===
Sent to me by a dear friend and fellow memo reader:
The rest of the real story in Hungary....
===
Lois Lerner had a partner - NASCO. (See 1 below.)
===
Go SISI! (See 2 below.)
===
The politicization of Middle East Studies. Students pay good money to drink bilge water! (See 3 below.)
Meanwhile, Daniel Pipes struggles to find some potential positive in The Iran Deal.
Will the smell of freedom become intoxicating in Iran and Cuba?
Stay tuned! (See 3a below.)
===
There are two sides to everything - even clouds. (See 4 below.)
Finally, the silence, so far,, by the Pope regarding the decimation of Coptic Christians by heathen Islamists is deafening. It is one thing to be respectful of your host but there were several subjects Pope Francis should have spoken out about but he was too caught up in air pollution and illegal immigration, it seems, to address this anti-Christian tragedy of enormous moral proportions and the legal right of nations to have secure borders.Invasions can take many forms. (See 4a below.)
===
Will Israel turn down bigger boxing gloves?
I have written many times that Obama will try and buy off Netanyahu with ordinance. Time will tell. (See 5 below.)
Obama, our 'Pathetic President,' always a day late and dollars short! (See 5a below.)
===
Is this what America is coming to? The link is https://www.sixflags.com/
===
Boehner resigns and a perceptive friend and fellow memo reader asked me do I think he will become the VP on a Republican Ticket. Personally I thought it was perceptive because he would bring knowledge of government and the ability to work with Congress for say, Carly or Carson, but in the case of Kasich it adds nothing geographically. Trump would benefit the most but he is not prone to listen. Rubio and Cruz do not see eye to eye with Boehner and as for the others running I just do not believe they see a benefit.
The Speaker receives lots of prestige but it is an impossible and terrible job. Boehner is a knowledgeable and decent man but the times and shifts caught up with his inability to move the ball because of an intransigent president and those on the other side who are unwilling to compromise as well as the schism within his own party.
I got to know Newt over the years we lived in Atlanta. We were early Friends of Newt members, we traveled to DC with him, he spoke at our house and we met with him many times. Newt had many personal problems and he ruled with an iron fist. He was effective, He saved Clinton's presidency and saw many of his Contract With America demands were enacted.
In the end the long knives of resentment and slights brought him down and Boehner has been the recipient of same.
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)-
Lois Lerner's 'Partners'
On October 5, the same day the Supreme Court opens its term, across town at the Washington Marriott Georgetown a group of bureaucrats that has lost four times before that court will huddle in a three-day meeting open only one day to the public or the people and entities they regulate.
Unless you are a lawyer representing nonprofit organizations, it’s unlikely you’ve ever heard of NASCO, which is the National Association of State Charity Officials. These are state officials who work together and even collaborate with federal officials to regulate your favorite charities or nonprofit groups advocating for your constitutional rights.
A 2007 letter from NASCO’s then-president Hugh Jones to Lois Lerner describes NASCO as Lerner’s “partner in the regulation of charities.” Especially in retrospect, that’s some admission against interest, as lawyers might say. Lois Lerner, of course, is the now-former IRS official held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about how her Tax Exempt Division targeted and abused conservative nonprofit organizations, and illegally disclosed the names and addresses of donors to at least one.
NASCO members wield influence over citizens’ right of private association with causes, the importance of which was described in 1831 by Alexis de Toqueville, and constitutional protections of which were emphasized in the 1958 landmark decision NAACP v. Alabama. They enforce charitable solicitation laws, which are a “prior restraint” on First Amendment rights requiring nonprofits to obtain solicitation licenses in about 4/5 of the states. Prior restraints are the most dangerous form of regulation of First Amendment rights, and indeed some argue are the most important reason why we have the First Amendment protection of the press. Going back to Blackstone’s 1769 Commentaries, we know prior restraints are dangerous because they are a method for censorship.
To know NASCO is to understand why Mr. Jones’ 2007 letter to Lois Lerner, in which he discusses a “sentiment” for charities to become more transparent, is so typical of NASCO’s hypocrisy about transparency, honesty and ethics. Their annual conference was once completely closed off from representatives of nonprofit organizations because NASCO did not like being criticized for their questionable and overbearing tactics. Indeed, in his 2007 letter to Ms. Lerner, Jones criticizes “’push back’ from the nonprofit sector.” These bureaucrats do not like criticism from those they regulate, and they are effective at chastening their critics.
