++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another take on Netanyahu that has some intellectual credibility.(See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is what can happen when you get in bed with the government.
To make matters worse, Obama acted unconstitutionally, in my opinion, when his government bailed GM out for the benefit of the unions by "screwing" bondholders. I will never understand why the bondholders failed to fight for their legal rights which were completely ignored.
https://www.investors.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another excellent and informative True Perspective open to all:
|
|
|
|
|
1)
The Prime Minister is treating us as morons
By Isi Leibler
| ||
| ||
| IIsiPPho | ||
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu displayed his political savvy by avoiding an election as he outmaneuvered Naftali Bennett and his Bayit Yehudi party, forcing them to blink after Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman resigned.
Having only a one seat majority, it is feasible but unlikely that he can hold the government together for its full term – until November 2019. Besides, it is simply outrageous for Israel which faces serious decisions on security issues to have the prime minister act also as Defense Minister (in addition to Foreign Affairs Minister and Health Minister). This is a time for greater decentralization of control rather than increased central authoritarianism. Netanyahu is supported by his party because support for him gets them elected, but nobody is being groomed to succeed him. He has and is likely to continue receiving support even from people who dislike him because of his exceptional success on the international arena and currently no one else of his stature is visible on the political horizon. However, unless he has a dramatic strategy that he is about to reveal, the Gaza-Hamas situation may be his undoing. As far as our adversaries are concerned it is déjà vu. The super power has been outmaneuvered by the terrorists who can claim that they emerged as victors. For six months, Hamas has been trying to violently penetrate our borders and has hurled hundreds of incendiary kites, destroying which have destroyed thousands of dunams of land and impoverished the resident farmers. And then last week they bombarded southern Israel with over 400 missiles. What was Israel’s response? Repeated hollow threats and destruction of empty buildings. Hardly a proportionate response. The deterrence built up over the years has become a joke – and Lieberman is as responsible as all the others. It is being whispered that the rationale for this policy of passivity is that a war to liquidate Hamas must be avoided because of the horrific casualties which would result, and that Israel has no intention of occupying Gaza. Other implied rationales being used to justify the government policy is that we cannot afford any distraction from the more serious threat emanating on the northern border. The IDF leadership is also being “quoted” in the media as supporting a policy of “restraint” which simply emboldens Hamas to greater acts of terror. Yet the IDF is the instrument of the state and does not formulate policy but executes instructions. Its advice must never become an issue of public debate. Aside from this, we face the threat that a war would involve Iran and Hezbollah and inflict massive casualties on Israeli civilians who would suffer a barrage of missiles which the iron dome could only partially neutralize. But maintaining the status quo, in which Hamas continues to receive sacks of cash from Qatar - which will not be used for humanitarian purposes - is surely irrational. One of the principal obligations of the state is to provide security to its citizens. But residents in the south have been obliged to live as refugees in their own country. The Minister for Regional Co-operation, Tzachi Hanegbi, inadvertently remarked that if the missiles were directed to Tel Aviv rather than Sderot, the response would have been different. All Israelis regard war as a last resort, to be prevented if possible. But the choice need not necessarily be between full scale war or the current passivity. I am no military expert but do appreciate that beyond a full-scale war – for which alas, we must always be prepared – there are intermediate stages, in conformity with international law relating to war, such as bombing specific strategic targets even with the collateral risk of loss of innocent lives. There is also the option of assassinating the leaders calling for our destruction - action used to good effect in the past. The government must coordinate with the IDF to devise an effective response if the truce is not fully maintained. Especially now, as we have the United States headed by President Trump fully supporting us. We should be under no illusions. The current truce is merely procrastination until such time as we are provoked and will have no choice but to take serious action. Nobody can be under the illusion that Hamas will cease their violent intent. They are merely stalling for time which provides them with a lull - which they shamelessly admit is being used to strengthen themselves and accumulate more lethal weapons from the Iranians for a future confrontation. The desire for ultimate destruction of Israel is part of their DNA. By enabling them to determine at what point they can inflict the greatest harm on us will, in all probability, result in a more violent conflict with increased Israeli casualties. Some urge us not to press this issue and rely on Netanyahu. Although I would include myself as one who considers Netanyahu worthy, together perhaps with David Ben Gurion, of being recorded as one of Israel’s greatest leaders, I do not accept this. Israelis are a sophisticated people with a free and open press. We are a democratic nation and realize that, for valid reasons, we may not not be privy to the sensitive intelligence which form the basis of our defense policy. However, we must demand to be told more than the feeble rationalizations of a truce and calls for a return to the deterrence which was our principal source of strength in the past but seems to have now lapsed. After six months of this painful turmoil, if Netanyahu has some plan, we should demand that he talk to us directly and at least convey some reassurance that he has a defined policy, and that his cabinet are not simply acting as an Amen chorus. Nobody is infallible, as Golda Meir proved in her tragic misreading of the situation prior to the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War. There is no country in the world which would tolerate ongoing offensives and missiles launched by a terrorist entity located adjacent to its borders. Prime Minister Netanyahu - your time is up. Speak to us now! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2) Outrage over CNN commentator's anti-Israel speech at UN Jewish groups blast Marc Lamont Hill who said at UN that violence against Israel is legitimate and called for a boycott of the Jewish state.
