a hub for converting European students who are members of Muslim Brotherhood associations into members of Hamas.[14]
Sudan
For years, Sudan has served as a willing way station for Iranian weapons shipped from the Islamic Republic to Hamas in Gaza. In four instances over the last five years, Israel has reportedly bombed these arms shipments and Sudanese weapons factories. In 2009, Israel struck a truck convoy with arms destined for Hamas, and in 2012, it hit an arms factory. This past March, Israel intercepted the Klos-C, a ship carrying arms for Hamas, just off Port Sudan. And in June, Israel bombed a Sudanese long-range arsenal storing missiles intended for Hamas.
Conclusions
There must be no accommodation with radical Islamic terrorist organizations. U.S. policy regarding terrorist organizations and their rogue financial supporters with Islamist agendas has, unfortunately, been inconsistent. On the one hand, President Obama has waged war against ISIS. On the other hand, he has proven himself open to working with Hamas and concomitantly negotiating with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which may well be the biggest threat of all to Israel and the West.
Hamas' strategy and ideology are almost identical to those of the Sunni ISIS and al-Qaeda, as well as of radical Shiite organizations, including Hizballah, the IRGC, and the clerical elite that governs Iran today. Each of these groups is attempting to force Western liberal democracies into a lose-lose situation by rejecting the basic norms of warfare, which are intended to protect civilian populations. Hamas fires rockets from heavily populated areas in Gaza into Israel's major cities and sends its members to engage in suicide bombing, while groups such as ISIS kidnap and behead journalists. Iran is marching towards a nuclear bomb while using terror as an operational weapon.
It appears that Israel and the region as a whole are destined to face this deadly challenge for the foreseeable future. And despite the complacency and even hostility to Israel in some democracies, sooner or later, even those far from the Middle East will confront the very danger Israel has faced this summer. Hamas, Hizballah, their patron Iran, al Qaeda, and other jihadi groups are sworn enemies of the West and of all liberal democracies. They are constantly seeking ways to undermine the strength of the free world. Forms of aggression first used against Israel have inevitably been turned against other countries: airline hijackings, suicide terrorism, and now, the use of civilians as human shields.
Ultimately, liberal democracies must realize that it is in their own interest to make it at once more difficult and more expensive for illicit actors to operate. It is time to recognize the threat posed by radical Islam and take the necessary steps to pursue those who have the motive, the opportunity and the capacity to harm us all.
Policy Recommendations
1. The US should cease all disbursement of aid the Palestinian Authority as a result of the unity government formed between Hamas and Fatah. This past June, after seven years of bitter fighting, Fatah and Hamas formed a historic unity government. Reversing years of U.S. foreign policy of not engaging in any way with a designated terrorist entity, Secretary of State John Kerry declared that the U.S. would cooperate with the technocrat government. Secretary Kerry vowed that the U.S would closely monitor its compliance with the Quartet's principles of non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of the previous agreements. As the recent Gaza hostilities demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt, Hamas has no intension of adhering to a single one of the three aforementioned principles.
2. In light of Qatar and Turkey's relationship with Hamas, the United States should threaten to blacklist the two, both for being state sponsors of terror and for disrupting the Middle East peace process. Turkey's NATO membership and the Al Udeid US military base in Qatar have been cited as pretexts to do little to stop these countries' support of Hamas. Congress should make clear that any form of financial or material support for terrorist groups such as Hamas violates U.S. counterterrorism laws. In fact, Executive Order 12947, issued on January 23, 1995, specifically prohibits Americans from engaging in transactions with Hamas, naming it as one of several terrorist groups that "threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process."
3. The United States should declare unequivocally that Hamas and al-Qaeda, including its affiliates such as ISIS, are ideologically one and the same and employ similar tactics. Today's wealthiest Islamic republics — Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan — and their consistent funding of terror demonstrates the reason we must take the ever greater problem of radical Islam seriously. These three regimes account for the vast majority of funding, ideological support and protection for terrorist organizations and jihadis around the globe. The West defeated each of the 20thcentury's hostile ideologies using the full panoply of military, economic, diplomatic and ideological weapons. Today's greatest challenge—radical Islam—deserves no less serious a multi-partite attack on so dangerous a threat to the life and principles that we and our allies hold dear.
[1]"Egypt court orders tunnels to Gaza destroyed," al-Jazeera, February 26, 2013. Available online (www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/02/201322619219970812.html).