Jones also cites a concern that charities are not perceived by enough people as “honest and ethical.” The irony of this being raised in a letter to NASCO’s “partner” Lois Lerner should not be lost on anyone. Meanwhile, Gallup reports this month that half of all Americans continue to see government as “an immediate threat” to freedom and rights, and 75 percent perceive corruption in government as widespread. NASCO assuredly won’t be addressing illegalities and corruption of its own members and “partners” at its conference.
What Jones’ letter to Lerner does not complain about is how her revisions to the tax return of nonprofits, called Form 990, buried information about if and how much nonprofit organizations receive in government, taxpayer funding. Form 990 is publicly available, and potential donors sometimes peek at the 990 before giving. Whether nonprofits get government funding, and how much, is a key factor for many potential donors. Indeed, many people perceive that as an indicator of whether nonprofits are truly independent from corrupt government. The current debate about defunding Planned Parenthood is a good example of how government’s financing leftwing or controversial causes has become entrenched.
It’s not just that NASCO considered itself a partner with “Dr. Evil” Lois Lerner so much as many of its members act like her “Mini-Me.” Lerner’s IRS was caught violating First Amendment rights of conservatives by demanding such things as the prayers they said at their meetings, and illegally disclosing to hostile blogs the confidential list of donors to the National Organization of Marriage.
Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Kremenak provides another good example. Charity regulators have authority to investigate misdeeds, of course, but not authority to violate the First or Fourth Amendments. Not only does Kremenak tell charities what to do and what documents to produce, she adamantly refuses even when asked to provide notice of her legal authority for making such demands. Her lack of transparency is unethically designed to shield her violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights, and even her own investigations statute.
Kremenak reports to Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson. After reaching a settlement in 2008 with a bank, which directed that a third of a six-figure fine go to the corrupt and now defunct “community organizing” group ACORN, Swanson received a grade of A+ from that group in time for her 2010 election. So, it’s not just censorship of political enemies; these regulators use their positions for payola and cronyism.
The theme of NASCO’s meeting in Washington early next month is “A Renewed Focus on the State Regulator.” A renewed focus is indeed needed, but on their lawlessness, instransparency, unethical behavior, and Lois Lerner-like arrogance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
| Over 500 militants killed - Egypt ends first stage of military operation in North Sinai after 16 days | |||||||||
| Egypt ends first stage of military operation in North Sinai after 16 days The army said in a statement that the first stage of the 'Martyr’s Right' operation was a success Ahram Online Egypt’s army announced late on Tuesday the end of the first stage of the "Martyr's Right" operation, which involved the killing of over 500 militants in North Sinai as the armed forces battle an Islamist insurgency in the restive province. The army announced the end of the first stage, which lasted 16 days, after the "achievement of its primary objectives", which include destroying terrorist hideouts and artillery storage facilities. “This operation reflected the cohesion between the army, police and the people of Sinai – as well as the unprecedented welcoming [of the people of Sinai] of joint cooperation to control the security situation and to regain their rights of security and stability,” the army said in a statement. North Sinai, which borders Israel and the Palestinian Gaza Strip, is a stronghold of Islamist militant group Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis, an Egyptian affiliate of ISIS that intensified its attacks against army and police personnel after the 2013 ouster of Islamist president Mohamed Morsi. In the last two years, the army has been combating the spike in militant insurgency in the peninsula, with hundreds of security personnel killed or injured. The army said that all offensives in the Martyr's Right operation were conducted according to human rights laws and ethical standards to protect civilian lives. The second stage of the operation, according to the statement, will “pave the road for creating suitable conditions to start development projects in Sinai”. The operation also extended to the Bahariya Oasis in western Egypt, where the army killed on Monday 10 militants who were “planning to execute terrorist and criminal acts against vital targets and foreign interests during the Eid vacation, scheduled to take place from 23 to 27 September.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) The Politicization of Middle East Studies
by Efraim Karsh and Asaf Romirowsky
The American Interest This article was commissioned by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
It has been a while since the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), the largest and most influential professional body for the study of the region, whose 2,700-plus members inhabit departments of Middle East studies throughout the world, dropped its original designation as a "non-political learned society" to become a hotbed of anti-Israel invective. So deep has the rot settled that the association seems totally oblivious (or rather indifferent) to the fact that its recent endorsement of the anti-Israel de-legitimization campaign, and attendant efforts to obstruct the containment of resurgent anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses, have effectively crossed the thin line between "normal" Israel-bashing and classical Jew-baiting.
On February 15 of this year, a MESA referendum approved a resolution, passed by the membership during the association's annual meeting three months earlier, which not only lauded the "calls for [anti-Israel] institutional boycott, divestment, and/or sanctions [BDS]" as "legitimate forms of non-violent political action" and deplored opposition to these exclusionary moves as an assault on the freedom of speech, but "strongly urge[d] MESA program committees to organize discussions at MESA annual meetings, and the MESA Board of Directors to create opportunities over the course of the year that provide platforms for a sustained discussion of the academic boycott and foster careful consideration of an appropriate position for MESA to assume."
Jews have of course been subjected to all kinds of segregation, ostracism, and boycotting from time immemorial and the BDS is but the latest manifestation of this millenarian hate fest. Those sponsoring it are obviously more interested in hurting Israel, if not obliterating it altogether (as many of its leaders have openly conceded), than in promoting human rights; otherwise they would be pushing boycotts of the numerous Middle Eastern dictatorships that are guilty of the most horrendous atrocities against their own peoples rather than targeting the region's only democracy, and the only place in the Middle East where academics enjoy complete and unrestricted freedom of expression.
There were, for example, no boycotts of Saddam's Iraq, Qaddafi's Libya, or King Hussein's Jordan, the latter of which killed more Palestinians in the single month of September 1970 than Israel did in decades. Nor has there been a boycott of the Syrian regime, which slaughtered far more people over the past four years than those killed during the 100 years of Arab-Israeli infighting; or of its Iranian abettor, which, apart from torturing its hapless subjects for nearly four decades and triggering a war that claimed some million lives, is the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism and an open proponent of a genocide against an existing member of the international community; or of Turkey for its oppression of the vast Kurdish and Alevi minorities and the incarceration of thousands of political activists on the flimsiest and most dubious charges; or of Saudi Arabia for its political oppression and gender apartheid; or of the oppressive and corrupt regime in the West Bank and Gaza established by Yasser Arafat (the so-called Palestinian Authority). And so on and so forth.
Nor do these boycotts, especially the academic one, reflect an honest sense of solidarity with the Palestinians in general, and the Palestinian universities of the West Bank and Gaza in particular, which for the past two decades have been under the control not of Israel but of the Palestinian Authority. Rather, they are an unabashed attempt to single out Israel as a pariah nation, to declare its existence illegitimate. As such, Israeli universities are to be ostracized not for any supposed repression of academic freedom but for their contribution to the creation and prosperity of the Jewish state of Israel, a supposedly racist, colonialist implant in the Middle East as worthy of extirpation as the formerly apartheid regime of South Africa.
Given these circumstances, it was only natural for MESA President Nathan Brown to warn University of California President Janet Napolitano last month that its adoption of the State Department definition of anti-Semitism, as requested by some Jewish organizations, "would have a chilling effect on scholarly discussion of international affairs in California." This is because, in his view, the definition "includes, as examples of anti-Semitism, certain kinds of philosophical and political criticisms of the State of Israel which are not only valid topics of academic discussion but are protected by the free speech guarantees of the U.S. Constitution and by the principles of academic freedom enshrined in California law and in University of California system policy."
It goes without saying that no state is above criticism and that faulting Israel for acts of commission or omission is a legitimate part of the political (and scholarly) discourse. But does the State Department definition of anti-Semitism seek to stifle this discourse as Brown claims? Quite the reverse, in fact: it takes care to stress that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic." At the same time, however, the definition makes a clear distinction between such legitimate criticism and the constant outpouring of outlandish anti-Israel diatribes (often masqueraded as "philosophical and political criticisms") which it considers pure and unadulterated anti-Semitism; and it offers three main ways in which this bigotry is manifested:
Had such abuse been meted out to any other state, religious community, or ethnic/national group in the Middle East (and beyond), it is doubtful whether MESA would have considered it a "valid topic of academic discussion." Yet its leaders and luminaries have had no qualms about singling out Jews and Israelis for disproportionate and unique opprobrium and denying them—and them alone—the basic right to national self-determination while allowing it to all other groups and communities, however new and tenuous their claim to nationhood. The late Edward Said, who exerted immense influence on the association despite having done no independent research on the Middle East or Islam, was a vocal proponent of the "one-state solution"—the standard euphemism for Israel's replacement by an Arab/Muslim state in which Jews would be reduced to a permanent minority. Past MESA presidents like Rashid Khalidi (holder of the Edward Said chair at Columbia University), Joel Beinin, Juan Cole, among others, have, in one form or another, publicly advocated the destruction of Israel as a state. This is not a legitimate "philosophical and political criticism of the State of Israel" but reiteration of the millenarian anti-Semitic myth of the "Wandering Jew": a rootless nomad lacking an authentic corporate identity and condemned to permanent lingering on the fringes of history without an indigenous place he could call home.
MESA's Jewish and Israeli members should therefore insist that their association reverts to its original mission to "foster the study of the Middle East, promote high standards of scholarship and teaching, and encourage public understanding of the region and its peoples" rather than endlessly obsess with Israel and Jews. Should this demand prove unavailing, as it most likely will, they should shun membership in the association. Fortunately enough, MESA is no longer the only professional venue in the field of Middle Eastern studies.
Efraim Karsh is emeritus professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan university, and principal research fellow at the Middle East Forum. Asaf Romirowsky is executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) and a research fellow at the Middle East Forum. 3a) A Tiny Silver Lining in the Otherwise Bad Iran Deal
by Daniel Pipes
The Philadelphia Inquirer I despise the July 14 Vienna deal because it could do incalculable damage to the United States and its allies. That said, I find a tiny silver lining in the possibility that it could, if everything goes just right, end up hurting the Iranian regime more than its enemies.
The drawbacks of the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" are so numerous that listing them requires more space than the 159-page treaty itself. In very brief, the JCPOA offers the tyrants in Tehran over the next 10-15 years more money, more legitimacy, more arms, and an approved path to nuclear weaponry. As an Israeli analysis sums up the problem, "the agreement unilaterally and unconditionally grants Iran everything it has been seeking without any viable quid pro quo."
To make matters worse, the deal includes no provisions that Tehran stop supporting violent groups, end its aggressive plans to conquer neighbors, eliminate the Jewish state, or deploy anelectromagnetic pulse weapon against the United States. Indeed, so confident are the mullahs of their position, they never paused from expressing these bellicose intentions and insist that Americans remain their enemies. The country's tyrant, "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamene'i, even published a book during the negotiations about destroying Israel. In short, the deal makes war with Iran more likely.
For its part, the Obama administration shamefully dissembled about the terms of the treaty, used underhanded methods to pass it through congress, and became lawyer and spin doctor for Khamene'i.
For these reasons, I am appalled by the congressional Democrats who sheep-like went with Obama's folly, I join the 2/3s of the American public that rejects the Iran deal, and I tremble at what catastrophes the deal might bring.
As for that tiny silver lining: Assuming that the Iranian leadership does not deploy its shiny new nuclear weaponry, the deal could end up undermining it, and for two reasons.
First, greater contact with the outside world and a higher standard of living might erode the regime's stability. The Soviet and other examples suggest that the more the subjects of a totalitarian system know and compare themselves to the outside world, the more dissatisfied they become with the existing ideological and tyrannical order. (There's a reason North Korea's population is kept so isolated.)
Changes have already started in Iran: Expectations are "ballooning" for more prosperity and more freedom, reports Saeid Jafari, an Iranian journalist. "With Iran's recent nuclear deal with six world powers, many young Iranians are hoping for better days." And it's not just the youth; "Depending on the strata, there is different emphasis on contentious matters such as foreign investment, Iran's relations with the world and the cultural, social and political atmosphere at home." Also, just about everyone demands a stronger currency.
The regime resists making changes, however. It rejects new political parties and arrests merchants who sell clothing with the American flag; so much for freedom. It maintains a "resistance economy" (meaning a domestic capacity so as to reduce vulnerability to sanctions and not depend on the outside world); so much for consumerism.
President Hassan Rouhani, who is closely associated with the nuclear deal, has tried to head off expectations by warning that the road ahead will be long and painful: "We can import pain killers immediately after the sanctions are removed by spending the unfrozen funds on cheap imports. We can also use our resources for investment in the manufacturing, agriculture, and services sectors. We opt for the latter."
Second, as Stephen Sestanovich of Columbia University argued in a brilliant 1993 articleexplaining the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West's giveaways in the détente process destabilized the Soviet regime, even though these concessions allowed "the realization ofall major Soviet military and diplomatic desiderata" – rather like the Iran deal today. "The infuriatingly inconsistent West turned out to be an opponent that Soviet communism simply could not understand, much less subdue. In the end, the democratic weakness that so many bemoaned may actually have helped to bring victory in reach."
Like the Soviet dictators, their Iranian counterparts may also be undermined by Western inconsistencies and changes. This possibility does not reduce my vehement opposition to the Iran deal but it does add meager hope of long-term benefit, a goal that American, Israeli, Gulf Arab, and other strategists should now exploit to the maximum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
The Two Sides of Pope FrancisHis speech to Congress was spiritual and not pointedly political, which came as a relief.
Pope Francis delivers a speech between US Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House John Boehner on the floor of the House of Representatives in Washington DC, September 24, 2015. PHOTO: JIM LO SCALZO/EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY
The pope I love embraces the hideously deformed man. He sees the modern world for what it is, “a field hospital after battle.” We’re in triage: “The thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds.” This pope calls the woman who wrote him that her lover had left but she was having the baby. He tracked her down on her cellphone. “It’s Francis!” She said he told her he’d baptize the baby. This pope fills my eyes with tears. He loves the poor. He pays his own hotel bill. He had a return ticket home from the conclave because it wouldn’t be him. When he was elected he came out on the balcony and stood awkwardly, like Alec Guinness playing the part of a humble cardinal who, to his shock, had been chosen to lead the greatest institution in history. He stood there blank-faced, not equal to the moment, then saved the moment not by giving his prayer but by asking for prayers.
The pope I love tells comfortable cardinals that they are suffering from “spiritual Alzheimer’s.” Of those working within the church whose orientation is homosexual, he says: “Who am I to judge them if they’re seeking the Lord in good faith?” He instructs priests and bishops to give absolution through confession to the contrite and remorseful who have had abortions. Like most American Catholics I didn’t think he was saying anything new here. But he wanted to make it clear. Good, these things should be made clear.
The Francis I love is against materialism because he knows it is hollow and soul-crushing. He knows wealth and power are a moral hazard. He does not want man reduced to a commodity. He is for the little guy. He opposes the throwaway culture in which the old and the vulnerable are expendable. He wants you to be a saint, not a Scrooge.
He wades into the great spiritual questions. That pope has captured the imagination of the world. Is what he does merely symbolic? Nothing at his level is merely symbolic. He is acting in a Christlike way: His actions are lessons, reminders, intimations. Inspirations. The less lovable pope is—well, and I say this still with love, Uncle Frank in the attic. This is the one who endorses secular political agendas, who castigates capitalism in language that is both imprecise and heavily loaded. He doesn’t, actually, seem to know a lot about capitalism or markets, or even what economic freedom has given—and is giving—his own church. For one small example, the other day Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group gave $40 million to the Catholic schools of New York, meaning he is giving his personal wealth to pay for the education of children, many of whom are recent immigrants and some of whom sleep in cars. Last I looked Mr. Schwarzman was not a monk or a mystic but a businessman in private equity. This is not abusing, ignoring or dehumanizing the poor. This is lifting them up, helping them in a concrete way that will change their lives.
Political Francis seems not spiritual but strangely earthbound, like the pontiff of the Church of What’s Happening Now, a super-groovy pope acting on some antique ideological biases and assumptions.
On Thursday in the Capitol, as Francis made the first-ever speech by a pope to the U.S. Congress, the nature of the historic moment was sharpened by this question: Which Francis would show up—the one who makes me think of Heaven, or the earthbound one?
The speech was spiritual and not pointedly political, which came as a relief. He spoke of America with a certain reserved warmth, but a warmth nonetheless. As rhetoric it was high-class boilerplate, but its messages were useful. I wondered if the recent criticism of his secular political stands had led him to soften or refigure his speech. I wondered: Having just met America for the first time, and experienced all its variety and affection, how is he feeling about America now? I bet it has nothing to do with the cartoon, comic-book, dumbed-down Marxist stereotypes some of his friends and followers peddle.
Highlights of the speech:
The job of lawmakers “is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation.” The “chief aim of all politics” is “the pursuit of the common good.” The four American lives that have most touched him, that most embody the nation’s “dreams,” are Abraham Lincoln, who stood for “liberty”; Martin Luther King, who stood for “liberty . . . and nonexclusion”; Dorothy Day, the activist, who stood for “social justice”; and Thomas Merton, the monk and writer, who stood for “dialogue and openness to God.” These were four interesting choices, especially the last two, who don’t occupy a large place in the public imagination. But Day should be considered for sainthood, and one guesses that under Francis she may be. Merton wrote a spiritual masterpiece, “The Seven Storey Mountain,” that is important to many who experience Catholic conversions. Democracy is “deeply rooted in the mind of the American people.” Politics is “an expression of our compelling need to live as one.” Americans should not be “fearful of foreigners,” because “most of us were once foreigners.” We must respond to immigrants in a way that is “humane, just and fraternal.” We must remember the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
He delightfully took a moment to nod to the creation of wealth: “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world.” (That may have been his way of saying, “Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Schwarzman!”) “It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service. . . . The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts.”
You can believe there are two Francises and still feel an integrated affection and admiration for this man who stands for so much that is good, and tries to encourage the good. Who is in many ways great. Who has filled the world with more than his portion of sweetness, and who has drawn the affection and regard of non-Catholics around the world. He has even made left-wing American Catholics, a grumpy lot, happy. For at least 30 years they were frustrated and depressed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I guess it’s their turn. They were sometimes graceless and grudging toward past popes. I don’t see what conservatives gain by playing that part now. When a much-loved pope comes to visit there’s a kind of moral imperative to good cheer. I close with the words of a New York businessman, a capitalist and Catholic. I asked him Wednesday how he was feeling about Francis. “If he lives he’ll change the world,” he said. For the better? “I think so, hopefully in an aspirational way. Don’t tax me to death helping the less fortunate. Urge me to do good. And I will. And many will. For him.” 4a) Advocates Urge Pope to Help Persecuted Christians (AP)
At the regular briefing for White House reporters on Tuesday, I asked press secretary Josh Earnest whether one of the common interests he said the president and the Pope shared — namely “prioritizing those less fortunate” — included Christians in Syria and Iraq who have been persecuted and if this would come up in their meeting. “I certainly would include in the category of values they share in common is a commitment to religious liberty and certainly standing up for the rights of religious minorities around the world,” Earnest replied, “And we’ve talked a lot about how one of the things, particularly early on in this ISIL campaign, was a concerted effort on the part of the United States military to make sure that we were taking actions to try to protect religious minorities in Iraq. So that has long been a value that President Obama has prioritized.” However, the president’s top spokesman went on to say he didn’t know whether “this is something that will be discussed by the two leaders in the Oval Office or not. But it certainly gives me an opportunity to talk about another value that they share in common.” But the advocates for persecuted Christians with whom I spoke made clear they are hoping for that and more on the part of Pope Francis. “I’m hoping the Pope points out that thousands of Christians are persecuted, denied their fundamental rights, and killed because of their faith [in the Middle East],” George Marlin, chairman of Aid to the Church in Need USA, told me. Marlin, who has written a much-praised book on the subject of Christian persecution in the Middle East, emphasized that “someone has to bang pots and pans on this issue. The Administration is not doing it. The national media is not doing it. If the Pope brings this up, it makes front-page news worldwide.” Former Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.,, a senior fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Institute and longtime champion of people persecuted for their religious beliefs, told me that “what is happening to Christians in the Middle East is clearly genocide. Pope Francis has already said ‘a form of genocide is taking place and it must end’ [during his trip to Bolivia on July 9, 2015]. “If he uses the word ‘genocide’ in his address to Congress to describe what is happening to Christians in Iraq and Syria and to the Yazidis [another Iraqi-based religious group targeted for extinction by ISIS], it is a total game-changer. It will almost certainly force a resolution in Congress condemning anyone who aids ISIS as assisting genocide.” Wolf, who served in Congress from 1980-2014, recalled how after returning from a trip to Darfur in 2004, he Gov. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., who was a senator at the time, co-authored a resolution branding the conflict there as genocide “and this focused the world’s attention on Darfur and its refugees.” “This administration has been terrible in dealing with the plight of Christians in Iraq,” the former congressman added, noting how Christians he met in Northern Iraq consider the U.S. consulate there “not friendly” and how a Dominican nun in Iraq named Sister Diana Momeka could not get a visa to testify before Congress about ISIS’ assault on religious minorities until a prominent rabbi intervened on her behalf. Wolf’s call for the Pope to address what is happening to Christians in the Middle East in his remarks to Congress and call it “genocide” was strongly echoed by Juliana Taimoorazy, founder of the Iraqi Christian Relief Council. “If Pope Francis calls it genocide before Congress, there will be a moral clarity added to this issue and it will bring a new ray of hope to persecuted Christians,” said Taimoorazy, herself a refugees from Iran who came to the U.S. in 1991, “The whole world will now be paying attention.” In underscoring why the Pope must use the word “genocide,” she cited the fact that the Assyrian Christian population in the Middle East was 1.6 million prior to 2003 and “now we only have 300,000.” Taimoorazy also voiced strong agreement with Marlin and Wolf that the Obama administration is not doing enough on this issue. The president did condemn the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by ISIS-affiliated terrorists in February, but, she said, “his official statement referred to them as ‘Egyptian citizens’ and not ‘Christians’ because he did not want to upset the Muslim world. Enough is enough.” John Gizzi is chief political columnist and White House correspondent for Newsmax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
5)
US offer of anti-Iran bomb lands as a dud in Israel
Talk is heating up in Congress and the Pentagon about whether to share America’s massive new bunker-busting bomb as a warning to Iran, but Israel remains cool to the idea.
Theproposal is expected to come up during next month’s visit to Washington by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon as well as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Nov. 9 meeting at the White House. Interviews with current and former top-ranking Israeli military officials, however, suggest a distinct lack of enthusiasm for a cumbersome super-weapon of dubious military value.
“This idea is irrelevant for Israel,” a senior Israeli officer told Al-Monitor. “It is way beyond our means [and] not worth the means, money and effort. We are not capable of maintaining and sustaining it.”
Israeli military experts and former officials are equally skeptical.
They point out that Israel does not possess the heavy bombers — B-2s or B-52s — required to deliver the 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or GBU-57. And they say only one air base, Nevatim, has runways that could conceivably be upgraded to handle such flights.
Israeli experts also warn that the tiny country would have to invest a fortune in related infrastructure — simulators, training, facilities, mechanical systems and experts — to handle such weapons. They argue that Israel came close to buying a dozen V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor troop transports last year before putting the $800 million deal on ice after weighing all the associated costs.
Instead, Israel is believed to be focused on acquiring one more squadron of F-15 and F-35 fighter jets, Tomahawk cruise missiles and a bump in annual US military aid from $3 billion to $5 billion as part of upcoming negotiations over a new 10-year Memorandum of Understanding when the current one expires in 2017.
Despite those reservations, the Israeli air force is not expected to pass up out-of-hand the chance to get its hands on powerful new toys. Others say they like the political message that would be sent if the United States demonstrated that it was conserving its military options against Iran in deeds rather than words.
And at least one former Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff likes the idea.
The former top military official told Al-Monitor that the delivery of the massive bombs — and the US aircraft to fly them — would mean an actual US military presence in Israel, sending a strong signal not only to Tehran but to the Russians as well as they increase their military presence in Syria. With US assistance, the former official said, there’s no reason why Israel couldn’t build the necessary infrastructure for the weapons.
The idea of sharing the bunker-busters with Israel has been bandied about for the past several years, ever since the Pentagon declared them ready for action two years ago. The bombs are seen as a logical addition to the Israeli arsenal because of their alleged ability to destroy Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear site at Fordow — the very mission for which they were designed.
The idea has gained traction since the signing of the international nuclear deal with Iran as a high-visibility way to deter Tehran from racing toward industrial-scale enrichment once much of the agreement’s restrictions are lifted in 15 years. Dennis Ross, President Barack Obama’s former Middle East adviser, in particular has been pushing the idea in meetings with Israeli and US officials.
“In my mind it was a way to make a statement that when we say we're not going to allow them to become a nuclear-weapons state, we mean it,” Ross told Al-Monitor. “And when we talk about some kind of firewall between threshold and nuclear status, we mean it not only in terms of our words but we're underpinning our words with an action that makes it clear these words should be taken deadly seriously.”
Ross said he’s found a receptive audience on Capitol Hill, notably among Democrats who don’t like that many of the restrictions on Iran would eventually expire but are eager to try to make the deal work.
"I think there's more interest there,” Ross said. “And not surprisingly. For those who have come out in favor of the [deal] but are concerned about some of its vulnerabilities, it's not surprising that they tend to be more enthusiastic about this."
One of those interlocutors in the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations panel, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. An early draft of Iran-related legislation currently being worked on by Cardin would authorize the president to provide the massive bombs to Israel “and the means to deploy them.”
A Cardin spokeswoman however cautioned that the bill is still being modified.
“Senator Cardin believes it is premature to be talking about specific weapon systems that may be part of an enhanced regional security strategy,” said Sue Walitsky. “His proposal, as it will be introduced, allows more flexibility on what might be appropriate as the situation on the ground develops.”
Critics of the deal say Democrats are just looking for cover wherever they can find it. They argue the bunker-buster idea is meant to make the nuclear agreement more palatable but is not realistic.
“There's no evidence that the US is going to deliver bunker busters. If they delivered them, there's no evidence the Israelis could use them. If the Israelis could use them, there's no evidence that they would want to, given other logistical constraints,” said a senior official at a pro-Israel organization opposed to the Iran deal. “It's a simple cost-benefit analysis. The Israelis, to say nothing of the Americans, can already eliminate most of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, since with only two exceptions it's all above ground. The Israelis may not want to drag bunker busters across the entire Middle East for just another two facilities.”
Ross said he’s also talked to officials at the State and Defense departments, where the reception has been mixed.
“Within the Pentagon, some of the reaction I've had has actually been more favorable,” Ross said. “At the State Department I've had some reactions that were less favorable; I've had one person say to me, 'We don't contract out our foreign policy.'”
“I think there's an actual debate within the administration over the efficacy of this,” he added. “There hasn't been a reluctance to talk to me about it."
A Pentagon spokesman declined to elaborate.
“We are ready to discuss a full range of capabilities with our Israeli partners in the context of our ongoing and unprecedented military cooperation,” said Maj. Roger Cabiness, “but we will not discuss those capabilities publicly.”
Critics in the arms control community, meanwhile, have raised concerns that providing the strategic bombers necessary to carry the massive bombs to Israel could violate America’s New START treaty with Russia. Ross told Al-Monitor there are probably ways around those restrictions.
“You'd have to look at what might be done to avoid it being inconsistent with [New START]. If we retain ownership of it if it becomes a lease or a loan? If it's not carrying nuclear weapons but it carries conventional weapons? I think there are ways to deal with that issue."
Ben Caspit contributed to this story from Israel
5a)
Putin Is on a Syria Roll
His arms gambit wins a meeting with Obama in New York. Oh-oh.
Vladimir Putin’s Syria strategy is working better than perhaps even he had hoped. The Russian arms flowing into the Latakia military base in western Syria are already propping up his ally Bashar Assad’s teetering government. Now they’re ending the Russian President’s diplomatic isolation, as President Obama agreed Thursday to meet with him next week during the U.N. General Assembly in New York.
“Given the situations in Ukraine and Syria, despite our profound differences with Moscow, the President believes that it would be irresponsible not to test whether we can make progress through high-level engagement with the Russians,” a senior administration official said on Thursday. Translation: Russia is blowing up Mr. Obama’s Syria and Iraq strategy, and he’d better see what the Kremlin strongman wants.
Two weeks ago Mr. Obama dismissed Russia’s Syria incursion as “doomed to failure.” Now Mr. Putin knows he can use the military facts he has established on the ground as leverage to make further strategic gains.
Imagine his potential wish list. Perhaps he’ll ask Mr. Obama to join Russia and Iran in an alliance against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. He already pulled a version of this in 2013 when he rescued Mr. Obama from his “red line” over Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons use. That deal made it safe for Mr. Assad to unleash his barrel bombs without fear of U.S. attack. A similar deal now would further assist Mr. Assad while dismaying Arab members of Mr. Obama’s current coalition against ISIS and putting Iraq’s Sunni minority further under the thumb of Iran.
If Mr. Obama won’t go that far, perhaps Mr. Putin will settle for the U.S. rolling back the sanctions it imposed on Russia after his Ukraine incursions. Rest assured Mr. Putin wants something—and he thinks he can get it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment