Bernie Sander's Attack On Capitalism! He should
convert and stay in Italy and become the Vatican's
bookkeeper.
===
Have voters finally reached their boiling point and are they ready to cast their vote for a neophyte who seems to project his own inadequacies by employing a brilliant defense mechanism. How? By going on a shifting offensive strategy?
Trump's message aligns himself with a theft and many Americans feel they have been cheated and are ticked, very ticked. Otherwise why Trump? (See 1 below.)
Kim makes the point I have been making as she reports on the response by CEO's to Bernie's politically inspired attacks. (See 1a below.)
Though I graduated from law school, I never practiced. Rather, I chose to become a stock broker and though I never physically went to Wall Street my entire business career involved Wall Street. I share Rosenberg's sentiments.
Those who attack Wall Street and Capitalism will always find abuse as is the case with any profession and/or trade.
Ignorance and radical misplaced thinking afflicts the Bernie's of the world but they are gaining credibility because of the increased stupidity of their audiences and because government causes so many of the problems Wall Street must respond to yet, politicians cleverly duck any causal attachment.
No economic system but Capitalism could sustain the wasteful burden and cost of our bloated bureaucracy. So when you attack Wall Street and seek to supplant free and competitive markets by seeking to replace them with Socialism you either are a failed student of history or have evil intentions. Bernie Sanders is a dangerous fool. (See 1b below.)
===
How can you have a successful partnership with a person who hates you and does not accept your existence or right to exist? Obama can because the destruction of Israel is part of his and the PLO's long term agenda. If that is not the case then explain his allowing Iran to go nuclear. This is the same Iran that is preparing and threatening to annihilate Israel and eventually America.
As for the leaders of the PLO they enrich themselves with a continuing flow of money from The West by remaining obdurate. (See 2 below.)
===
Gate's conclusion is exactly what I fear about Hillarious and could apply to Trump. (See 3 below.)
Meanwhile, Hanson discusses why I believe anyone who seeks the presidency is probably insane and particularly so after Obama. Why? Because that person is going to spend their entire time visiting pain and sweeping up the crushing mess. No one likes the bearer of reality who must visit pain. (See 3a below)
===
My first date with Lynn was on April 15, 45 years ago!
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Let Me Ask America a Question
How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder voters demand change.
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES/BLEND IMAGES
By
On Saturday, April 9, Colorado had an “election” without voters. Delegates were chosen
on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the people of Colorado were not able to cast their
ballots to say which nominee they preferred.
A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in Colorado were
sidelined.
In recent days, something all too predictable has happened: Politicians furiously defended
the system. “These are the rules,” we were told over and over again. If the “rules” can be
used to block Coloradans from voting on whether they want better trade deals, or stronger
borders, or an end to special-interest vote-buying in Congress—well, that’s just the system and we should embrace it.
Let me ask America a question: How has the “system” been working out for you and your
family?
I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has served the interest
of political parties at the expense of the people. Members of the club—the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians, the pundits and the special interests—grow rich and powerful
while the American people grow poorer and more isolated.
No one forced anyone to cancel the vote in Colorado. Political insiders made a choice to
cancel it. And it was the wrong choice.
Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel
elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide.
The only antidote to decades of ruinous rule by a small handful of elites is a bold infusion
of popular will. On every major issue affecting this country, the people are right and the
governing elite are wrong. The elites are wrong on taxes, on the size of government, on
trade, on immigration, on foreign policy.
Why should we trust the people who have made every wrong decision to substitute their
will for America’s will in this presidential election?
Here, I part ways with Sen. Ted Cruz.
Mr. Cruz has toured the country bragging about his voterless victory in Colorado. For a
man who styles himself as a warrior against the establishment (you wouldn’t know it from
his list of donors and endorsers), you’d think he would be demanding a vote for
Coloradans. Instead, Mr. Cruz is celebrating their disenfranchisement.
Likewise, Mr. Cruz loudly boasts every time party insiders disenfranchise voters in a congressional district by appointing delegates who will vote the opposite of the expressed
will of the people who live in that district.
That’s because Mr. Cruz has no democratic path to the nomination. He has been
mathematically eliminated by the voters.
While I am self-funding, Mr. Cruz rakes in millions from special interests. Yet despite his
financial advantage, Mr. Cruz has won only three primaries outside his home state and
trails me by two million votes—a gap that will soon explode even wider. Mr. Cruz loses
when people actually get to cast ballots. Voter disenfranchisement is not merely part of the Cruz strategy—it is the Cruz strategy.
The great irony of this campaign is that the “Washington cartel” that Mr. Cruz rails against is the very group he is relying upon in his voter-nullification scheme.
My campaign strategy is to win with the voters. Ted Cruz’s campaign strategy is to win
despite them.
What we are seeing now is not a proper use of the rules, but a flagrant abuse of the rules. Delegates are supposed to reflect the decisions of voters, but the system is being rigged by
party operatives with “double-agent” delegates who reject the decision of voters.
The American people can have no faith in such a system. It must be reformed.
Just as I have said that I will reform our unfair trade, immigration and economic policies
that have also been rigged against Americans, so too will I work closely with the
chairman of the Republican National Committee and top GOP officials to reform our
election policies. Together, we will restore the faith—and the franchise—of the American
people.
We must leave no doubt that voters, not donors, choose the nominee.
How have we gotten to the point where politicians defend a rigged delegate-selection
process with more passion than they have ever defended America’s borders?
Perhaps it is because politicians care more about securing their private club than about
securing their country.
My campaign will, of course, battle for every last delegate. We will work within the
system that exists now, while fighting to have it reformed in the future. But we will do it
the right way. My campaign will seek maximum transparency, maximum representation
and maximum voter participation.
We will run a campaign based on empowering voters, not sidelining them.
Let us take inspiration from patriotic Colorado citizens who have banded together in
protest. Let us make Colorado a rallying cry on behalf of all the forgotten people whose
desperate pleas have for decades fallen on the deaf ears and closed eyes of our rulers in Washington, D.C.
The political insiders have had their way for a long time. Let 2016 be remembered as the
year the American people finally got theirs.
1a)Bernie’s Spinal Surgery on CEOs
A few firms are finally standing up to defend themselves from the left’s nonstop attacks.
General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt. PHOTO: BLOOMBERG NEWS
Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam is receiving hosannas for his take down Wednesday of
Bernie Sanders, in which he rapped the presidential candidate’s views on corporate
America as “uninformed,” “contemptible,” and “wrong”—among other things. He’d be
worthy of even more praise had he also applied those words to the “Not I” business
community that helped create this moment.
Mr. McAdam is right that Mr. Sanders is wrong. American businesses aren’t immoral.
They create jobs, prosperity, investment and tax revenue. They are the essence and the requirement of a democracy. Far from an immoral system, U.S. capitalism is the wonder
and envy of the world. The greater wonder is that it remains so, despite the pusillanimous
behavior of its most prominent representatives.
It has been many a year since corporate America could claim to have an intact spinal
system, though its retreat into nervelessness has accelerated over the past decade. We’ve
reached a moment at which Mr. Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren can daily
tar companies as the villains of the world, and receive applause from voters both left and
right. Blame it on the great recession; blame it on a litigious environment; blame it on
President Obama. But mostly blame it on the companies themselves. When asked time
and again who among them would stand up for the American way, they mumbled “Not I.”
Electric) that rushed to curry favor with the green left, forming the Climate Action
Partnership in 2007 in hopes of rigging any coming carbon caps in its favor. It’s the
Chamber of Commerce questioned President Obama’s plan to impose a climate program
market American Legislative Exchange Council when that group came under fire from environmental activists. Who will stand up for low-cost energy, or consumers, or
principle? “Not I.”
It’s the corporate America ( Pfizer, the American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans) that sold out health care to the Obama administration, each company and
trade organization hoping to cut its own special deal. It’s the Solyndras and Fisker
Automotives and A123 Systems that sucked up stimulus money and left taxpayers with
the bill. It’s the Boeings and Caterpillars that insist on subsidies from the Export-Import
Bank. It’s the car companies that folded to higher mileage standards, the Internet
companies that folded to net neutrality, the agribusinesses that finagled expensive ethanol mandates, and the big retailers that push for Internet taxation to hobble smaller competitors. Who will stand up for free markets? “Not I.”
True, trade groups are often to be found in the trenches of Congress, fighting the worst
regulations or bills, maybe even running a TV ad or two. Then again, trade groups are also convenient places for CEOs to hide their policy efforts, a way of outsourcing the dirty job
to an acronym.
Who was the last prominent CEO to go on an extended public riff about the evils of Dodd-
Frank, or the ridiculousness of the “equal pay” debate, or the nonsense that is Obama
energy policy? “Not I, not I, not I.”
These are the companies that play the 55-45 game, dividing their political giving nearly
equally between the party that supports their free-market interests and the party that
routinely refers them to the Justice Department. Some firms—particularly in finance—
believe it is better to try to buy off the enemy with contributions (beat us only gently,
please) than to draw criticism for supporting a free-market candidate.
So today, on the stump, Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton routinely call for the jailing of
executives. Bernie pitches single-payer health care as a fix to ObamaCare. Hillary calls for expanding paid vacation and maternity leave. Both candidates want to double regulations
on Wall Street, hike taxes, raise the minimum wage, increase union payoffs, and make
energy unaffordable. They brand companies that do business overseas as traitors and
sellouts.
Mr. McAdam is now speaking out. He follows General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who
recently refuted Mr. Sanders’s assertion that companies are “destroying the moral fabric of
this country.” Exxon Mobil this week filed in state court a forceful rejoinder to the state
attorneys general who are pursuing the bogus claim that the oil company suppressed
climate science. This is all positive movement, though it comes only at extreme moments.
The usual business behavior is to sit quiet, while expecting the free-market activists and congressmen (their Little Red Hens) to step up and defend them in proxy fights, or
Congress, or the public sphere.
Businesses have long justified this by noting that capitalism is rooted in self-interest, and
that corporations are simply pursuing that interest when they dodge fights or engage in
crony capitalism. But there’s short-term self-interest and long-term self-interest. The long-
term is now here, in the form of Bernie Sanders.
1b)The Wall Street I Have Known
ENLARGE
The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is based on the argument that such
a move would mean giving up the "right of return" for millions of "refugees" into Israel. This
refusal is also based on the continued denial of any historic Jewish connection to the land.
The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is one of the main obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Settlement construction complaints are nothing more than a Palestinian Authority smokescreen.
Why, in fact, do the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state?
for this rejection."
On another occasion that same year, Abbas stated: "No one can force us to recognize Israel as
Jewish state. If they [Israel] want, they can go to the UN and ask to change their name to
whatever they want -- even if they want to be called The Jewish Zionist State." Again, Abbas
failed to explain the vehement Palestinian opposition to this demand.
Palestinian leadership endorses her views.
In her article, Al-Husseini points out that the U.S. supports the Israeli condition, which she
described as a "crippling demand."
There is indeed a betrayal going on, but it is not being perpetrated by Israel. First, by reprinting Al-Husseini's article, the PA has "betrayed" the fact that it has appointed itself custodian of the Arab citizens of Israel.
It is as if Bahloul and the other Arab Knesset members have solved all the problems of the Arab community inside Israel and all that is left is to make sure that no one calls a Palestinian stabber
a terrorist. Needless to say, this issue does not top the agenda of the Arab citizens of Israel.
3) Sage Advice From a Foreign Policy Veteran
3a)The Next President Is Going to Be Hated
1b)The Wall Street I Have Known
Bernie Sanders should ask people like me—refugees from
collectivist paradises—about income inequality.
collectivist paradises—about income inequality.
The New York Stock Exchange, George Washington statue in the foreground. PHOTO:GETTY IMAGES/CORBIS DOCUMENTARY
By JOE ROSENBERG
It takes an immigrant like me to parse the poison that Bernie Sanders is peddling to the
naive youth of this country. It takes someone who has experienced socialism’s failures
firsthand—as
naive youth of this country. It takes someone who has experienced socialism’s failures
firsthand—as
I did, initially as a small child, later as a young adult—to see why Sen. Sanders is
succeeding:
succeeding:
We elders, immigrants and native-born alike, have failed to teach our children and
grandchildren about the economic history and false promises of the myriad forms of
socialism
socialism
that infest our world.
More than 75 years ago, I landed at Ellis Island as a 6-year-old child. My family had fled
the despotism of National Socialism that had been foisted onto the gullible (albeit literate)
German people. We were far from the only victims of collectivism. As all of us know but
some refuse to admit, collectivism destroyed the economies of places like China, Russia
and Cuba, and ruined the lives of millions of people.
the despotism of National Socialism that had been foisted onto the gullible (albeit literate)
German people. We were far from the only victims of collectivism. As all of us know but
some refuse to admit, collectivism destroyed the economies of places like China, Russia
and Cuba, and ruined the lives of millions of people.
Nine years after I arrived in America, the new state of Israel came into existence, making
Jews like me both proud and curious. When I was 18, imbued with idealistic fervor, I
decided to help the young nation grow and prosper by working the soil. Off I went to
further the goals of social justice by joining a kibbutz, or communal farm. There the
painful reality of the maxim Karl
Jews like me both proud and curious. When I was 18, imbued with idealistic fervor, I
decided to help the young nation grow and prosper by working the soil. Off I went to
further the goals of social justice by joining a kibbutz, or communal farm. There the
painful reality of the maxim Karl
Marx popularized, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” hit
home.
home.
As an example of kibbutz ideology: Does it make sense for a person running the washing machines in the laundry to be receiving exactly the same pay and living benefits as
someone who might be the community doctor after going to medical school? That may
sound like an extreme example, but the same principles apply throughout the economic
structure of a collectivist economy. Unlike Chinese or Russian collectivism, Israel’s was
voluntary—but insane nonetheless.
someone who might be the community doctor after going to medical school? That may
sound like an extreme example, but the same principles apply throughout the economic
structure of a collectivist economy. Unlike Chinese or Russian collectivism, Israel’s was
voluntary—but insane nonetheless.
I left Israel three years later, in 1954, because I was an American citizen and the time had
come for me to serve my country. I was drafted and inducted into the U.S. Army. After
two years of active duty, stationed back in my native Germany, I realized that my future
lay in the capitalist U.S., not in Israel.
come for me to serve my country. I was drafted and inducted into the U.S. Army. After
two years of active duty, stationed back in my native Germany, I realized that my future
lay in the capitalist U.S., not in Israel.
I came to see that I needed a college degree to get ahead in the competitive society of my
home country. Because I had to work during the day to support myself and my family, I
attended classes in the evening, taking eight years to get a bachelor’s degree in finance
and an M.B.A. While going to night school, I got my first Wall Street job.
home country. Because I had to work during the day to support myself and my family, I
attended classes in the evening, taking eight years to get a bachelor’s degree in finance
and an M.B.A. While going to night school, I got my first Wall Street job.
My Wall Street is the real Wall Street—not the imaginary one that Bernie Sanders
demonizes daily. My Wall Street is a place filled with opportunities to succeed, even for an immigrant like me without any connections or relatives in the business. Here, I could
reach the pinnacle of my profession based on merit.
demonizes daily. My Wall Street is a place filled with opportunities to succeed, even for an immigrant like me without any connections or relatives in the business. Here, I could
reach the pinnacle of my profession based on merit.
Unlike a certain politically ambitious Brooklynite-turned-Vermonter, I did not have to
denigrate others to advance my career. To the contrary, I found wonderful mentors who
were happy to reward me for hard work. Much of the job was difficult and far from fun.
But I rose—and occasionally fell a bit—based on what I produced, not how many people
I could get to toe some party line.
denigrate others to advance my career. To the contrary, I found wonderful mentors who
were happy to reward me for hard work. Much of the job was difficult and far from fun.
But I rose—and occasionally fell a bit—based on what I produced, not how many people
I could get to toe some party line.
My experience is far from unique. I have many colleagues who left supposed paradises,
socialist countries like China, Russia and Greece, and now strive to succeed on Wall Street. They’re seeking not a handout but a piece of the American Dream, just as I did. When I
entered the business Wall Street was a far clubbier place than today. It has increasingly
become a meritocracy open to people of every background.
socialist countries like China, Russia and Greece, and now strive to succeed on Wall Street. They’re seeking not a handout but a piece of the American Dream, just as I did. When I
entered the business Wall Street was a far clubbier place than today. It has increasingly
become a meritocracy open to people of every background.
Sen. Sanders ought to ask some of the immigrants who work on Wall Street what they
think about the opportunities that this country affords, rather than going to college
campuses and attacking the financial industry to further his own political ends. He should
ask some recent immigrants from India and the emerging world what the true meaning of
income inequality is.
think about the opportunities that this country affords, rather than going to college
campuses and attacking the financial industry to further his own political ends. He should
ask some recent immigrants from India and the emerging world what the true meaning of
income inequality is.
Bernie Sanders and I are poster children for what poor Jews from Brooklyn or Germany
can accomplish in this great land of opportunity. So I ask him: Please stop tearing down the country that has been so good to both of us.
can accomplish in this great land of opportunity. So I ask him: Please stop tearing down the country that has been so good to both of us.
Mr. Rosenberg has worked on Wall Street for more than 50 years, most of that time at Loews Corp., where he is now the chief investment strategist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Palestinians: We Will Not Accept a Jewish Israel
- The obsession with settlements is certain to divert attention from core issues, such as Palestinian recognition of a Jewish Israel. Many Palestinians continue to regard Israel as one big settlement that needs to be removed from the Middle East.
- Even those who say they have accepted the two-state solution are not prepared to recognize any Jewish link to or history in the land.
- In the view of Al-Husseini, Palestinians refuse to acknowledge a Jewish state because they believe this would grant legitimacy to "Jews' rights to the land of Palestine" and undermine the Palestinian demand for the "right of return" for millions of refugees into Israel.
- Israeli Arab leaders are betraying their constituencies by privileging the perceived interests of Palestinian Arabs, while Palestinian Arab leaders are betraying their constituencies by denying any link between Jews and the land. This stance makes peace a non-starter.
Israel as a Jewish state remains anathema to the Palestinian community. This is a top-down
attitude, communicated on a constant basis by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud
Abbas.
attitude, communicated on a constant basis by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud
Abbas.
The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is based on the argument that such
a move would mean giving up the "right of return" for millions of "refugees" into Israel. This
refusal is also based on the continued denial of any historic Jewish connection to the land.
In recent weeks, the PA president has once again reiterated his strong opposition to recognizing
Israel as a Jewish state.
Israel as a Jewish state.
The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is one of the main obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Settlement construction complaints are nothing more than a Palestinian Authority smokescreen.
There is much talk these days about the Palestinian Authority's intention to ask the United Nations Security Council to issue a resolution condemning Israel for construction in the settlements. It is
not yet clear whether the PA will carry out its threat. What is clear, however, is that this obsession with the settlements is certain to divert attention from core issues, such as Palestinian recognition of a Jewish Israel. Many Palestinians continue to regard Israel as one big settlement that needs to be removed from the Middle East.
not yet clear whether the PA will carry out its threat. What is clear, however, is that this obsession with the settlements is certain to divert attention from core issues, such as Palestinian recognition of a Jewish Israel. Many Palestinians continue to regard Israel as one big settlement that needs to be removed from the Middle East.
Why, in fact, do the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state?
Abbas has consistently failed to state his reasons for his total rejection of Israel as a Jewish state. In January 2014, the PA president declared:
we say that we won't recognize or accept the Jewishness of Israel and we have many reasons"The Palestinians won't recognize the Jewishness of the State of Israel and won't accept it The Israelis say that if we don't recognize the Jewishness of Israel there would be no solution. An
for this rejection."
On another occasion that same year, Abbas stated: "No one can force us to recognize Israel as
Jewish state. If they [Israel] want, they can go to the UN and ask to change their name to
whatever they want -- even if they want to be called The Jewish Zionist State." Again, Abbas
failed to explain the vehement Palestinian opposition to this demand.
(Image source: Palestinian Media Watch)
|
The Palestinian Authority's chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, has shed some light on the matter.
"We have already recognized Israel's existence on the 1948 borders of Occupied Palestine," Erekat explained. He added that he made it clear to former Israeli Foreign Minister Tipi Livni
during a meeting in Munich that the Palestinians "won't change their history and religion and
culture by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state."
"We have already recognized Israel's existence on the 1948 borders of Occupied Palestine," Erekat explained. He added that he made it clear to former Israeli Foreign Minister Tipi Livni
during a meeting in Munich that the Palestinians "won't change their history and religion and
culture by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state."
While Palestinian leaders have been rather reluctant to elaborate on the reasons behind their rejectionism, other Palestinians have been more generous about the issue.
One of these is Palestinian political scientist Dr. Saniyeh Al-Husseini, who recently published an article titled, "Why Palestinians Refuse to Accept the Jewishness of the State of Israel." The
article was reprinted by the Palestinian Authority's official news agency, WAFA -- a definite sign
that the
article was reprinted by the Palestinian Authority's official news agency, WAFA -- a definite sign
that the
Palestinian leadership endorses her views.
In her article, Al-Husseini points out that the U.S. supports the Israeli condition, which she
described as a "crippling demand."
The article warns that "accepting the Jewishness of Israel means relinquishing all the Palestinian
rights to the Palestinian lands, including the lands that were occupied in 1967." According to Al-Husseini, there are two main reasons that Palestinians are opposed to this demand. The first
has to do with the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to their former villages and homes
inside Israel; the second is related to the status of Israel's Arab citizens.
rights to the Palestinian lands, including the lands that were occupied in 1967." According to Al-Husseini, there are two main reasons that Palestinians are opposed to this demand. The first
has to do with the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to their former villages and homes
inside Israel; the second is related to the status of Israel's Arab citizens.
Referring to the first of these, Al-Husseini writes:
"Palestinian acceptance of the Israeli narrative would deny any Palestinian right on the land of Palestine and give justification to Israel's wars against the Palestinians. Palestinin recognition of the Jewishness of Israel means accepting the Israeli narrative regarding the Jews' right to the
land of Palestine and exempts Israel from bearing responsibility for the moral and legal consequences of all its crimes against the Palestinians."
In the view of Al-Husseini, then, Palestinians refuse to acknowledge a Jewish state because they believe that this would grant legitimacy to "Jews' rights to the land of Palestine" and undermine
the Palestinian demand for the "right of return" for millions of refugees into Israel.
the Palestinian demand for the "right of return" for millions of refugees into Israel.
Let us take a moment to clarify this: the Palestinian Authority wants a Palestinian state next to
Israel while at the same time flooding Israel with millions of refugees. That, of course, is
something to which no Israeli government could ever agree. Even more crucial is the Palestinian
refusal to recognize a Jewish right to the land. Such denial is a longstanding pillar of the official Palestinian narrative. Even those who say they have accepted the two-state solution are not
prepared to recognize any Jewish link to or history in the land.
Israel while at the same time flooding Israel with millions of refugees. That, of course, is
something to which no Israeli government could ever agree. Even more crucial is the Palestinian
refusal to recognize a Jewish right to the land. Such denial is a longstanding pillar of the official Palestinian narrative. Even those who say they have accepted the two-state solution are not
prepared to recognize any Jewish link to or history in the land.
The second reason, that which concerns the Arab citizens of Israel, is similarly telling. According
to Al-Husseini, Israel's ultimate goal, as "betrayed" by this demand, is to rid itself of its Arab
citizens.
to Al-Husseini, Israel's ultimate goal, as "betrayed" by this demand, is to rid itself of its Arab
citizens.
There is indeed a betrayal going on, but it is not being perpetrated by Israel. First, by reprinting Al-Husseini's article, the PA has "betrayed" the fact that it has appointed itself custodian of the Arab citizens of Israel.
As Israel is a democracy -- unlike the dictatorial Palestinian regimes -- Israel's Arab citizens have
their own leaders and representatives in Israel's Knesset. The last thing they need is for the
Palestinian Authority or Hamas or any other Palestinian faction to meddle in their internal affairs.
their own leaders and representatives in Israel's Knesset. The last thing they need is for the
Palestinian Authority or Hamas or any other Palestinian faction to meddle in their internal affairs.
But the betrayal continues. The Arab citizens of Israel are represented by leaders, including some Knesset members, who are so preoccupied with the Palestinians living in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip that they have forgotten who their real constituents are.
Gaza Strip that they have forgotten who their real constituents are.
Just consider MK Zouheir Bahloul, who spends valuable time re-defining the word "terrorist."
Bahloul, a member of the Labor Party, seems to be enjoying the public outcry he created recently
when he declared that a Palestinian who tried to stab IDF soldiers in Hebron last month is not a terrorist.
Bahloul, a member of the Labor Party, seems to be enjoying the public outcry he created recently
when he declared that a Palestinian who tried to stab IDF soldiers in Hebron last month is not a terrorist.
It is as if Bahloul and the other Arab Knesset members have solved all the problems of the Arab community inside Israel and all that is left is to make sure that no one calls a Palestinian stabber
a terrorist. Needless to say, this issue does not top the agenda of the Arab citizens of Israel.
The betrayal thus runs wide and deep. Israeli Arab leaders are betraying their constituencies by privileging the perceived interests of Palestinian Arabs, while Palestinian Arab leaders are betraying their constituencies by continuing to deny any link between Jews and the land. This is a stance that makes peace a non-starter in the Middle East. When the international community is presented with settlement complaints and the like, it might wish to ponder these small but critical points.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.
3) Sage Advice From a Foreign Policy Veteran
WASHINGTON -- Bob Gates has unusual standing in the debate about the Obama administration's foreign policy: He was defense secretary both for a hawkish President
George W. Bush and then a wary President Obama. He understood Bush's desire to
project power and Obama's skepticism.
George W. Bush and then a wary President Obama. He understood Bush's desire to
project power and Obama's skepticism.
Gates characteristically finds a middle ground in the argument that has been swirling
since Jeffrey Goldberg's Atlantic magazine article examining Obama's reluctance to use military force in Syria and the broader Middle East. Borrowing the famous quip about
Richard Wagner's music, Gates said Obama's foreign policy "is not as bad as it sounds.
since Jeffrey Goldberg's Atlantic magazine article examining Obama's reluctance to use military force in Syria and the broader Middle East. Borrowing the famous quip about
Richard Wagner's music, Gates said Obama's foreign policy "is not as bad as it sounds.
It's the way it comes out that diminishes its effectiveness."
"The way things get done communicates reluctance to assert American power," Gates explained in an interview Wednesday. "They often end up in the right place, but a day
late and a dollar short. The decisions are made seriatim. It presents an image that he's
being dragged kicking and screaming to each new stage, and it dilutes the
implementation of what he's done."
Gates criticized the current National Security Council's implementation of policy,
arguing that "micromanagement" by a very large NSC staff undercut Obama's efforts to
use power against the Islamic State or contain China in the South China Sea. "It
becomes so incremental that the message is lost. It makes them look reluctant," he said.
Gates' criticism of the NSC is noteworthy because he served as deputy to national
security adviser Brent Scowcroft in President George H.W. Bush's NSC, which Obama
has cited as a model for how policy should be managed. By that standard, Gates
implied, the current NSC team, led by Susan Rice, needs to lift its game.
Gates credited Obama for moving toward better-calibrated policies that would send a
stronger message, such as greater use of Special Operations Forces on the ground in
Syria and Iraq, and more aggressive moves to assert freedom of navigation in the Pacific. "You don't need major threats or force projection but a clearer desire to show we can act with
force" when necessary, he said.
Gates' comments come as Obama is about to travel to Europe and the Middle East to
meet with allies who have become increasingly critical of his policies. His tone was
more that of a feisty, frustrated uncle than a bitter foe. Gates said he still talks to Obama occasionally, but he declined to elaborate.
The interview with Gates followed a speech he gave the previous night in which he
parsed the long-standing dispute over whether "realism" or "idealism" should govern
American foreign policy. A wise strategy has a measure of both, Gates told the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"It is neither hypocrisy nor cynicism to believe fervently in freedom while adopting
different approaches to advancing freedom at different times along the way -- including temporarily making common cause with despots to defeat greater or more urgent threats,"
he said in his speech.
Gates offered examples of the realpolitik he practiced as a CIA director and NSC official. He said CIA covert action was very useful in the later years of the Cold War -- for example,
by smuggling into Russia hundreds of thousands of copies of "The Gulag Archipelago"
by dissident writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
As the Cold War endgame approached in 1989, Gates recalled, he commissioned a
special NSC group to begin contingency planning for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That study convinced policymakers that a strong central government in Moscow would be needed after the fall of communism to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Gates argued that similar strategic clarity is needed now in dealing with the Islamic State. The administration needs to decide its "desired end state" in Iraq and Syria and then drive
policy toward that goal: "Are we still proponents of a unitary Iraqi state or something
more federal? Do we want an integral state in Syria, or do we send everyone back to their home base? ... We don't know what we want."
As an example of visionary leadership, Gates cited President Franklin D. Roosevelt's
move in 1944, when World War II was still raging, to begin planning within the U.S. government for the institutions of the postwar world, such as the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations.
Gates offered a last piece of advice: Because of perceptions that Obama has been
reluctant to use power, "some new president could come in without a deft touch and
overreact, to reduce this impression. ... My worry is that the next president will over
correct."
late and a dollar short. The decisions are made seriatim. It presents an image that he's
being dragged kicking and screaming to each new stage, and it dilutes the
implementation of what he's done."
Gates criticized the current National Security Council's implementation of policy,
arguing that "micromanagement" by a very large NSC staff undercut Obama's efforts to
use power against the Islamic State or contain China in the South China Sea. "It
becomes so incremental that the message is lost. It makes them look reluctant," he said.
Gates' criticism of the NSC is noteworthy because he served as deputy to national
security adviser Brent Scowcroft in President George H.W. Bush's NSC, which Obama
has cited as a model for how policy should be managed. By that standard, Gates
implied, the current NSC team, led by Susan Rice, needs to lift its game.
Gates credited Obama for moving toward better-calibrated policies that would send a
stronger message, such as greater use of Special Operations Forces on the ground in
Syria and Iraq, and more aggressive moves to assert freedom of navigation in the Pacific. "You don't need major threats or force projection but a clearer desire to show we can act with
force" when necessary, he said.
Gates' comments come as Obama is about to travel to Europe and the Middle East to
meet with allies who have become increasingly critical of his policies. His tone was
more that of a feisty, frustrated uncle than a bitter foe. Gates said he still talks to Obama occasionally, but he declined to elaborate.
The interview with Gates followed a speech he gave the previous night in which he
parsed the long-standing dispute over whether "realism" or "idealism" should govern
American foreign policy. A wise strategy has a measure of both, Gates told the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"It is neither hypocrisy nor cynicism to believe fervently in freedom while adopting
different approaches to advancing freedom at different times along the way -- including temporarily making common cause with despots to defeat greater or more urgent threats,"
he said in his speech.
Gates offered examples of the realpolitik he practiced as a CIA director and NSC official. He said CIA covert action was very useful in the later years of the Cold War -- for example,
by smuggling into Russia hundreds of thousands of copies of "The Gulag Archipelago"
by dissident writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
As the Cold War endgame approached in 1989, Gates recalled, he commissioned a
special NSC group to begin contingency planning for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That study convinced policymakers that a strong central government in Moscow would be needed after the fall of communism to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Gates argued that similar strategic clarity is needed now in dealing with the Islamic State. The administration needs to decide its "desired end state" in Iraq and Syria and then drive
policy toward that goal: "Are we still proponents of a unitary Iraqi state or something
more federal? Do we want an integral state in Syria, or do we send everyone back to their home base? ... We don't know what we want."
As an example of visionary leadership, Gates cited President Franklin D. Roosevelt's
move in 1944, when World War II was still raging, to begin planning within the U.S. government for the institutions of the postwar world, such as the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations.
Gates offered a last piece of advice: Because of perceptions that Obama has been
reluctant to use power, "some new president could come in without a deft touch and
overreact, to reduce this impression. ... My worry is that the next president will over
correct."
3a)The Next President Is Going to Be Hated
Everyone hates the sourpuss who says the party is over. The next president will have to tell the American people that a reckoning is on the horizon—and that it is not going to be pretty.
President Obama has created lots of mythoi about the landscape he inherited in January 2009: the Iraq war was lost and al Qaeda ascendant; the September 2008 meltdown had wrecked the economy; the immigration system “was” in shambles; and Obama would have to restore fiscal sobriety after George W. Bush (all “by his lonesome” with a “credit card from the Bank of China”) in “unpatriotic” fashion had alone piled up U.S. record debt.
In reality, the 2007-8 surge had all but ended al-Qaeda in Iraq; and the American fatality rate in the Iraqi theater of operations had plunged to fewer than the military’s monthly losses to accidents and illness. To be sure, the economy was still shaky, but the recession that had started in December 2007 was all but over, ending in a natural fashion about five months after Obama took office. The so-called bailouts and TARP rescue measures were already in place to stop the panic of four months prior. Bush’s nearly $5 trillion profligate increase in the national debt would be doubled by Obama, despite an increase in income taxes, a fortuitous fracking bonanza, and near-constant zero interest rates. Obama shattered the old Clinton-Gingrich formula of balancing the budget by raising income tax rates and curbing spending. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles committee recommendations to address the debt were ignored. There is no need to compare the status of health care in 2008 to the present mess.
An adult president is going to have to tell the American people that a mandated equality-of-result economy is fossilized, entitlements are insolvent, the debt is unsustainable, interest rates are going up, the medical system is pure chaos, and people have to get over expecting to live off government, not because it is unethical, but because it is untenable.
Then we come to the world abroad.
In a recent interview in The Atlantic, Obama seemed to voice pride in his overseas recessional, even including his Syrian faux red lines that eroded American “credibility”—which to Obama is a mere construct of the Washington foreign policy establishment. Is there any legacy that Obama diplomats now cite as historic—the special friendship with Turkey, the Iran deal, the pullout from Iraq, the dismissal of ISIS as amateurs, the support of the Muslim Brotherhood, the red lines in Syria, the reset with Russia, the disaster in Libya, the ostracism of the Gulf states, the distance from Israel?
A great power’s deterrence—acquired with difficulty over years—can be easily lost in months. And it is often only restored through danger commensurate to what was paid during its original acquisition. When Ronald Reagan inherited a wrecked foreign policy in January 1981—invasions of Afghanistan and Vietnam, communist insurrections in Latin America, Iran in chaos, American hostages in Tehran, an ascendant Soviet Union—it took him three years to reestablish U.S. credibility.
Reagan was roundly despised for his supposedly cowboy manner in reinstating deterrence. In November 1983, Hollywood gave us The Day After—a melodramatic account of what life in the heartland would be like after a nuclear strike. The message was for America to brace for a nuclear winter that Reagan would earn in his absurd effort to “win” the Cold War.
Prepare for the same hysteria in 2017. The Pentagon, to remain the world’s most powerful and respected military and to help to keep the world order relatively calm, quietly accepts that it will have to demonstrate soon to America’s enemies that it is quite a dangerous thing for any nation to shoot a missile near a 5,000-person, $5-billion American Nimitz-class carrier; or to hijack an American naval craft, humiliate the crew to the point of tears, and then video the embarrassment; or to attack a U.S. consulate. Yet it will not be so easy for our military to reestablish credibility in 2017. And over the next 10 months we may see some scary things not witnessed since the annus horribilis of 1980.
Trying to persuade Putin that NATO has commitments to the territorial integrity of the Baltic states, and deterring him from further expansionism will be one of the most dangerous gambits of 2017— and one that will be widely caricatured.
The effort will be somewhat akin to what would have happened had Neville Chamberlain said “no” at Munich, instead of waving a worthless scrap of paper to the adoration of huge British crowds. Assembling a British-led coalition in 1938 of the Poles, Czechs, French, Dutch, and Belgians, while ensuring the Soviet Union was neutral, would have checked Hitler’s rather still weak Wehrmacht, but in the short term earned Chamberlain the slur of war-monger rather than for about a year canonization as a League of Nations humanitarian.
There are 4,000 troops now in Iraq. To stop ISIS and prevent a Syrian redux, more may be sent—a task far more costly than it needed to have been, and far more unpopular.
The Obama "special relationship" with Recep Erdogan’s Turkey is in shambles; it green-lighted the Islamicization of Turkey and the destruction of democracy. The next president must deal with a key NATO member, whose behavior and values are becoming entirely antithetical to the premises of NATO, and whose provocative bullying under no circumstances should earn the alliance’s military solidarity.
The Iran deal would be laughable if it were not so tragic. What Obama calls the Iranian violation of the “spirit” of the agreement— from shooting missiles near carriers and hijacking and humiliating Navy seamen, to unleashing cyber war on the U.S. and issuing daily promises of war against the U.S. and Israel—is a precursor of more to come in the next 10 months. If Iran is not to become a nuclear power, the next president will have to re-impose sanctions and reassemble a coalition to prevent its nuclearization. That effort too will be difficult, and it will outrage many and be caricatured as saber-rattling.
China has established the precedent that it can create an artificial island in the midst of key sea lanes and then expand upon that fantasy island concept by claiming additional sovereign air and sea space around it. To prevent a Chinese veto over all commercial traffic to our Asian allies, President 45 is going to have to persuade the Chinese of the foolishness of their overreach and convince them to end the general precedent of island creation. That, too, will be no fun.
History in the short term adores appeasers. They pontificate and pose as sober and judicious humanitarians who will do anything to avoid confrontation on their watch, even as they light the fuse of Armageddon for their successors. The restorers of deterrence are always smeared as war-mongers—and only praised as Churchillian largely when they are dead. So it will be for the next president if he or she chooses to stop the decline and restore the American-led postwar order.Best regards,Rip
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