[2] "Gaza ceasefire: what Israel and Hamas gained and lost," The Week, August 27, 2014. Available online (www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/gaza/60121/gaza-ceasefire-what-israel-and-hamas-gained-and-lost).
[3] An exact budget breakdown for 2013 consisted of: 1)Wages: $449 million, equaling 50%, covering salaries of 42,000 employees in the Hamas government's bureaucratic apparatus; 2) Operating expenses: $103 million, equaling 11.48%, covering government ministry expenses, water and electricity services, travel missions, and mailing expenses; 3) Social welfare/pensions: $110 million, equaling 12.26%, covering expenses for various entitlement programs. 4) Capital and development: $235 million, equaling 26%, covering new assets and development projects for roads, schools, etc. For comprehensive budget numbers, see "Hamas Budget a Small Step Toward Transparency," AlMonitor, Januar 21, 2013. Available online (www.al-monitor.com/pulse/iw/originals/2013/01/hamas-budget-transparency.html).
[4] Throughout the last four years, Hamas has been widely off the mark in its projected budget figures both for expenses accrued and actual revenue spent. For example, in 2012, projected revenue was $173 million, whereas actual revenues were $221 million. In 2013, projected expenditures were estimated at $869 million, but actual spending did not exceed $445 million. According to Omar Shaban, founder and director of PalThink for Strategic Studies, a Gaza-based "think-and-do-tank," these numbers reflect either a lack of professional experience in setting budgets or a deliberate effort to overestimate expenses in order to secure additional financial support from the international community. "Hamas Budget a Small Step Toward Transparency," AlMonitor, Januar 21, 2013. Available online (www.al-monitor.com/pulse/iw/originals/2013/01/hamas-budget-transparency.html).
[5] "Behind Hamas' guns, a serious problem of dough," Haaretz, August 1, 2014. Available online (www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.608344).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] "Iran cuts Hamas funding over Syria," The Telegraph, May 31, 2013. Available online (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10091629/Iran-cuts-Hamas-funding-over-Syria.html).
[9] "Hamas ditches Assad, backs Syrian revolt," Reuters, February 24, 2012. Available online (www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-syria-palestinians-idUSTRE81N1CC20120224).
[10] "Syria Shuts Down Hamas Offices," Arutz Sheva, November 6, 2012. Available online (www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161750#.USZRsjfN8fS).
[11] "Military wing of Hamas training Syrian rebels," May 4, 2013. Available online (www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Hamas-reportedly-training-Syrian-rebels-in-Damascus-308795).
[12]"Jordan's king receives Hamas leader," al-Jazeera, January 30, 2012. Available online (www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/01/2012129133314758190.html).
[13] "Turkey To Grant Hamas $300 Million," International Middle East Media Center, December 3, 2011. Available online (www.imemc.org/article/62607). See also "Turkey may provide Hamas with $300 million in annual aid," Haaretz, January 28, 2012. Available online (www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/turkey-may-provide-hamas-with-300-million-in-annual-aid-1.409708).
[14] "Hamas Current Trends 2012-2013," Israeli Security Agency (n.d.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) ISLAMIC STATE CHILDREN PLAY WITH SEVERED HEADS AND ENJOY CRUCIFIXIONS
Source: Jihad Watch.
It would be refreshing if the Muslim leaders who are here condemning the Islamic State would explain how exactly they are un-Islamic. It is grotesque for children to be playing with severed heads, but the Qur’an mandates beheading: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (47:4). It is gruesome for children to enjoy crucifixions, but crucifixions are mandated in the Qur’an: “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom” (5:33).
So while it is just great that these Muslim leaders condemn the Islamic State, when they don’t confront the Islamic State’s Qur’anic justifications for its actions, they do nothing to stop Islamic State recruitment in the West.
“Children of the Caliphate: Junior jihadis play with severed heads and enjoy crucifixions,” by Steve Robson, Irish Mirror, September 5, 2014:
Parading severed heads in front of pals like a new toy, this is the life of children growing up in the Islamic State.
Sickening images have emerged of boys no more than 10-year-old revelling in the bloodbath which has engulfed the region.
Another picture shows a youngster holding a Kalashnikov and posing beside the body of a crucified rebel soldier.
The horrific scenes emerged after pictures of a baby surrounded by guns and grenades was posted online yesterday by ISIS.
Muslim leaders will use sermons today to reiterate their opposition to extremism, urge young people not to join fundamentalist fighters, and call for the release of all hostages held by the Islamic State.
Imams across Scotland will use Friday prayers to reinforce these messages, according to a joint statement from the Muslim Council of Scotland, Islamic Society of Britain and Glasgow Central Mosque.
Earlier this week the parents of Glasgow woman Aqsa Mahmood who left home last November, said they were horrified to learn that she had joined radicals in Syria and married an IS fighter.
They said she had “betrayed us, our community and the people of Scotland when you took this step” but pleaded for her return, adding that they still love her.
Last month US journalist James Foley was apparently beheaded by an IS fighter with a British accent nicknamed “Jihadi John”.
This week the same person is thought to have been responsible for the murder of American Steven Sotloff, and a British hostage is currently under threat from the group.
In their statement Muslim leaders said the community “unequivocally condemns the barbaric actions of IS (formerly known as ISIS).
“We send our heartfelt sympathies to the families of those who have been killed at the murderous hands of IS – regardless of where they are from or what their religion.The actions of IS are against the teachings of Islam and therefore supporting or joining such an organisation is unacceptable.
“We call for the immediate release of all hostages held by IS and pray for all of those killed, injured or harmed by extremism the world over.”
The leaders also called on governments to “react in accordance with international and domestic law” when dealing with radicals, claiming that the war in Iraq had been the “greatest recruiting sergeant for extremist groups”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
The president’s overall job approval currently stands at 42 percent, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday morning. That figure is a bit higher than Gallup’s finding last week, which pegged the president at just 38 percent(the lowest of his presidency). And yet despite his somewhat rising approval ratings, he’s underwater on four key issues: The economy (42/54), international affairs (38/56),
Obamacare's implementation (38/56), and immigration issues (31/59).
3)
"A Failure": How a Majority of Americans Now Describe the President
Daniel DohertyThe president’s overall job approval currently stands at 42 percent, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday morning. That figure is a bit higher than Gallup’s finding last week, which pegged the president at just 38 percent(the lowest of his presidency). And yet despite his somewhat rising approval ratings, he’s underwater on four key issues: The economy (42/54), international affairs (38/56),
Obamacare's implementation (38/56), and immigration issues (31/59).
And the following graph, of course, explains why all that matters:
Meanwhile, 71 percent of Democrats are “very enthusiastic” or “fairly enthusiastic” about voting in the upcoming congressional midterms, according to the survey. By contrast, only 63 percent of Republicans feel the same way. But perhaps the biggest takeaway is that more respondents feel the president has been a failure than a success, and increasingly, are going to the polls to vent their frustration:
The president, however, does receive some positive marks. Respondents say he is "honest and trustworthy" (49/48) and that he comprehends the problems of “people like you” (49/48). Still, only a plurality says he is a “strong leader” (43/55), and a majority finds him exceedingly divisive.
Asked whether they believe the president “has done more to [unite the country]” or “done more to [divide the country],” only 38 percent said the former and 55 percent the latter.
That's quite an accomplishment, I suppose, for someone who once said this.(click on 'this.')
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4) HENRY KISSINGER'S THOUGHTS ON THE ISLAMIC STATE, UKRAINE AND 'WORLD ORDER'
NPR Staff .
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger celebrates his 90th birthday, last year in Berlin. In a recent interview with Scott Simon, he gave his thoughts on ISIS, Ukraine and Iran.
Gero Breloer/AP
Gero Breloer/AP
Henry Kissinger was a Harvard scholar before he became a mover and shaker in the world of foreign policy. And in his new book, World Order, the former secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford gives a historian's perspective on the idea of order in world affairs.
Nations are always trying to establish systems to make the world a more orderly place, but they rarely last for long. His book stretches from China under the emperors, Rome surrounded by barbarians and Islam encircled by infidels, to the treaties of Europe and the pivotal positions of Russia and Iran.
On current affairs, Kissinger tells NPR's Scott Simon why a conflict with the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran, what he would do about the Islamic State, and what he thinks the best solution is for the crisis in Ukraine.
Interview Highlights
On why he views Iran as a “bigger problem than ISIS”
There has come into being a kind of a Shia belt from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut. And this gives Iran the opportunity to reconstruct the ancient Persian Empire — this time under the Shia label.
From a geo-strategic point of view, I consider Iran a bigger problem than ISIS. ISIS is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology. But they have to conquer more and more territory before they can became a geo-strategic, permanent reality. I think a conflict with ISIS — important as it is — is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran.
On what he would do about ISIS
They have cut the throat of an American on television. This is an insult to the United States, which requires that we demonstrate that this is not an act that is free. I would strongly favor a strong attack on ISIS for a period that is related to the murder of the American.