Jewish groups on Wednesday were outraged over comments by CNN commentator and Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, who said at the UN that violence against Israel is legitimate.
Speaking at the opening session of the UN’s International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Hill denounced Israel, endorsed Palestinian Arab terror and called for a boycott of Israel while saying that “justice requires a free Palestine from the river to sea.”
The National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) called on CNN and Temple University to fire Hill following his highly offensive anti-Semitic remarks.
“The virulent anti-Semitism spewed by Marc Lamont Hill is abhorrent, and his senseless promotion of violence against Israel is repugnant,” said the National Council of Young Israel.
“With his racist views and unabashed denigration of Israel, Dr. Hill does not deserve to be given any sort of platform that facilitates the dissemination of his bigotry, whether it be on Cable TV or in a classroom.”
“In light of Dr. Hill’s malevolent anti-Semitic remarks, we call upon CNN and Temple University to fire him immediately,” continued the NCYI. “Neither CNN nor Temple should countenance anti-Semitism, and their failure to take swift action and terminate Dr. Hill would make them complicit in sanctioning bigotry and anti-Semitism. With such hate-filled views that are antithetical to basic human decency, Marc Lamont Hill should not be rewarded by serving as a pundit or a professor, and both CNN and Temple have a duty to dismiss Dr. Hill and renounce his anti-Semitic beliefs.”
Sharon Nazarian, the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) senior vice president for international affairs, condemned Hill’s remarks as week.
“Those calling for ‘from the river to the sea’ are calling for an end to the State of Israel,” Nazarian told the Jewish Journal in an email.
“It is a shame that once again, this annual event at the United Nations does not promote constructive pathways to ‘Palestinian solidarity’ and a future of peace, but instead divisive and destructive action against Israel,” Nazarian added.
Similarly, Simon Wiesenthal Center Associate Dean Rabbi Abraham Cooper told the Jewish Journal in an email, “Justice requires a ‘Free Palestine from the River to the Sea’? Marc Lamont Hill is a confirmed anti-Zionist ideologue. His extremist, anti-peace views merit coverage on CNN, not as a paid pundit but as a supreme propagandist unfettered by facts.”
Cooper added, “By the way Marc, where will you put the nearly 9 million Israeli citizens, nearly 20% of whom are Arabs? Any Palestinian entity we’ve been told will be Judenrein—only place left is… Mediterranean Sea.”
Hill responded to the criticism of his remarks on Twitter, writing, among other things, “I believe in a single secular democratic state for everyone. This is the only way that historic Palestine will be free.”
In response to a comment pointing out that his saying that “justice requires a free Palestine from the river to the sea” is an allusion to the Hamas call for the destruction of Israel, Hill replied, “This is silly. And inaccurate. ‘River to the sea’ is a phrase that precedes Hamas by more than 50 years. It also has a variety of meanings. In my remarks, which you clearly didn’t hear, I was talking about full citizenship rights IN Israel and a redrawing of the pre-1967 borders.”
2a) Hamas to U.N.: Support Palestinian right to bear arms against Israel
By HERB KEINON,TOVAH LAZAROFF
In an unusual move Hamas called on the United Nations to support its right to bear arms against Israel in a letter the terror group’s political leader Ismail Haniyeh wrote to UN General Assembly President Maria Fernada Spinosa.
He spoke out in advance of UN debate later today on a UNGA debate later today condemning Hamas rocket fire against Israel. “We reiterate the right of our people to defend themselves and to resist the occupation, by all available means, including armed resistance, guaranteed by the international law,” Haniyeh wrote. “The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted dozens of resolutions that affirm the right of peoples to independence, self-determination and struggle by all available means, peaceful and non-peaceful, for that right. The UN singled out the Palestinian people for dozens of relevant resolutions, including 2621, 2649, 2787 and 3236,” he said. Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said in response, “Hamas speaks about international law while it fires rockets into civilian populations, holds the bodies of IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens, and uses its own people as human shields." “A terrorist organization going to the UN for assistance is like a serial killer asking the police for assistance. Israel and the United States will continue to mobilize the countries of the world into a united front against the terrorism that Hamas engages in on behalf of Iran,” Danon said. Hamas has forcibly ruled the Gaza Strip since it ousted Fatah in a bloody coup in 2007. The international community has solely recognized the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. The UN, through its Middle East Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nickolay Mladenov, is working together with Egypt to reconcile Hamas and Fatah. The US resolution also speak of support for those efforts. The US is expected to put forward its resolution at the UN General Assembly debate to mark the annual “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” It is scheduled for the anniversary of the UN’s passage of the 1947 participation plan that divided territory held by the British into two states, one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs residents of the territory. The accepted the offer, the Palestinians rejected it. In its letter to the UN, Hamas put itself forward as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and also spoke to of rejection of any Israeli claims to any portion of that territory. It condemned the US for adopting the Israeli narrative of the conflict and for its support of Israeli “aggression" against the Palestinian people. “The last of these efforts is the attempt by the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, in the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People which is held on November 29 each year, to submit a draft resolution condemning the Palestinian resistance and the right of our people to defend themselves against this racist and continuous occupation for more than seven decades. “There had been not only that, but it has taken a turn when the US President Donald Trump administration sought to reduce the number of UN resolutions on the Palestinian issue claiming that "many biased resolutions against Israel are not helpful,” Haniyeh said. “We greatly count on the members of the UN General Assembly and their stand by international legitimacy in support for the right of peoples to defend themselves and thwart these aggressive American endeavors," he added.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Europe’s Migrant Disaster Should Teach America a Lesson
Even Hillary Clinton now admits the Continent erred in allowing entry of too many unvetted ‘refugees.’
Political up-and-comers like New York’s Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might feel comfortable comparing Central American migrants to Jewish families fleeing Nazi Germany, as she did in a tweet the other day. But some elder statesmen in her party seem to know better.
Take Hillary Clinton, who surprised a lot of people last week when she told a British newspaper that “Europe needs to get a handle on migration.” She said the Continent’s leaders should make clear that they are “not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support” to any and all who want to come. Border chaos fuels anti-immigrant populism, be it in the U.S. or Europe—and she should know. During the 2016 campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s focus was making the Mexico border more open rather than more secure, and she believes that’s one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected president.
Delivering the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in South Africa in July, Barack Obama went further. “It’s not wrong to insist that national borders matter, [that] whether you’re a citizen or not is going to matter to a government, that laws need to be followed,” he said. Newcomers, Mr. Obama added, “should make an effort to adapt to the language and customs of their new home. Those are legitimate things, and we have to be able to engage people who do feel as if things are not orderly.”
Right now, the situation on America’s southern border is anything but orderly, and Europe is a cautionary tale for Democrats who think national boundaries are passé. In his recent book, “The Strange Death of Europe,” British journalist Douglas Murray explains how the Continent became a prime example of how to mishandle cross-border migrant flows. The Arab uprisings and Syrian civil war displaced millions of people from mostly Muslim countries. Many fled to a Europe caught unawares by the numbers. When the migrants showed up in places like Greece, Italy and Norway, laws went unenforced. Refugee protocols were tossed aside. Vetting ranged from poor to nonexistent. Criminality was played down. And fake asylum seekers were indulged instead of deported.
Years before U.S. reporters were interviewing Central American caravaners as they headed north, the European press was traveling alongside migrants as they passed through poorer countries like Hungary to reach richer ones like Germany and Sweden. “The fundamental right to asylum does not have a limitation,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015, as the crisis was worsening. Would-be migrants from far and wide happily took her up on the offer. “Over the next 48 hours The New York Times reported a surge of migrant movement from Nigeria, among other countries, as people saw that a window of opportunity had opened for citizenship in Europe,” writes Mr. Murray.
Even when European officials determined that a migrant had no legitimate asylum claim, he often was allowed to stay. Left-wing activists strenuously opposed deportation for any reason. Word of lax enforcement spread quickly and proved a major magnet for illegal immigration. Citing data from the European Commission, Mr. Murray reports that a majority of the migrants who traveled to Europe in 2015 “had not been asylum seekers but economic migrants,” who had “no more right to be in Europe than anyone else in the world.”
In her interview, Mrs. Clinton praised the “generous and compassionate” approach taken by some European countries to deal with the largest refugee crisis since World War II. But where was the compassion for the citizens of these countries who count on their governments to keep them safe? Norway was so concerned about the increase in reported rapes that followed a large influx of Muslim refugees that it began offering etiquette classes to new arrivals. The program, reported the New York Times, “seeks to prevent sexual and other violence by helping male immigrants from societies that are largely segregated or in which women show neither flesh nor public affection to adapt to more open European societies.”
The same officials Mrs. Clinton lauded also made their countries more susceptible to acts of terror. The man who in July 2016 carried out Germany’s first Islamist suicide bombing was a Syrian refugee and failed asylum seeker. Shouldn’t a country’s immigration policies prioritize the welfare of its citizens?
The good news is that America’s troubles on the southern border pale in comparison to what Western Europe has experienced. The bad news is that the situation on this side of the Atlantic continues to worsen. The president’s anti-immigrant agenda is as well-known as it is misguided, but he’s right to take the caravan situation more seriously than Jim Acosta of CNN does. Mr. Trump wants the U.S. to learn from Europe’s recent mistakes, while too many Democrats seem hell-bent on repeating them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
No comments:
Post a Comment