Then, we have to go into the long-range problem. I think when we are dealing with a unit like ISIS, we should not get into a position where they can lead us by establishing ground forces. But we should set strategic objectives where we thwart any goal they set themselves, which we should be able to do by superior air power. And then, if we can enlist other countries, or other more local groups to do the ground fighting, we might actually destroy them.
On the “Russian enigma” and what he thinks Putin's Russia wants
The attitude of the West and of Russia towards a crisis like Ukraine is diametrically different. The West is trying to establish the legality of any established border. For Russia, Ukraine is part of the Russian patrimony.
A Russian state was created around Kiev about 1,200 years ago. Ukraine itself has been part of Russia for 500 years, and I would say most Russians consider it part of Russian patrimony. The ideal solution would be to have a Ukraine like Finland or Austria that can be a bridge between these two rather than an outpost.
Kissinger's reaction to naysayers because of his role during the war in Vietnam, especially the bombing of Cambodia and Laos
They should study what is going on. I think we would find, if you study the conduct of guerrilla-type wars, that the Obama administration has hit more targets on a broader scale than the Nixon administration ever did. …
B-52s have a different bombing pattern. On the other hand, drones are far more deadly because they are much more accurate. And I think the principle is essentially the same. You attack locations where you believe people operate who are killing you. You do it in the most limited way possible. And I bet if one did an honest account, there were fewer civilian casualties in Cambodia than there have been from American drone attacks.
The Vietnam War was a great tragedy for our country. And it is now far enough away so that one can study [it] without using the slogans to see what really happened. And I believe you would find — my position was that of the chief of staff of the president — that the decisions that were taken would almost certainly have been taken by those of you who are listening, faced with the same set of problems. And you would have done them with anguish, as we did them with anguish.
On whether he thinks Hillary Clinton would be a good president
I know Hillary as a person. And as a personal friend, I would say yes, she'd be a good president. But she'd put me under a great conflict of interest if she were a candidate, because I intend to support the Republicans. …
Yes, I'd be comfortable with her as the president.
4a)
4a)
Dick Cheney Is Still Right
Obama's return to Iraq reveals how wrong he has
been about the world.
President Obama will lay out his plan to counter the Islamic State on Wednesday night, and we'll judge the strategy on its merits. But the mere fact that Mr. Obama feels obliged to send Americans to fight again in Iraq acknowledges the failure of his foreign policy. He is tacitly admitting that the liberal critique of the Bush Administration's approach to Islamic terrorism was wrong.
Recall that Mr. Obama won the Presidency by arguing that the U.S. had alienated the world and Muslims by recklessly using force abroad. We had betrayed our values by interrogating terrorists too harshly and wiretapping too much. Our enemies hated us not because they hated our values or our influence but because we had provoked them with our interventions.
If we withdrew from the Middle East, especially from Iraq; if we avoided new entanglements, such as in Syria; and if we engaged with our adversaries, such as Iran and Russia, the anti-American furies would subside and the world would be safer. We should nation-build at home, not overseas, and slash the defense budget accordingly.
***
Mr. Obama pursued this vision starting with his Inaugural Address and throughout his first term. He tried to "reset" relations with Russia by dismantling a missile-defense deal with Poland and the Czech Republic. He muted support for the democratic uprising in Iran in 2009 lest it upset the mullahs he needed for a nuclear weapons deal.
The U.S. absence left Syria's battleground to the Russians and Iranians, who helped Assad hang on, and to the Qataris, who have funded Islamic State and the al Qaeda affiliated al-Nusrah. But Mr. Obama was unrepentant, saying as recently as August that it had "always been a fantasy" to think that arming the moderate Syrians would make a difference.When the Syrian revolt erupted in 2011, Mr. Obama called for Bashar Assad to go but did nothing to aid the moderate opposition. In the process he overruled Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA director David Petraeus, and his ambassador to Damascus Robert Ford.
Above all Mr. Obama sought to end the U.S. presence in Iraq. He made a token effort to strike a status of forces agreement past 2011, offering so few troops that the Iraqis thought it wasn't worth the domestic political trouble. Mr. Obama then sold his total withdrawal as a political success, claiming Iraq was "stable" and "self-reliant" and making a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign that "the tide of war is receding." He ridiculed Mitt Romney for warning about Mr. Putin's designs.
Mr. Obama doubled down on his peace-through-withdrawal strategy in the second term, speeding up the U.S. departure from Afghanistan. On May 23, 2013, he summed up his vision and strategy in a sort of victory speech at National Defense University:
"Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm's way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts."
Then in January his friends at the New Yorker quoted him as comparing Islamic State to the "jayvee team," and this summer he said Mr. Putin is doomed to fail because countries don't invade others in "the 21st century."
***
So where are we less than a year later? Iran's mullahs continue to resist Mr. Obama's nuclear entreaties, while Mr. Putin carves up Ukraine and threatens NATO. China is breaking the rule of law in Hong Kong, pressing its air-identification zone in the Pacific, and buzzing U.S. aircraft.
Syria is now a terrorist sanctuary from which the Islamic State has conquered a third of Iraq, the first time since 9/11 that jihadists control territory from which they can plan attacks. Al Qaeda's affiliates have expanded across the Middle East and Africa, attacking a mall in Kenya and kidnapping schoolgirls in Nigeria.
Mr. Obama can blame this rising tide of disorder on George W. Bush, but the polls show the American public doesn't believe it. They know from experience that it takes time for bad policy to reveal itself in new global turmoil. They saw how the early mistakes in Iraq led to chaos until the 2007 surge saved the day and left Mr. Obama with an opportunity he squandered. And they can see now that Mr. Obama's strategy has produced terrorist victories and more danger for America.
Mr. Obama's intellectual and media defenders were complicit in all of this, cheering on his flight from world leadership as prudent management of U.S. decline. Even now some of his most devoted acolytes write that Mr. Obama's "caution" has Islamic State's jihadists right where he wants them. It is hard to admit that your worldview has been exposed as out-of-this-world.
We hope tonight's speech shows a more realistic President determined to defeat Islamic State, but whatever he says will have to overcome the doubts about American resolve that he has spread around the world for nearly six years. One way to start undoing the damage would be to concede that Dick Cheney was right all along.
US to Herzog: No compromise on Iranian nukes
Herzog tells senior White House officials that 'the fight against ISIS, despite its central importance to the international community, doesn't minimize the danger of Iran's nuclear power'. Yitzhak Benhorin
Senior White House officials told Opposition Chairman Isaac Herzog on Tuesday that "there will be no compromise on Iranian nuclear matter."
At the meeting, Herzog told White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken that he appreciated "the American position, which understands that one threat does not cancel out the other."
The three senior officials discussed the threats posed by the Islamic State and Iran, as well as other geopolitical matters like Operation Protective Edge and the stalled peace process with the Palestinians.
The meeting took place on the eve of a major address by US President Barack Obama regarding the American strategy against the Islamic State.
After the media reported extensively about the possibility that Iran will cooperate with the US in the fight against ISIS, Herzog's hosts made it clear that despite the global cooperation, the US does not intend to be more flexible regarding the Iranian nuclear project.
US Secretary of State John Kerry and Opposition Chairman Isaac Herzog (Matty Stern/US Embassy Tel Aviv)
"The Iranian nuclear project poses a threat to Israel and the whole world and we shouldn't compromise on that issue. The fight against ISIS, despite its central importance to the international community, doesn't minimize the danger of Iran's nuclear weapon," said Herzog.
"Although the Israeli government insists on repeatedly quarrel with the American administration, I found that within the White House there are attentive positions towards Israel; there are those who understand the situation and Israel's interests and give it full support," added Herzog and thanked his host for their support during Operation Protective Edge.
Moran Azulay contributed to this report.
4c)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Begins Digging New Tunnels in Gaza:
Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists claim they are digging attack tunnels from Gaza to use against Israel in future battles, according to a report published by the Qatari Al-Jazeera television network on September 4th.
IDF ground and air forces destroyed 32 tunnels during the course of 50 days of fighting in Operation Protective Edge, meant to foil such excavations beneath Israeli territory, as well as stop incessant rocket fire. Many of the tunnels ended in and adjacent to Israeli civilian communities alongside the coastal enclave.
“We are in a tunnel that is being dug by resistance fighters in this border area,” the reporter says as he makes his way down the cramped concrete-walled passage. ”What is remarkable about this tunnel is that it has been dug recently,” he notes. “As you can see, it is still being dug.”
“We are now inside one of the tunnels of the al-Quds Brigades,” a masked, uniformed Palestinian digger tells the reporter, “on which work began the minute the war on Gaza ended and the cease-fire was declared.”
The tunnelers take the reporter to a opening in another tunnel, where uniformed men demonstrate setting up and deploying a portable Kornet anti-tank missile.
In another scene they demonstrate quickly deploying shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment