Customer Service Tip
I'll vouch for this.
Try to remember this EVERY TIME you have
To talk to a customer service representative
And you cannot understand them. I did not
know that we could do this, but I sure was
going to try it. Help bring jobs back to the
U.S.A. Ask for an American!
How to save some American jobs and we can help.
I want to share with you some great information that I found out, purely by accident. I believe it can also save and create jobs in America , while giving people better customer service.
So, how many times have you called a company's service phone line and found that the rep. can barely speak English? Once, with a major mortgage company, it was so bad I demanded to speak with someone who spoke English. Right at that moment, I broke the code, the secret password for customer service.
Come to find out that every American company using overseas operators must transfer you to an American rep. By saying...
" I want to speak to a representative in America ."
(Don't take no for an answer on this.)
This was confirmed by the American rep. That they must transfer you after that request. I've tried it on a half a dozen major companies, including cable, bank, phone, and mortgage companies. It works every time and I actually get my issues addressed.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
A SUGGESTION FOR THE NEW MOSQUE
Saturday, August 07, 2010
How to deal with that Ground Zero mosque
Now this is a great idea.
If this group of Muslims own this property then I must defend their right to do all that is legal with that property. If they think their actions will somehow raise tolerance for their sect they are sadly mistaken. If they want to be crappy neighbors then I would love to see New York do the same right back at them.
My first suggestion would be for Mayor Bloomberg to zone the area around the mosque for strip clubs and legalized street walking. Assign policemen of Jewish heritage to answer all calls at the Mosque. Schedule the gay pride parade to circle the block several times, if possible right at prayer hour. Allow as many street vendors as would like them licenses to sell pork sandwiches and “medicinal” marijuana in that area. My final suggestion would be to have the city tear up the side walks around the building and repave them with a nice mixture of Portland Cement and bacon fat.
It's a pity that Mayor Bloomberg has become too big a dhimmi to think of doing these things.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:56 PM
ISRAEL: ONE MORE WAY TO COMMIT NATIONAL SUICIDE
Prerequisites for a two-state solution
By Mort Zuckerman font>
Mort Zuckerman
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Will the world applaud Israel's just-announced decision to restrict its military forces by imposing even more stringent rules to avoid accidental civilian casualties? Don't bet on it. The world remained silent as Israel endured hundreds of Palestinian suicide bombers, stabbings, drive-by shootings, and kidnappings. No censure or demands for a cease-fire impeded Hezbollah in the north and Hamas from the south as they rained thousands of missiles on almost 40 percent of the Israeli population.
On the contrary. The common response of a world professedly eager for peace was to criticize Israel's measures of self-defense in setting up checkpoints and building a security fence along the West Bank. For six years, rockets from Gaza forced a major portion of Israel's southern population to sleep in bomb shelters. When Israel entered Gaza, after repeatedly warning Hamas to desist, the outcry revealed that the capacity of Israel's critics for hypocrisy is infinite. Every Israeli effort at self-defense is treated as aggression.
The multiple injustices of these years, compounded by the abysmal performance of the media in separating truth from propaganda, have produced a political transformation in Israel that the administration of President Obama has accelerated. Israelis have lost trust in the possibility of peaceful coexistence. They have observed that every effort to make peace breeds new aggression. They have realized, with understandable bitterness, that every defensive military operation that leaves the aggressor still in control of the attack base results only in the enemy being better prepared the next time.
It is not on the world's agenda to dream of doing anything, even to make a murmur of protest, when the Hamas leadership in Gaza continues to smuggle in rockets capable of threatening Tel Aviv. Rockets with a range increasing to as much as 60 kilometers can be fired from a mobile launcher fitted on the back of a truck, or from a stationary launcher hidden in a building, as was Hezbollah's in Lebanon.
How do the Israelis, without absolute control of the territory, prevent Hamas from turning into the Palestinian version of Hezbollah? Iran has supplied Hezbollah with more than 40,000 rockets, many of them long-range, such as Scud and M-600 missiles. The Israelis know that the gun or rocket that is hung on the wall in the first act will be fired in the third. They simply cannot tolerate living alongside an entity owning a terrorist infrastructure and hosting hostile military forces.
When the Israelis consider evacuating their military forces from the West Bank for the sake of a "two-state solution," they fear leaving another base for terrorism. If Hamas takes over the West Bank from the Palestine Liberation Organization, as it did Gaza, then it and other al Qaeda-type groups may well have access to the overlooks of Jerusalem's suburbs and Tel Aviv's beaches. The Israelis cannot forget that the last time Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas received control of an area—namely Gaza in 2005—PLO forces ran away and left it to Hamas. Currently Israel's military freedom of operation in the West Bank allows the Israel Defense Forces to reach every place where prohibited arms are manufactured or hidden. Thus they have prevented terrorists there from manufacturing and launching them at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, not to mention intercepting innumerable suicide bombers.
The nightmare scenario for Israel is that the West Bank becomes another failed Palestinian state. The West Bank is as near as 8 to 12 miles from the Mediterranean. Any sustained rocket assaults from the West Bank would seriously threaten Israel's interior. What's more, there is the critical advantage of the West Bank's ridge line. From the higher terrain, even a Palestinian teenager with such simple weaponry as a Kassam rocket could hit Israel's main airport and major cities, making the defense of Israel impossible.
I have stood on that ridge. It is hard to explain to Americans how close everything is. That is why any Middle East settlement would require a fully demilitarized Palestinian entity and a method for Israel to verify that. International forces cannot be relied on for demilitarization. They have historically been unsuccessful where one party is ready to ignore the fulfillment of its international responsibilities. This has been especially so in the Middle East where the peacekeepers have been killed, breaking the political will of states who contribute.
Perhaps it would be different if the Israelis had confidence that the current U.S. administration would make up in security for whatever Israel might cede in territory. They were given that assurance when they took the risk of leaving Gaza in 2005. Then there was a written commitment by President George W. Bush that the United States would not expect Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders and that any future settlement would reflect Israel's right to secure, recognized, and defensible borders. (So too did President Obama pledge support for this same right, in these same words, in a public speech when he was campaigning for presidency.)
Yet the Obama administration disavowed this commitment—with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying that Bush's pledge "did not become part of the official position of the United States government." This ignores the fact that recognized boundaries "and defensible borders" were enshrined in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 after the 1967 war and that Bush unequivocally provided a presidential guarantee to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in exchange for Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. "The United States," Bush said, "reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combinations of threats." The Bush letter was approved by both houses of Congress—and yet it has been repudiated by this administration.
The scene is even more menacing if we consider the regional scenario of a Palestinian state inspired by Iran and Islamic radicalism. Iran is getting close to obtaining nuclear abilities and already has ballistic missiles that can menace Israel as well as its Arab neighbors. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard serves as a strategic umbrella for radical groups that move across the Middle East, including Shiite militias in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Israeli experience in Lebanon is a case study of the dangers. After the 2006 war, Israel withdrew and 10,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops came into southern Lebanon, authorized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. With what effect? Hezbollah has rearmed at a rapid pace, accumulating more than 40,000 rockets and missiles that, according to recent reports, have now moved down to the southern part of Lebanon without any Hezbollah operatives being arrested. U.N. forces have simply been ineffective, even when the Lebanese government wanted the U.N. to curb Hezbollah.
A sovereign Palestinian state that refuses to accept an international force is bad enough. Worse yet is that, in practice, organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas can render any international force ineffective. This is what occurred when European monitors were placed at Gaza's Rafah crossing. The monitors fled their positions as soon as internal fighting between Hamas and Fatah heated up after the Hamas victory in the 2006 elections. The monitors themselves fell victim to local Palestinian kidnappings. When the Palestinian president says he will not accept Israeli forces but might accept an international presence, his statement might seem reasonable or negotiable. In truth, it has about as much value as the "peace in our time" document that Neville Chamberlain waved on his return to London after meeting Adolf Hitler. Bottom line: The only successful security forces that Israel can rely upon are its own. Israelis feel they have read the book in Gaza and don't want to see the movie in the West Bank.
Paradoxically, the presence of U.N. forces creates an obstacle to Israel's ability to defend itself, by itself. Look at what happened to the force that was dispatched to Lebanon in August 1982. The U.N. mission was made up of units from Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, but in October 1983 both the French paratrooper barracks and the U.S. Marine headquarters were attacked by Shiite suicide bombers, killing a few hundred French and American service members. Within a year, both forces withdrew from Lebanon, reflecting the reality that foreign forces will quickly leave the theater when attacked. The states that volunteer them soon lose political support for keeping them there.
Let's not forget the Oslo Accord and its 1995 interim agreement. The PLO failed to honor the agreement. In fact, Yasser Arafat, Abbas's predecessor as PLO leader, supplied competing security organizations with thousands of weapons that were prohibited in the agreements he had signed. Again contrary to the Oslo agreement, the PLO gave its national security apparatus all the trappings of an army, which it was not permitted to have. Then in 2000, in the second intifada, it launched a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians.
Israel must prepare for the possibility that even after agreements are signed, and a demilitarized Palestinian state is established, groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad would act in contravention and an international force would likely not take action. Iranian-backed rocket assaults against Israel would place its coastal plain in range and make Israel uninhabitable. And if U.N. forces were present on Palestinian territory, the Israeli army couldn't open fire against the enemy without first verifying the location of the U.N. personnel. It would thus be even more difficult for Israel to act against terrorists.
There is an old saying: "Nobody ever washes a rental car." Only Israel would have the will to defend itself. When you think about the failure of NATO forces in Afghanistan, you have to wonder about the efficacy of NATO troops in this theater.
Israel knows that a threat will evolve when hostile intentions join with aggressive capabilities. Given that it has been virtually impossible to alter hostile intentions, with the split between Abbas's Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza—the latter allowing non-state actors to emerge—classic principles of deterrence and punishment are far less effective. There is no unified government to exert control over people, weapons, and terrorist groups.
Israel has prudently maintained its uncompromising policy of disarming the terrorist infrastructure within and along its borders. But Israel's success in this relies on high-quality, precise military intelligence, along with full freedom of operation to enter Palestinian city centers and villages to locate and destroy bomb-producing factories. This is the only way that Israel can deal with the asymmetrical threat of terrorist groups able to attack Israel at will.
Until this same kind of security is assured, the two-state solution is not a solution at all, but a dramatic escalation of risk.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free.
Mort Zuckerman is editor-in-chief and publisher of U.S. News and World Report.
MEXIFORNIA
Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this; it ought to
scare the beejeebers out of you!
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado . In that
context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an
immigration overpopulation conference in Washington , DC , filled to
capacity by many of America 's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college
professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book,
'Mexifornia,' explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was
destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across
the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and
gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America
The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the
destruction of the United States . He said, 'If you believe that America is
too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America . It is
not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time.
Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that
'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.''
'Here is how they do it,' Lamm said:
'First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or
multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can
survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing
languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual;
however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical
scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and
bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil,
tension, and tragedy.' Canada , Belgium , Malaysia , and Lebanon all face
crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy , if not
independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic
rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and
Muslims.'
Lamm went on:
'Second, to destroy America , invent 'multiculturalism' and
encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief
that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it
an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely
to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is
out of bounds.
'Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec '
without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As
Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent
success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been
achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once
dictated ethnocentric and what it meant to be an American, we are left with
only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, 'I would
encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would
replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is
important to en sure that we have various cultural subgroups living in
America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing
their similarities.'
'Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the
least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated,
undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second
underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.'
'My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big
foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest
in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victim logy.' I would
get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the
majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on
the majority plat ion.'
'My sixth plan for America 's downfall would include dual
citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over
unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people
worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are
not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against
most historical precept. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a
nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they
belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature;
and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic
games.. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these
bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and
geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. 'E.
Pluribus Unum' -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the
emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will 'Balkanize'
America as surely as Kosovo.'
'Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo
to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word
similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and
paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and
debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having
established multi-cultism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of
'Victim logy,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration
laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for
America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant
symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.'
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow.
Profound silence followed. Finally he said, 'Lastly, I would censor Victor
Hanson Davis's book 'Mexifornia.' His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan
to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't
read that book.'
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous
cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room
knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly,
darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being
suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational
system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice
female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American
jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World
in America Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million
illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book
'1984.' In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth
building: 'War is peace,' 'Freedom is slavery,' and 'Ignorance is strength.'
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the
conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply
in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster
stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and
destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.
If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass
this on just as I did for you.
NOTHING is going to happen if you don't!
scare the beejeebers out of you!
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado . In that
context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an
immigration overpopulation conference in Washington , DC , filled to
capacity by many of America 's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college
professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book,
'Mexifornia,' explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was
destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across
the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and
gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America
The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the
destruction of the United States . He said, 'If you believe that America is
too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America . It is
not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time.
Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that
'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.''
'Here is how they do it,' Lamm said:
'First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or
multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can
survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing
languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual;
however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical
scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and
bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil,
tension, and tragedy.' Canada , Belgium , Malaysia , and Lebanon all face
crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy , if not
independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic
rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and
Muslims.'
Lamm went on:
'Second, to destroy America , invent 'multiculturalism' and
encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief
that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it
an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely
to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is
out of bounds.
'Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec '
without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As
Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent
success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been
achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once
dictated ethnocentric and what it meant to be an American, we are left with
only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, 'I would
encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would
replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is
important to en sure that we have various cultural subgroups living in
America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing
their similarities.'
'Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the
least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated,
undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second
underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.'
'My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big
foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest
in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victim logy.' I would
get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the
majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on
the majority plat ion.'
'My sixth plan for America 's downfall would include dual
citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over
unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people
worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are
not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against
most historical precept. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a
nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they
belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature;
and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic
games.. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these
bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and
geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. 'E.
Pluribus Unum' -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the
emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will 'Balkanize'
America as surely as Kosovo.'
'Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo
to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word
similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and
paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and
debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having
established multi-cultism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of
'Victim logy,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration
laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for
America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant
symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.'
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow.
Profound silence followed. Finally he said, 'Lastly, I would censor Victor
Hanson Davis's book 'Mexifornia.' His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan
to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't
read that book.'
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous
cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room
knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly,
darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being
suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational
system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice
female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American
jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World
in America Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million
illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book
'1984.' In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth
building: 'War is peace,' 'Freedom is slavery,' and 'Ignorance is strength.'
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the
conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply
in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster
stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and
destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.
If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass
this on just as I did for you.
NOTHING is going to happen if you don't!
HUMAN CAMERA
What your about to view is absolutely amazing.... They can not lie....What they tell you might not be the truth; as you know it....but it is the truth; as they heard it or viewed it....
Absolutely stunning!!
Once you see this, you will be blown away.
If you have never seen this before, you are in for a treat.
Some of us wonder what the best computer is in the world -got to be a brain.
THIS MAN IS KNOWN AS THE 'HUMAN CAMERA' !
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=0k4lsi1dql
IS AMERICA LOST?
http://www.youtube.com/v/feNspv3XEXk
http://www.youtube.com/v/bKAa9W2oOfo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
YUCCA MOUNTAIN TROUBLE
Don’t Abandon Yucca Mountain
By Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner
As originally published in Roll Call
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/ui/clearpixel.gif
A Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel reviewing President Barack Obama’s request to permanently shutter Nevada’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository recently found something lacking in the administration’s case — merit.
The administration’s case for closing Yucca Mountain wasn’t based on valid safety concerns, sound science or funding concerns. It was simply a “matter of policy.”
The real reason for this about-face on Yucca Mountain had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. Obama is seeking to kill Yucca Mountain before it opens not because it is good for the American people but because it is good for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), who is engaged in a tough re-election campaign in Nevada.
While paying lip service to the need for more nuclear power, Obama is quietly doing an inside-the-Beltway favor for Reid, who is leading the Cape Wind-style, not-in-my-backyard opposition to the project. But the president can’t have it both ways. Long-term storage of waste is critical to growth in the nuclear industry.
Last year, Obama moved to withdraw Yucca Mountain for consideration by the commission as a waste facility by saying Yucca Mountain “isn’t a workable option.” Despite a $10 billion taxpayer investment and nearly 30 years of development to prepare the facility for use, Obama is simply — and incredibly — walking away.
Harder to ignore is the spent nuclear fuel that is already burdening the industry. Every day that passes without an acceptable waste storage solution costs taxpayers money. Federal law required the government to accept responsibility for spent fuel beginning in 1998. The government has failed to meet this obligation.
Since the early 1980s, ratepayers have put about $30 billion into a nuclear waste fund designed to pay for Yucca Mountain or another waste disposal solution. Instead of offering a solution, the federal government is dragging its heels, and utilities are covering the costs to store spent fuel rods on-site.
As a result, utilities are suing the federal government, and they’re winning. So far utilities have filed 70 lawsuits and have been awarded $1.3 billion in penalties. It’s estimated that liability will top $12 billion if no storage solution is in place by 2020. That amount will increase by another $500 million per year after that.
Abandoning Yucca Mountain not only guarantees future litigation, it makes no financial or scientific sense. After research into several sites, in 1987 Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the best location for spent fuel. Congress steered taxpayer dollars to the project. A quarter of a century later, the Obama administration is making the unilateral decision to walk away from Yucca Mountain and abandon the time, research and taxpayer dollars already spent.
If not illegal, this is certainly illogical, given that the administration is presenting no compelling reason for the policy change. After 15 years of study, there is still no evidence that the proposed underground facility at Yucca Mountain — located next to a former nuclear weapon testing zone — poses a risk to human health or the environment. Worse, the administration seeks to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application “with prejudice.” That means “forever” in government talk, and if approved, it would prevent the facility from ever being used, regardless of future circumstances.
To temper criticism over his Yucca Mountain policy, the president has established a blue ribbon commission to evaluate the future options for the nuclear industry. Unfortunately, the administration has forbidden the commission from considering Yucca Mountain as a possible solution — so much for objective advice.
One politician who has not criticized the president’s decision is Reid. Facing a tough re-election, Reid celebrated the president’s decision to close Yucca Mountain and thanked him for keeping his “promise.”
This promise of a political favor to Reid seems to be the only justification for the president’s decision.
Fortunately, the drive against Yucca Mountain hasn’t reached its half-life. There is bipartisan support in Congress to save Yucca Mountain. A select but influential group of House Democrats is pressuring the administration to keep funding the project. I intend to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to get an explanation from the administration on this change in direction.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be allowed to continue its safety and licensing review of Yucca Mountain. While this happens, Congress should approve funding to keep development of this facility a realistic possibility.
When Yucca Mountain was first approved by Congress, Reid was just elected to the Senate. Two decades later, his successful career has put him in the position to prematurely halt the Yucca Mountain project.
All that has changed between then and now is the job title of one Member of the Senate. Apparently, that’s all it takes for our president to walk away from an integral part of a key energy technology.
By Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner
As originally published in Roll Call
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/ui/clearpixel.gif
A Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel reviewing President Barack Obama’s request to permanently shutter Nevada’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository recently found something lacking in the administration’s case — merit.
The administration’s case for closing Yucca Mountain wasn’t based on valid safety concerns, sound science or funding concerns. It was simply a “matter of policy.”
The real reason for this about-face on Yucca Mountain had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. Obama is seeking to kill Yucca Mountain before it opens not because it is good for the American people but because it is good for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), who is engaged in a tough re-election campaign in Nevada.
While paying lip service to the need for more nuclear power, Obama is quietly doing an inside-the-Beltway favor for Reid, who is leading the Cape Wind-style, not-in-my-backyard opposition to the project. But the president can’t have it both ways. Long-term storage of waste is critical to growth in the nuclear industry.
Last year, Obama moved to withdraw Yucca Mountain for consideration by the commission as a waste facility by saying Yucca Mountain “isn’t a workable option.” Despite a $10 billion taxpayer investment and nearly 30 years of development to prepare the facility for use, Obama is simply — and incredibly — walking away.
Harder to ignore is the spent nuclear fuel that is already burdening the industry. Every day that passes without an acceptable waste storage solution costs taxpayers money. Federal law required the government to accept responsibility for spent fuel beginning in 1998. The government has failed to meet this obligation.
Since the early 1980s, ratepayers have put about $30 billion into a nuclear waste fund designed to pay for Yucca Mountain or another waste disposal solution. Instead of offering a solution, the federal government is dragging its heels, and utilities are covering the costs to store spent fuel rods on-site.
As a result, utilities are suing the federal government, and they’re winning. So far utilities have filed 70 lawsuits and have been awarded $1.3 billion in penalties. It’s estimated that liability will top $12 billion if no storage solution is in place by 2020. That amount will increase by another $500 million per year after that.
Abandoning Yucca Mountain not only guarantees future litigation, it makes no financial or scientific sense. After research into several sites, in 1987 Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the best location for spent fuel. Congress steered taxpayer dollars to the project. A quarter of a century later, the Obama administration is making the unilateral decision to walk away from Yucca Mountain and abandon the time, research and taxpayer dollars already spent.
If not illegal, this is certainly illogical, given that the administration is presenting no compelling reason for the policy change. After 15 years of study, there is still no evidence that the proposed underground facility at Yucca Mountain — located next to a former nuclear weapon testing zone — poses a risk to human health or the environment. Worse, the administration seeks to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application “with prejudice.” That means “forever” in government talk, and if approved, it would prevent the facility from ever being used, regardless of future circumstances.
To temper criticism over his Yucca Mountain policy, the president has established a blue ribbon commission to evaluate the future options for the nuclear industry. Unfortunately, the administration has forbidden the commission from considering Yucca Mountain as a possible solution — so much for objective advice.
One politician who has not criticized the president’s decision is Reid. Facing a tough re-election, Reid celebrated the president’s decision to close Yucca Mountain and thanked him for keeping his “promise.”
This promise of a political favor to Reid seems to be the only justification for the president’s decision.
Fortunately, the drive against Yucca Mountain hasn’t reached its half-life. There is bipartisan support in Congress to save Yucca Mountain. A select but influential group of House Democrats is pressuring the administration to keep funding the project. I intend to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to get an explanation from the administration on this change in direction.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be allowed to continue its safety and licensing review of Yucca Mountain. While this happens, Congress should approve funding to keep development of this facility a realistic possibility.
When Yucca Mountain was first approved by Congress, Reid was just elected to the Senate. Two decades later, his successful career has put him in the position to prematurely halt the Yucca Mountain project.
All that has changed between then and now is the job title of one Member of the Senate. Apparently, that’s all it takes for our president to walk away from an integral part of a key energy technology.
QUOTE OF THE DAY FROM A RELATIVE
"Failure seldom stops you. What stops you is the fear of failure."
– Brian Simonofsky,D.C.
– Brian Simonofsky,D.C.
FED V STATES: WHICH ONE SHOULD WIN?
Prop C passes overwhelmingly
BY TONY MESSENGER • tmessenger@post-dispatch.com > 573-635-6178 | Posted: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 8:30 am | (358) Comments
3 AUG. 2010 -- TOWN & COUNTRY, Mo. --
Supporters of Missouri Proposition C cheer as results are announced on election night during a celebration of the measure's passage at the home of Pat and Margaret Walker in Town & Country Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010. Cunningham and other members of the state legislature placed the proposition on the August primary ballot, which would block federal efforts to have all citizens buy health insurance .
ST. LOUIS • Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama's administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.
"The citizens of the Show-Me State don't want Washington involved in their health care decisions," said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.
With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. The measure, which seeks to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law, includes a provision that would change how insurance companies that go out of business in Missouri liquidate their assets.
"I've never seen anything like it," Cunningham said at a campaign gathering at a private home in Town and Country. "Citizens wanted their voices to be heard."
About 30 Proposition C supporters whooped it up loudly at 9 p.m. when the returns flashed on the television showing the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote.
"It's the vote heard 'round the world," said Dwight Janson, 53, from Glendale, clad in an American flag-patterned shirt. Janson said he went to one of the first Tea Party gatherings last year and hopped on the Proposition C bandwagon because he wanted to make a difference.
"I was tired of sitting on the sidelines bouncing my gums," he said.
Missouri was the first of four states to seek to opt out of the insurance purchase mandate portion of the health care law that had been pushed by Obama. And while many legal scholars question whether the vote will be binding, the overwhelming approval gives the national GOP momentum as Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma hold similar votes during midterm elections in November.
"It's a big number," state Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, said of the vote. "I expected a victory, but not of this magnitude. This is going to propel the issue and several other issues about the proper role of the federal government."
From almost the moment the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the health care law — which aims to increase the number of Americans with health insurance — Republicans have vowed to try to repeal it. Their primary argument is that they believe the federal government should not be involved in mandating health care decisions at the local level.
While repeal might seem an unlikely strategy, the effort to send a message state by state that voters don't approve of being told they have to buy insurance could gain momentum.
That's what Republicans are counting on at least, hoping that the Missouri vote will give the national movement momentum.
"It's like a domino, and Missouri is the first one to fall," Cunningham said. "Missouri's vote will greatly influence the debate in the other states."
Proposition C faced little organized opposition, although the Missouri Hospital Association mounted a mailer campaign opposing the ballot issue in the last couple of weeks. The hospital association, which spent more than $300,000 in the losing effort, said that without the new federal law, those who don't have insurance will cause health care providers and other taxpayers to have higher costs.
"The only way to get to the cost problem in health care is to expand the insurance pool," said hospital association spokesman Dave Dillon. He said the hospital association didn't plan to sue over the law, but he expected it would be challenged.
"I think there is going to be no shortage of people who want to use the courts to resolve this issue," he said.
Democrats also generally opposed Proposition C, though they didn't spend much time or money talking about it.
In the closing days of the campaign, many politicians 'sidled up" to Proposition C, Cunningham said, seeing the momentum the issue had gained.
Among them was U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, who won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate on Tuesday night. Late last week, Blunt announced his support of Proposition C.
On Monday, Blunt said he hoped Missouri voters would send a "ballot box message" to the Obama's administration by overwhelmingly passing the measure.
The question now is whether the administration will respond by suing the state to block passage of the law, much as it did in Arizona recently over illegal immigration.
The issue in both is the same: When state laws conflict with federal laws, the courts have generally ruled in favor of the federal government, because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Reuben, a law professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, said that if the federal government sues on the issue, it would likely win. Several other Missouri legal and political scholars agreed.
But Cunningham is undaunted. She's got her own experts, and they're ready to do battle in court.
"Constitutional experts disagree," she said. "There is substantial legal status to this thing."
The Palestinian Problem: A Real Solution
The Humanitarian Solution
By Prof Martin Sherman
From Israel’s point of view, the “two-state/land for peace” solution to the Palestinian conflict has proven to be a long, drawn out failure that should have been abandoned long ago. It is only because many prominent political figures have foolishly mortgaged their personal and professional prestige in the name of this unworkable position that it manages to remain a live option – to the grave detriment of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Any dispassionate evaluation of the events of the past two decades invariably leads one to accept the following conclusion: that the Palestinians seem far more focused on annulling Jewish political independence than attaining Palestinian political independence. That is to say, Palestinians are far more committed to the deconstruction of the Jewish State than to construction of a Palestinian one.
However, no matter how convincingly one can show that the Palestinians as a national entity have failed to create their own national destiny, a stark reality remains: there are hundreds of thousands of essentially disenfranchised Palestinian families residing both in Israeli territory and in the wider Arab world.
Addressing this situation requires a comprehensive solution comprised of three constituent elements, all eminently consistent with liberal political doctrine. Two involve eliminating discriminatory practices against the Palestinians as refugees and as residents in Arab countries. The third involves facilitating free choice for individual Palestinians to determine their own future.
Eliminating the UNRWA
As Daniel Pipes has pointed out, the persistence and scale of the Palestinian refugee problem is, to a large degree , an artificial construct. The UN body under whose auspices all the refugees on the face of the globe fall — except for the Palestinians — is the UN Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). A separate institution exists for the Palestinians — the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. UNHCR and UNRWA have widely different definitions for the term “refugee” and widely divergent mandates for dealing with them.
According to the High Commission’s definition, the number of refuges decreases over time, while according to the UNRWA definition, the number increases. This “definition disparity” brings about an astonishing situation: If the High Commission criterion was applied to the Palestinians, the number of refugees would shrink dramatically to around 200,000 – i.e., less than 5 percent of the current number of almost 5 million according to the UNRWA definition.
Moreover, while the mandate of the UNHCR permits the body to seek permanent solutions for refugees under its auspices, UNRWA is permitted only to provide ongoing humanitarian aid for the ever-increasing population of Palestinians. Accordingly, while UNHCR operates to dissipate the problems of the refugees under its auspices, UNRWA activities serve only to prolong their refugee status and thus, their predicament. Indeed, rather than reduce the dimensions of the refugee problem, UNRWA has actually functioned to perpetuate the refugee status of the Palestinians from one generation to the next. It has create an enduring and expanding culture of dependency, while cultivating an unrealistic fantasy of returning to a home that no longer exists.
As long as the Palestinian refugee problem continues to be treated in what former Congressman Tom Lantos called “this privileged and prolonged manner” it will never be resolved. Accordingly, the first step toward the resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem must be the abolition of UNRWA and the transfer of responsibility for the matter to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This move will facilitate the gradual tapering off of support for what should be a decreasing Palestinian refugee population.
Eliminating Arab Discrimination against Palestinians
Throughout the Arab world, the Palestinians are subject to blatant discrimination with regard to employment opportunities , property ownership, freedom of movement, and acquisition of citizenship. For example, Saudi Arabia in 2004 announced it was introducing measures to ease the attainment of Saudi citizenship for all foreigners who were residing in the country except Palestinians, half a million of whom live in the kingdom.
Similar policies of discrimination are prevalent in other Arab states. A 2004 Los Angeles Times report painted a grim picture of the life Palestinians are forced to endure among the Arab “brethren.” According to the report, Palestinians in Egypt suffer restrictions on employment, education, and owning property, and when Egypt announced in 2003 that it would grant nationality to children of Egyptian mothers married to foreigners, Palestinians were excluded. In Lebanon, meanwhile, nearly 400,000 Palestinians live in 12 “refugee camps,” where crime is rife and clashes between rival Palestinian factions are common. Palestinians cannot own property or get state health care. According to Tayseer Nasrallah, head of the Palestinian Refugee Rights Committee in the West Bank, Lebanon bans refugees from 72 areas of employment, including medicine and engineering. Syria, with a population of 18 million, is a strong verbal supporter of the Palestinian cause, but refuses citizenship to its 410,000 Palestinian refugees. Even in Jordan, where Palestinians comprise nearly 70% of the population, Palestinians complain that they are discriminated against in terms of employment.
When approached on this issue of discrimination against the Palestinian residents in Arab countries, Hisham Youssef, spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, openly acknowledged that Palestinians live “in very bad conditions,” but claimed the policy is meant “to preserve their Palestinian identity.” He went on to explain with perhaps unintended candor: “If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won’t be any reason for them to return to Palestine.”
But according to a survey conducted by the well-known Palestinian pollster, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, most Palestinians were less interested in being nationalist standard-bearers than in living fuller lives. This view resonates strongly with opinion samples gathered by the leading Arab television stations Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera of Palestinians living in the various Arab states, the vast majority of whom very much want to become citizens in the their respective countries of residence.
This clearly seems to indicate that Palestinian national identity is something more jealously guarded by non-Palestinian Arabs rather than the Palestinians themselves.
It is only the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that allows the Arab countries to continue to keep the Palestinians within their borders in their situation of suspended stateless animation. For while its mandate prevents finding a permanent solution for the Palestinian residents in these countries, it is the ongoing humanitarian aid that it provides for an ever-increasing client population that permits the host governments to sustain their discriminatory policy toward their Palestinian “guests,” to perpetuate their inferior status, and to allow their situation to languish and fester.
Allowing Individual Palestinians the Exercise of Free Will
If the first two elements of the proposed solution — abolishing the UNRWA and attacking the discrimination Palestinian émigrés suffer in other Arab countries — are directed mainly toward easing the plight the Palestinians living outside the West Bank and Gaza, a third element is aimed directly and exclusively at those living inside these areas.
After decades of disastrous failure, it should be clear that there is little chance of resolving the Palestinian issue if we continue to consider Palestinians as a cohesive entity with which contacts are conducted via some sort of “leadership.” Efforts should therefore be devoted exclusively towards individual Palestinians and towards allowing them, as individuals, free choice as to how to chart their future.
These efforts should be channeled in two major ways:
* Generous monetary compensation to aid the relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian residents in territories outside the confines of the 1967 “Green Line,” presumably — but not necessarily — in the Arab/Moslem world.
* Making the offer of compensation and relocation directly to the heads of families and not through any collective Palestinian entity or organizational framework.
It should be stipulated that an offer of financially-induced relocation made to a Palestinian political leadership would be vehemently rejected. But the approach suggested here would be made directly by an Israeli (or possibly an appropriately constituted international) entity, to the individual recipients. The scale of the offer would be on the order of the average lifetime earnings in some relevant host country for each family head — i.e. the GDP per capita of such a country multiplied by at least say 40-50 years. (As a comparative yardstick, this would be equivalent to an immigrant bread-winner arriving in the US with 2-2.5 million dollars.)
Thus, each household breadwinner would be confronted with three possible choices: life under the rigors of Israeli rule; life under the harrowing hardships of some Palestinian regime, with commensurately dimmer prospects of a better life for the family; or a sum of money equivalent to the life earning of an average citizen in countries that could serve as an appropriate alternative place of residence – probably, but dominantly Arab or Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa, or countries with significant Arab/Moslem communities in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.
It is of course possible that elements in the existing Palestinian institutional establishment would embark on a campaign to dissuade their constituencies from accepting any financial package for relocation. However, such harassment could be used to expose the cynicism of Palestinian “leaders” who lack the capability and perhaps even the desire to create a state, but threaten those who want to break the cycle of perpetual refugee-hood.
In fact, there is evidence that supports the plausibility of this proposal. A November 2004 survey commissioned by the Jerusalem Summit and conducted by a reputable Palestinian polling center and in conjunction with a well-know Israeli institute to gauge Palestinians’ willingness to emigrate permanently in exchange for material compensation. Significantly, the poll showed that only 15% of those polled would absolutely refuse to accept any such inducements, while over 70% stated that they would be willing to take the bargain.
The Acceptability of the Offer to the Prospective Host Countries
For the prospective host countries the proposal has considerable potential economic benefits. The Palestinians arriving at their gates will not be impoverished refugees, but relatively prosperous individuals with the equivalent of decades of local per capita GDP in their pockets. Indeed, for every hundred Palestinian families received, the host country could count on around fifteen to twenty million dollars going directly into the private sector. Absorbing 2,500 new Palestinian family units could mean the injection of up to half a billion into local economies often in dire need of such funds.
There are 2.5 to 4 million people in the West Bank and Gaza. The numbers of families/households (the relevant unit for receipt of compensation) would be in a range of 600,000- 800,000.
If each family head were offered a relocation grant of between $ 150,000 to $200,000, this would be the equivalent of several decades, and in some cases centuries, of GNP per capita earnings in any one of a wide range of prospective host destinations (see table). Indeed, even in terms of the average overall world per capita GDP (about $7000 U.S.) – such grants would be the equivalent of up to a quarter of a century GNP per capita. (As mentioned previously, in comparative terms, this would be equivalent to a bread winner arriving in the US with 2-2.5 million dollars.)
In terms of current estimated GNP per capita in the Palestinian administered territories, the grants would be the equivalent of between over a half-century to more than a century of income.
The aggregate cost of the proposal would be between $45 – 80 billion (depending on whether the relocation grant was $100,000 or $200,000). Extending the relocation to the entire Palestinian population would effectively entail doubling the required outlay to $90 –160 billion. Israel’s GNP is around $150 billion. If it were to declare that it was prepared to devote annually 4-6% of its GNP to the resolution of the Palestinian problem – i.e. offering an annual sum of $6-9 billion – the entire project could conceivably be implemented within a decade and a half. (It should be noted that the current Oslo process, with all the enormous expense it has entailed, has been going on for almost two decades, producing only catastrophic failure and tragedy.)
If international donors such as the USA, the EU or OECD countries matched Israel’s input dollar-for-dollar (which would involve contributing only a miniscule portion of these countries’ GNP), the implementation could be sped up considerably, possible within 5 years, without undue burden on the world economy.
In any case, the overall cost of the “two-state-solution” would, in all likelihood, be far greater. For even discounting the increased defense cost that Israel would have to incur if required to return to indefensible pre-1967 frontiers, there would still be huge costs. These would include the immense outlays required for the establishment and maintenance of the required physical infrastructure, and bureaucratic and organizational frameworks needed to make the micro-landlocked Palestinian state viable. Also, it should not be forgotten that if a Palestinian state were ever to be acheived, Arab regimes currently hosting Palestinian populations might begin impatiently (possibly coercively) pressing for their return to their newly established homeland. The cost of relocating a large “refugee” population in the nascent Palestinian state could be huge.
Conclusion
The time has come to recognize that for well over half a century, the Palestinians have been unable to produce a credible, competent, and capable leadership with the capacity to achieve statehood. This is in spite of highly favorable conditions such as robust international support and political pressure brought upon the Israelis.
The choice made time and again by this leadership is to prioritize the elimination of Israel over the creation of “Palestine.” This effort seriously undermines the moral and political bona fides of the Palestinian narrative, which has become the basis not only of Palestinian claims for statehood, but also for the much of the international acrimony directed against Israel.
The time has come to remove the noisome issue of Palestinian statehood from the international agenda, and address the enduring Palestinian humanitarian predicament (after all, there is a majority Palestinian state, which is Jordan); to abandon the approach of relating to the Palestinians as a collective entity. Instead we should treat them as individuals deserving a better fate than the one thrust on them by cynical leaders and neighboring states.
The time has come for imaginative new initiatives to defuse and disperse one of the global community’s most volatile problems.
Offering individual Palestinian families generous relocation grants is a solution that will dramatically and immediately improve the lot of individual Palestinians; defuse the Palestinian humanitarian “crisis”; ensure the continued survival of Israel as the state of the Jewish people; and inject billions of dollars of funds into the economies of low income nations who welcome the Palestinians.
This is a proposal that deserves debate and discussion. As it stands now, the Palestinians have nothing to lose but the chains in which their leaders have imprisoned them.
Martin Sherman is the 2009-2010 visiting Israeli Schusterman scholar at USC/HUC-JIR and the academic director of the Jerusalem Summit. He lectures at Tel Aviv University, served in Israel’s defense establishment and was a ministerial adviser to the Yitzhak Shamir government.
By Prof Martin Sherman
From Israel’s point of view, the “two-state/land for peace” solution to the Palestinian conflict has proven to be a long, drawn out failure that should have been abandoned long ago. It is only because many prominent political figures have foolishly mortgaged their personal and professional prestige in the name of this unworkable position that it manages to remain a live option – to the grave detriment of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Any dispassionate evaluation of the events of the past two decades invariably leads one to accept the following conclusion: that the Palestinians seem far more focused on annulling Jewish political independence than attaining Palestinian political independence. That is to say, Palestinians are far more committed to the deconstruction of the Jewish State than to construction of a Palestinian one.
However, no matter how convincingly one can show that the Palestinians as a national entity have failed to create their own national destiny, a stark reality remains: there are hundreds of thousands of essentially disenfranchised Palestinian families residing both in Israeli territory and in the wider Arab world.
Addressing this situation requires a comprehensive solution comprised of three constituent elements, all eminently consistent with liberal political doctrine. Two involve eliminating discriminatory practices against the Palestinians as refugees and as residents in Arab countries. The third involves facilitating free choice for individual Palestinians to determine their own future.
Eliminating the UNRWA
As Daniel Pipes has pointed out, the persistence and scale of the Palestinian refugee problem is, to a large degree , an artificial construct. The UN body under whose auspices all the refugees on the face of the globe fall — except for the Palestinians — is the UN Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). A separate institution exists for the Palestinians — the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. UNHCR and UNRWA have widely different definitions for the term “refugee” and widely divergent mandates for dealing with them.
According to the High Commission’s definition, the number of refuges decreases over time, while according to the UNRWA definition, the number increases. This “definition disparity” brings about an astonishing situation: If the High Commission criterion was applied to the Palestinians, the number of refugees would shrink dramatically to around 200,000 – i.e., less than 5 percent of the current number of almost 5 million according to the UNRWA definition.
Moreover, while the mandate of the UNHCR permits the body to seek permanent solutions for refugees under its auspices, UNRWA is permitted only to provide ongoing humanitarian aid for the ever-increasing population of Palestinians. Accordingly, while UNHCR operates to dissipate the problems of the refugees under its auspices, UNRWA activities serve only to prolong their refugee status and thus, their predicament. Indeed, rather than reduce the dimensions of the refugee problem, UNRWA has actually functioned to perpetuate the refugee status of the Palestinians from one generation to the next. It has create an enduring and expanding culture of dependency, while cultivating an unrealistic fantasy of returning to a home that no longer exists.
As long as the Palestinian refugee problem continues to be treated in what former Congressman Tom Lantos called “this privileged and prolonged manner” it will never be resolved. Accordingly, the first step toward the resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem must be the abolition of UNRWA and the transfer of responsibility for the matter to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This move will facilitate the gradual tapering off of support for what should be a decreasing Palestinian refugee population.
Eliminating Arab Discrimination against Palestinians
Throughout the Arab world, the Palestinians are subject to blatant discrimination with regard to employment opportunities , property ownership, freedom of movement, and acquisition of citizenship. For example, Saudi Arabia in 2004 announced it was introducing measures to ease the attainment of Saudi citizenship for all foreigners who were residing in the country except Palestinians, half a million of whom live in the kingdom.
Similar policies of discrimination are prevalent in other Arab states. A 2004 Los Angeles Times report painted a grim picture of the life Palestinians are forced to endure among the Arab “brethren.” According to the report, Palestinians in Egypt suffer restrictions on employment, education, and owning property, and when Egypt announced in 2003 that it would grant nationality to children of Egyptian mothers married to foreigners, Palestinians were excluded. In Lebanon, meanwhile, nearly 400,000 Palestinians live in 12 “refugee camps,” where crime is rife and clashes between rival Palestinian factions are common. Palestinians cannot own property or get state health care. According to Tayseer Nasrallah, head of the Palestinian Refugee Rights Committee in the West Bank, Lebanon bans refugees from 72 areas of employment, including medicine and engineering. Syria, with a population of 18 million, is a strong verbal supporter of the Palestinian cause, but refuses citizenship to its 410,000 Palestinian refugees. Even in Jordan, where Palestinians comprise nearly 70% of the population, Palestinians complain that they are discriminated against in terms of employment.
When approached on this issue of discrimination against the Palestinian residents in Arab countries, Hisham Youssef, spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, openly acknowledged that Palestinians live “in very bad conditions,” but claimed the policy is meant “to preserve their Palestinian identity.” He went on to explain with perhaps unintended candor: “If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won’t be any reason for them to return to Palestine.”
But according to a survey conducted by the well-known Palestinian pollster, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, most Palestinians were less interested in being nationalist standard-bearers than in living fuller lives. This view resonates strongly with opinion samples gathered by the leading Arab television stations Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera of Palestinians living in the various Arab states, the vast majority of whom very much want to become citizens in the their respective countries of residence.
This clearly seems to indicate that Palestinian national identity is something more jealously guarded by non-Palestinian Arabs rather than the Palestinians themselves.
It is only the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that allows the Arab countries to continue to keep the Palestinians within their borders in their situation of suspended stateless animation. For while its mandate prevents finding a permanent solution for the Palestinian residents in these countries, it is the ongoing humanitarian aid that it provides for an ever-increasing client population that permits the host governments to sustain their discriminatory policy toward their Palestinian “guests,” to perpetuate their inferior status, and to allow their situation to languish and fester.
Allowing Individual Palestinians the Exercise of Free Will
If the first two elements of the proposed solution — abolishing the UNRWA and attacking the discrimination Palestinian émigrés suffer in other Arab countries — are directed mainly toward easing the plight the Palestinians living outside the West Bank and Gaza, a third element is aimed directly and exclusively at those living inside these areas.
After decades of disastrous failure, it should be clear that there is little chance of resolving the Palestinian issue if we continue to consider Palestinians as a cohesive entity with which contacts are conducted via some sort of “leadership.” Efforts should therefore be devoted exclusively towards individual Palestinians and towards allowing them, as individuals, free choice as to how to chart their future.
These efforts should be channeled in two major ways:
* Generous monetary compensation to aid the relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian residents in territories outside the confines of the 1967 “Green Line,” presumably — but not necessarily — in the Arab/Moslem world.
* Making the offer of compensation and relocation directly to the heads of families and not through any collective Palestinian entity or organizational framework.
It should be stipulated that an offer of financially-induced relocation made to a Palestinian political leadership would be vehemently rejected. But the approach suggested here would be made directly by an Israeli (or possibly an appropriately constituted international) entity, to the individual recipients. The scale of the offer would be on the order of the average lifetime earnings in some relevant host country for each family head — i.e. the GDP per capita of such a country multiplied by at least say 40-50 years. (As a comparative yardstick, this would be equivalent to an immigrant bread-winner arriving in the US with 2-2.5 million dollars.)
Thus, each household breadwinner would be confronted with three possible choices: life under the rigors of Israeli rule; life under the harrowing hardships of some Palestinian regime, with commensurately dimmer prospects of a better life for the family; or a sum of money equivalent to the life earning of an average citizen in countries that could serve as an appropriate alternative place of residence – probably, but dominantly Arab or Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa, or countries with significant Arab/Moslem communities in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.
It is of course possible that elements in the existing Palestinian institutional establishment would embark on a campaign to dissuade their constituencies from accepting any financial package for relocation. However, such harassment could be used to expose the cynicism of Palestinian “leaders” who lack the capability and perhaps even the desire to create a state, but threaten those who want to break the cycle of perpetual refugee-hood.
In fact, there is evidence that supports the plausibility of this proposal. A November 2004 survey commissioned by the Jerusalem Summit and conducted by a reputable Palestinian polling center and in conjunction with a well-know Israeli institute to gauge Palestinians’ willingness to emigrate permanently in exchange for material compensation. Significantly, the poll showed that only 15% of those polled would absolutely refuse to accept any such inducements, while over 70% stated that they would be willing to take the bargain.
The Acceptability of the Offer to the Prospective Host Countries
For the prospective host countries the proposal has considerable potential economic benefits. The Palestinians arriving at their gates will not be impoverished refugees, but relatively prosperous individuals with the equivalent of decades of local per capita GDP in their pockets. Indeed, for every hundred Palestinian families received, the host country could count on around fifteen to twenty million dollars going directly into the private sector. Absorbing 2,500 new Palestinian family units could mean the injection of up to half a billion into local economies often in dire need of such funds.
There are 2.5 to 4 million people in the West Bank and Gaza. The numbers of families/households (the relevant unit for receipt of compensation) would be in a range of 600,000- 800,000.
If each family head were offered a relocation grant of between $ 150,000 to $200,000, this would be the equivalent of several decades, and in some cases centuries, of GNP per capita earnings in any one of a wide range of prospective host destinations (see table). Indeed, even in terms of the average overall world per capita GDP (about $7000 U.S.) – such grants would be the equivalent of up to a quarter of a century GNP per capita. (As mentioned previously, in comparative terms, this would be equivalent to a bread winner arriving in the US with 2-2.5 million dollars.)
In terms of current estimated GNP per capita in the Palestinian administered territories, the grants would be the equivalent of between over a half-century to more than a century of income.
The aggregate cost of the proposal would be between $45 – 80 billion (depending on whether the relocation grant was $100,000 or $200,000). Extending the relocation to the entire Palestinian population would effectively entail doubling the required outlay to $90 –160 billion. Israel’s GNP is around $150 billion. If it were to declare that it was prepared to devote annually 4-6% of its GNP to the resolution of the Palestinian problem – i.e. offering an annual sum of $6-9 billion – the entire project could conceivably be implemented within a decade and a half. (It should be noted that the current Oslo process, with all the enormous expense it has entailed, has been going on for almost two decades, producing only catastrophic failure and tragedy.)
If international donors such as the USA, the EU or OECD countries matched Israel’s input dollar-for-dollar (which would involve contributing only a miniscule portion of these countries’ GNP), the implementation could be sped up considerably, possible within 5 years, without undue burden on the world economy.
In any case, the overall cost of the “two-state-solution” would, in all likelihood, be far greater. For even discounting the increased defense cost that Israel would have to incur if required to return to indefensible pre-1967 frontiers, there would still be huge costs. These would include the immense outlays required for the establishment and maintenance of the required physical infrastructure, and bureaucratic and organizational frameworks needed to make the micro-landlocked Palestinian state viable. Also, it should not be forgotten that if a Palestinian state were ever to be acheived, Arab regimes currently hosting Palestinian populations might begin impatiently (possibly coercively) pressing for their return to their newly established homeland. The cost of relocating a large “refugee” population in the nascent Palestinian state could be huge.
Conclusion
The time has come to recognize that for well over half a century, the Palestinians have been unable to produce a credible, competent, and capable leadership with the capacity to achieve statehood. This is in spite of highly favorable conditions such as robust international support and political pressure brought upon the Israelis.
The choice made time and again by this leadership is to prioritize the elimination of Israel over the creation of “Palestine.” This effort seriously undermines the moral and political bona fides of the Palestinian narrative, which has become the basis not only of Palestinian claims for statehood, but also for the much of the international acrimony directed against Israel.
The time has come to remove the noisome issue of Palestinian statehood from the international agenda, and address the enduring Palestinian humanitarian predicament (after all, there is a majority Palestinian state, which is Jordan); to abandon the approach of relating to the Palestinians as a collective entity. Instead we should treat them as individuals deserving a better fate than the one thrust on them by cynical leaders and neighboring states.
The time has come for imaginative new initiatives to defuse and disperse one of the global community’s most volatile problems.
Offering individual Palestinian families generous relocation grants is a solution that will dramatically and immediately improve the lot of individual Palestinians; defuse the Palestinian humanitarian “crisis”; ensure the continued survival of Israel as the state of the Jewish people; and inject billions of dollars of funds into the economies of low income nations who welcome the Palestinians.
This is a proposal that deserves debate and discussion. As it stands now, the Palestinians have nothing to lose but the chains in which their leaders have imprisoned them.
Martin Sherman is the 2009-2010 visiting Israeli Schusterman scholar at USC/HUC-JIR and the academic director of the Jerusalem Summit. He lectures at Tel Aviv University, served in Israel’s defense establishment and was a ministerial adviser to the Yitzhak Shamir government.
EMP: AN EVER PRESENT DANGER
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) poses a devastating threat that is not science fiction but a real danger to our security that exists in the here and now.
In the August issue of Townhall Magazine, Peter Brookes examines the EMP threat, how it works and what we can do to prepare. Below is an excerpt from his piece, "Electromagnetic Pulse Threat."
Just imagine that one bright, sunny day everything electrical just stopped working. The lights go out in your home or office. There is no cell phone or Internet service and, tragedy of tragedies, the coffee maker won't work.
All the modern electrical conveniences we take for granted on a day-to-day basis in the 21st century go kaput -- without an obvious explanation. And as a result, modern life as we know it comes to a virtual standstill.
Sure, it could be a power outage. That happens when the weather is bad, which it's not on this particular day. The power company could be working on the lines, but they aren’t. And even if they were, that might not account for your cell phone outage or the fact your car -- and the others on the road -- all died at once.
You were not aware of it, but American military, intelligence and homeland security forces had been tracking a foreign merchant vessel, operating off the East Coast of the United States. In fact, just before everything went dark, the ship opened the large cargo doors on its deck and launched a ballistic missile into the sky in the direction of the American shoreline.
Aware of the launch from high-tech, spy-in-the-sky satellites, but unable to take out the missile due the lack of a comprehensive missile defense system, the U.S. military attempts to conduct a counter-strike on the freighter before it launches another missile.
That is until the missile’s warhead explodes high in the atmosphere over the central United States, releasing an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) -- and destroying unprotected electrical and computer capacity within its effective radius.
As a result, the country's three main -- and interconnected -- electrical grids are rendered useless due to the EMP, possibly leaving the entire country without service within seconds, according to experts.
Moreover, in the blink of an eye, U.S. military forces within line-of-sight of the EMP -- up until this moment the world's most potent, computerized, and capable force -- is now practically out of business.
And that's not all.
With electrical circuits fried, hospital equipment stops; nuclear power plants are in jeopardy; and there are no emergency services to respond to your calls for help. In fact, you can’t even call for help -- 911 is gone.
It gets worse.
Depending on the size and number of EMP bursts over America, this is only the beginning of our woes. With the destruction of America’s electrical and computer systems, there will be severe water, food and medicine shortages, some experts believe.
One estimate suggests a major EMP attack would push American society back 100 years technologically and could lead to the death of a large portion of the population in a relatively short period due to an evolving inability to deal with such things as the spread of illness, among other problems. Indeed, a U.S. government-sponsored study by the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack (a.k.a. the EMP Commission) concluded that within just one year of such an attack 70 to 90 percent of Americans could be dead from starvation or disease.
While this sounds like something out of "The Twilight Zone," it's not. The possibility is real -- and the threat of EMP is here and now.
Read the entire piece in the August issue of Townhall magazine.
.
In the August issue of Townhall Magazine, Peter Brookes examines the EMP threat, how it works and what we can do to prepare. Below is an excerpt from his piece, "Electromagnetic Pulse Threat."
Just imagine that one bright, sunny day everything electrical just stopped working. The lights go out in your home or office. There is no cell phone or Internet service and, tragedy of tragedies, the coffee maker won't work.
All the modern electrical conveniences we take for granted on a day-to-day basis in the 21st century go kaput -- without an obvious explanation. And as a result, modern life as we know it comes to a virtual standstill.
Sure, it could be a power outage. That happens when the weather is bad, which it's not on this particular day. The power company could be working on the lines, but they aren’t. And even if they were, that might not account for your cell phone outage or the fact your car -- and the others on the road -- all died at once.
You were not aware of it, but American military, intelligence and homeland security forces had been tracking a foreign merchant vessel, operating off the East Coast of the United States. In fact, just before everything went dark, the ship opened the large cargo doors on its deck and launched a ballistic missile into the sky in the direction of the American shoreline.
Aware of the launch from high-tech, spy-in-the-sky satellites, but unable to take out the missile due the lack of a comprehensive missile defense system, the U.S. military attempts to conduct a counter-strike on the freighter before it launches another missile.
That is until the missile’s warhead explodes high in the atmosphere over the central United States, releasing an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) -- and destroying unprotected electrical and computer capacity within its effective radius.
As a result, the country's three main -- and interconnected -- electrical grids are rendered useless due to the EMP, possibly leaving the entire country without service within seconds, according to experts.
Moreover, in the blink of an eye, U.S. military forces within line-of-sight of the EMP -- up until this moment the world's most potent, computerized, and capable force -- is now practically out of business.
And that's not all.
With electrical circuits fried, hospital equipment stops; nuclear power plants are in jeopardy; and there are no emergency services to respond to your calls for help. In fact, you can’t even call for help -- 911 is gone.
It gets worse.
Depending on the size and number of EMP bursts over America, this is only the beginning of our woes. With the destruction of America’s electrical and computer systems, there will be severe water, food and medicine shortages, some experts believe.
One estimate suggests a major EMP attack would push American society back 100 years technologically and could lead to the death of a large portion of the population in a relatively short period due to an evolving inability to deal with such things as the spread of illness, among other problems. Indeed, a U.S. government-sponsored study by the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack (a.k.a. the EMP Commission) concluded that within just one year of such an attack 70 to 90 percent of Americans could be dead from starvation or disease.
While this sounds like something out of "The Twilight Zone," it's not. The possibility is real -- and the threat of EMP is here and now.
Read the entire piece in the August issue of Townhall magazine.
.
COMING ATTRACTIONS
Read this!
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4470
Canary in the Coalmine: Europe’s “Decoy Jews”
From the desk of Paul Belien on Thu, 2010-06-24 10:50
“Decoy Jew” is a new phrase in the Netherlands. Jews are no longer safe in major Dutch cities such as Amsterdam. Since 1999, Jewish organizations in the Netherlands have been complaining that Jews who walk the Dutch streets wearing skullcaps risk verbal and physical attacks by young Muslims. Being insulted, spat at or attacked are some of the risks associated with being recognizable as a Jew in contemporary Western Europe.
Last week, a television broadcast showed how three Jews with skullcaps, two adolescents and an adult, were harassed within thirty minutes of being out in the streets of Amsterdam. Young Muslims spat at them, mocked them, shouted insults and made Nazi salutes. “Dirty Jew, go back to your own country,” a group of Moroccan youths shouted at a young indigenous Dutch Jew. “It is rather ironic,” the young man commented, adding that if one goes out in a burka one encounters less hostility than if one wears a skullcap.
In an effort to arrest the culprits who terrorize Jews, the Amsterdam authorities have ordered police officers to walk the streets disguised as Jews. The Dutch police already disguise officers as “decoy prostitutes, decoy gays and decoy grannies” to deter muggings and attacks on prostitutes, homosexuals and the elderly. Apparently sending out the decoys has helped reduce street crime. The “decoy Jew” has now been added to the police attributes.
The deployment of “decoy Jews”, however, is being criticized by leftist parties such as the Dutch Greens. Evelien van Roemburg, an Amsterdam counselor of the Green Left Party, says that using a decoy by the police amounts to provoking a crime, which is itself a criminal offence under Dutch law.
Unfortunately, the situation in Amsterdam is not unique. Jews in other Dutch cities also regularly complain about harassment. So do Jews in neighboring countries. On Monday, the Belgian newspaper De Standaard reported that large numbers of Jews are leaving Antwerp for America, Britain or Israel. Antwerp – nicknamed the “Jerusalem of the North” – is one of the major centers of Jewish culture in the Low Countries. “In London, you are not harassed if you wear a skullcap, but here you are,” a young Antwerp Jew told the paper.
Kleinblatt, a famous Jewish Antwerp bakery, which has been handed down from father to son since 1903, will soon break with that tradition because the baker’s son has emigrated to the U.S. “We no longer feel safe and welcome here,” a young Jew who is leaving for London told De Standaard. “Muslim immigrants blame us for what is happening in Israel.” Another young Jew, who is leaving for New York, says: “New York is a paradise for Jews. Unlike Belgium, non-Jews in America are pro-Israel.”
Ultra-orthodox Jews remain in Antwerp, but the less orthodox are leaving in droves. Even Jacques Wenger, the director of Shomre Hadas, the Jewish community center in Antwerp, is emigrating to Israel. If the current trend continues, he predicts, in fifty years’ time there will be no Jews left in Antwerp except for the ultra-orthodox.
It is often said that the Jews are the canary in the coalmine. When the Jews feel compelled to leave, the light of freedom is being extinguished. Something is badly wrong when the police need to deploy “decoy Jews.” Once again, the specter of anti-Semitism is haunting Europe. If the Europeans do not stand with the Jews, they deserve no freedom themselves and cities such as Amsterdam and Antwerp will soon be Islamic cities.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4470
Canary in the Coalmine: Europe’s “Decoy Jews”
From the desk of Paul Belien on Thu, 2010-06-24 10:50
“Decoy Jew” is a new phrase in the Netherlands. Jews are no longer safe in major Dutch cities such as Amsterdam. Since 1999, Jewish organizations in the Netherlands have been complaining that Jews who walk the Dutch streets wearing skullcaps risk verbal and physical attacks by young Muslims. Being insulted, spat at or attacked are some of the risks associated with being recognizable as a Jew in contemporary Western Europe.
Last week, a television broadcast showed how three Jews with skullcaps, two adolescents and an adult, were harassed within thirty minutes of being out in the streets of Amsterdam. Young Muslims spat at them, mocked them, shouted insults and made Nazi salutes. “Dirty Jew, go back to your own country,” a group of Moroccan youths shouted at a young indigenous Dutch Jew. “It is rather ironic,” the young man commented, adding that if one goes out in a burka one encounters less hostility than if one wears a skullcap.
In an effort to arrest the culprits who terrorize Jews, the Amsterdam authorities have ordered police officers to walk the streets disguised as Jews. The Dutch police already disguise officers as “decoy prostitutes, decoy gays and decoy grannies” to deter muggings and attacks on prostitutes, homosexuals and the elderly. Apparently sending out the decoys has helped reduce street crime. The “decoy Jew” has now been added to the police attributes.
The deployment of “decoy Jews”, however, is being criticized by leftist parties such as the Dutch Greens. Evelien van Roemburg, an Amsterdam counselor of the Green Left Party, says that using a decoy by the police amounts to provoking a crime, which is itself a criminal offence under Dutch law.
Unfortunately, the situation in Amsterdam is not unique. Jews in other Dutch cities also regularly complain about harassment. So do Jews in neighboring countries. On Monday, the Belgian newspaper De Standaard reported that large numbers of Jews are leaving Antwerp for America, Britain or Israel. Antwerp – nicknamed the “Jerusalem of the North” – is one of the major centers of Jewish culture in the Low Countries. “In London, you are not harassed if you wear a skullcap, but here you are,” a young Antwerp Jew told the paper.
Kleinblatt, a famous Jewish Antwerp bakery, which has been handed down from father to son since 1903, will soon break with that tradition because the baker’s son has emigrated to the U.S. “We no longer feel safe and welcome here,” a young Jew who is leaving for London told De Standaard. “Muslim immigrants blame us for what is happening in Israel.” Another young Jew, who is leaving for New York, says: “New York is a paradise for Jews. Unlike Belgium, non-Jews in America are pro-Israel.”
Ultra-orthodox Jews remain in Antwerp, but the less orthodox are leaving in droves. Even Jacques Wenger, the director of Shomre Hadas, the Jewish community center in Antwerp, is emigrating to Israel. If the current trend continues, he predicts, in fifty years’ time there will be no Jews left in Antwerp except for the ultra-orthodox.
It is often said that the Jews are the canary in the coalmine. When the Jews feel compelled to leave, the light of freedom is being extinguished. Something is badly wrong when the police need to deploy “decoy Jews.” Once again, the specter of anti-Semitism is haunting Europe. If the Europeans do not stand with the Jews, they deserve no freedom themselves and cities such as Amsterdam and Antwerp will soon be Islamic cities.
AL TIRA
http://www.youtube.com/v/DvzncWezYEk&border=1&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
RE TURKEY: THE SUN HAS LONG AGO SET ON THE BRITISH EMPIRE
Cameron's Despicable Toadying to Turkey
Posted: 28 Jul 2010 11:21 PM PDT BY SULTAN
It is sadly unsurprising that Prime Minister Cameron's highly publicized trip to Turkey went with no mention of that country's continued denial of the Armenian Genocide, and its suppression of Kurdish and Armenian minorities. Indeed when Turkish leader Erdogan discussed his threats of ethnically cleansing Armenians in the UK, Gordon Brown made no more comment on the matter than if Erdogan had been discussing his favorite television programs.
It is in keeping with that conspiracy of silence, that Cameron made no mention of the thousands of political prisoners in Turkish jails, there often for merely expressing an opinion at odds with the state, for singing a folk song, or delivering an official speech in Kurdish. Naturally Cameron did not think to raise the issue of Leyla Zana, the first Kurdish woman elected to the Turkish parliament and a winner of the Sakharov Prize, who is still in jail today. Cameron could have at least raised the subject of Aysel Tuğluk, a member of the Turkish Human Rights Association, who was illegally stripped of her parliamentary immunity and sent to jail for handing out leaflets in the Kurdish language, and is now due to be sent to jail yet again.
But rather than standing up for human rights, Cameron instead pandered to the radical Islamists who were his hosts, by feeding their appetite for hate directed at Israel. And it did not begin or end with Israel.
Instead Cameron sold out the rest of Europe, declaring that he was "angry" at how long the negotiations to bring Turkey into the EU were taking, and declaring himself the "strongest possible advocate for EU membership". He slammed France and implicitly Germany, for refusing to rush forward to support bringing Turkey into the EU. Cameron sided with Turkey, over France and Germany, betraying allies for enemies. And worse was yet to come.
Not only did Cameron ignore Turkey's ongoing occupation of Cyprus, but he signed a strategic agreement with Turkey that calls for ending the "isolation" of the Turkish Cypriots by upholding their "right to representation" in the European Parliament, and promoting political and cultural contacts with the Turkish Cypriots. What that means is that Cameron committed himself to supporting Dervis Eroglu from the radical National Unity Party, which calls for Turkish annexation of occupied Cyprus. The strategic agreement signed by Cameron, moves the UK closer to recognizing the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, which currently only Turkey itself recognizes.
Again Cameron makes no criticism whatsoever of Turkey's illegal occupation of Cyprus. He does not mention the fact that he signed an agreement promoting the flow of goods from occupied Cyprus to the UK, while Turkey refuses to accept goods from Greek Cyprus. Of course not. No more than his predecessor was willing to.
Did Cameron do any of this out of principle? Nonsense. Cameron knows as well as anyone about Turkey's state of domestic terror, its persecution of the political opposition, and how unworkable Turkish membership in the EU would be. Instead like Brown before him, Cameron pandered to the Turkish thug-in-chief for a few pounds, hoping to boost British exports to Turkey. In the hope of a few million pounds, Cameron betrayed fellow European nations, signed off on Turkey's occupation of Cyprus, ignored the thousands of political prisoners in Turkish jails, and whitewashed Turkey's real record on Islamic terrorism. And while he and his businessmen friends beamed and shook hands with Turkey's chief terrorist-- others were left to stand up against the violence and brutality of the Turkish regime on their own.
In his rambling speech, Cameron praised Turkey for fighting against terrorism. The reality however is that the only "terrorism" that Turkey fights against, is Kurdish guerrillas, from its large Kurdish minority who want to have their own state, or at least some basic human rights. And when Cameron shook hands with Erdogan, he was shaking hands with a man whose patron, Yassin Qadi, funneled millions of dollars to Al Queda, and whose own advisor, Cuneyt Zapsu, donated 300,000 dollars to Al Queda. Al Queda operates its magazine freely in Istanbul, which is convenient because Erdogan claims there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism.
If Turkey, as Cameron says, is guarding the flank of Europe... then who in G-d's name is guarding Europe from Turkey? Certainly not Cameron.
Cameron's despicable toadying to Turkey's Thug-in-Chief was one long collection of lies. In his speech, he claimed that "Europe will draw fresh vigour and purpose from a Turkey that embraces human rights and democracy". Turkey's democracy is such that its opposition is routinely jailed. Its human rights has sent 12 year olds to prison for singing folk songs. It has no concept of democracy or human rights. Its 10,000 political prisoners could testify to that. Almost a 1000 of them opposition politicians.
The sham continued as Cameron congratulated Turkey on "its efforts to achieve the ambition of zero problems with all its neighbours, including Iraq". This after Turkish troops repeatedly invaded Iraq just just last month, murdering a 15 year old girl, among others. The Iraqi government protested, to no effect. Cameron, who is supposed to be committed to guaranteeing Iraq's security, instead shamelessly praises the invaders. The only casualties he mentions are those of the Turkish invading forces, not their victims. Never their victims.
And so it goes. Cameron babbles on about Turkey's religious tolerance, while the level of hateful incitement spirals out of control. He talks about the true tolerant Islam, to a man who was at one point imprisoned for his own Islamic radicalism. He takes up arms against all those damned obstructionists who are preventing a lovely regime like Erdogan's Turkey from joining the EU. He vows to fight them everywhere, like a latter day Churchill, proclaiming not, "There will always be an England", but rather, "There will always be a Turkey in the EU".
If there was any Turk in that room who had the slightest respect for England before Cameron began to speak, it was sure to have vanished in a whiff of contempt. Cameron's speech reminds one of English socialists visiting the Soviet Union and heaping praise on Stalin and the wonderful revolution, before going off to collect their blood money. And now Cameron has done them one better, demanding that a radical Islamist regime share open borders with the EU.
In a speech given while Erdogan prepares to round up political opponents before the election on fraudulent charges of "inciting" Kurdish riots-- Cameron made only one criticism of human rights. Not of Turkey of course. Or of Erdogan, who has jailed about as many of his opponents as Saddam Hussein. No, Cameron courageously blasted Israel, for standing up to Erdogan's IHH thugs, after they beat and stabbed Israeli soldiers inspecting their flotilla carrying aid to Hamas run Gaza.
Cameron blasted the response of Israeli soldiers who fired back after they Turkish Islamist thugs tried to murder them, as "completely unacceptable" and called Gaza, a "prison camp". He demanded a "swift, transparent and rigorous" inquiry. No such demand was of course issued to his hosts for their 10,000 political prisoners, their illegal invasion of Iraq and murder of civilians-- or that Armenian genocide matter. Of course no inquiries are demanded there.
Let us be clear what Cameron has done. He has sold out Europe and the free world by signing on the dotted of an agreement which explicitly trades English support for EU membership for increased exports. This is about money, pure and simple. There are no principles of any kind here. And what does Europe get out of all this? Here is a brief preview of coming attractions;*
*
Anti-Kurdish Protests in Turkey
'Allah Wants This War'
By Maximilian Popp in Istanbul
The mood in Turkey is becoming increasingly jingoistic as thousands take to the streets, calling for war against the Kurdish rebel organization PKK and an invasion of northern Iraq. But Baghdad has promised to curb the Kurds.
Anger drives them on to the streets, anger provoked by the images of dead soldiers shown on Turkish television. Thousands of demonstrators walk along Istiklal Caddesi, or Independence Avenue, Istanbul's longest shopping street. They are calling for war: War against the Kurds, against the PKK, against Iraq. "We have waited long enough," reads one poster. "Allah wants this war," is the message on another.
Thousands across Turkey want their government to take action against the PKK.
AFP
Thousands across Turkey want their government to take action against the PKK.
People have been protesting throughout the country since Sunday evening, after it was revealed that rebels from the Kurdish separatist organization the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) had killed 12 Turkish soldiers in eastern Turkey. It is mainly young people who take to the streets, with Turkish flags in their hands, whistles in their mouths and hatred in their eyes.
"We have waited long enough," says Erkan, a young car mechanic from Istanbul. "It's time to strike." His face is pale and his right hand is clenched in a fist. "We are all Turks, we are all soldiers!" he calls. Many of the demonstrators sympathize with the right-wing youth organization the Gray Wolves. Their message to the Kurds is clear: Admit you are Turkish, or die.
REPRINTS
Find out how you can reprint this SPIEGEL ONLINE article.
The PKK, which has bases in the mountains of northern Iraq, has been fighting for decades for an independent Kurdistan. But the attacks of recent weeks were the heaviest in a long time. Last
Wednesday , the Turkish parliament approved -- by an overwhelming majority -- a measure which clears the way for a military incursion into northern Iraq.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is still hesitating, though, not least after the personal intervention of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But Erdogan said Tuesday that Turkey couldn't wait indefinitely for the Iraqi government to act against the PKK. "We cannot wait forever," he said during a visit to the UK for talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. "We have to make our own decisions."
Brown said Britain was working with Turkey on "all efforts that are necessary so that terrorists cannot move from Iraq into Turkey." The UK, like the US, is keen to stop Turkey invading northern Iraq, fearing the destabilization of the region.
'Nobody Wants War. But --'
Diplomatic efforts continued elsewhere Tuesday as Turkish forces massed on the Iraqi border. Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met with Turkish leaders in Baghdad to press them to crack down on the PKK. "We ... don't wish our historical and friendly ties with Iraq to be ruined because of a terrorist organization," he said at a news conference after meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.
Zebari, for his part, said Baghdad would "actively help Turkey to overcome this menace." But Babacan rejected any offer of a ceasefire by the PKK. A ceasefire is only "possible between states and regular forces," he said. "The problem here is that we're dealing with a terrorist organization."
Aside from international diplomacy, though, many demonstrators in the streets are calling for war -- now. Even among liberal Turks and university students, the mood is edgy. Many believe Turkey has allowed itself to be provoked by the PKK for long enough. "Erdogan shouldn't allow himself to be pressured any longer, we need to invade Iraq," says 23-year-old political studies student Ayla. "The Kurdish problem cannot be resolved through diplomacy alone."
In the cafeteria of Istanbul's Bilgi University, one of the country's most prestigious schools , students hand out Turkish flags and black ribbons. "We want to express our sympathy for the dead soldiers," says Gözde, one of the campaign's initiators, and hits the table with her fist. "I ask myself how many Turks still need to die before our government finally does something about it."
"Nobody wants war," adds fellow student Metin. "But if that's the price of security, we have no other choice."
There are still voices of reason warning against a military attack, however. The northern region of Iraq inhabited by Kurds is the only largely peaceful area in the war-torn country. "If the Turkish army crosses the border, northern Iraq will fall into a maelstrom of violence," says Dursun Tüyloglu, a lecturer in politics at Bilgi University.
According to Tüyloglu, over the last few years, the Turkish government has started to give extra support to the country's economically weak eastern part. As a result, during the most recent parliamentary elections, more than half of the Kurds there voted for Erdogan's ruling AKP party. "The PKK is losing its grassroots support in Turkey, and they know it," he says. "That's why they are bombing their way back into the spotlight."
In his opinion, every time a soldier is killed, the pressure on Erdogan's government increases.
'War Would Make Everything Worse"
Turkish actor Ozan Ayhan is sure of one thing: "A war in Iraq would only profit the PKK." The terrorists can't be beaten with weapons, he says. "We have to appeal to moderate Kurds."
The reverse is true for now -- the mood in Turkey is overheated. On Sunday evening the street demonstrators in Istanbul wanted to storm a Kurdish neighborhood called Talabasi. The police managed to hold them back.
Emrah, 26, grew up in Diyarbakir, a Kurdish stronghold in southern Anatolia. He studied economics in Mersin and wants to find work in Istanbul. "I'm afraid," he says. "I don't know what's going on in this country." Lately he's suffered more and more abuse: "People who were my friends just a few months ago won't talk to me anymore."
Emrah had a job interview at a bank last week. When he said he came from Diyarbakir and was Kurdish, he received a withering look. "I work hard, but no one is giving me a chance," he says.
He lights a cigarette and pulls on it in hurried drags. "War would just make everything worse."
With material from the Associated Press and Reuters.*
It is mainly young people who take to the streets, with Turkish flags in their hands, whistles in their mouths and hatred in their eyes.
"We have waited long enough," reads one poster. "Allah wants this war," is the message on another.
**European tolerance Islamized Turkey. The pandering of unprincipled leaders like Cameron will take it to the brink and beyond.
How European Tolerance Islamized Turkey
There was a time when Turkey was a modern example to the rest of the Muslim world. And there was one fundamental reason for that. It was because Turkey realized that it could either be a backward Muslim colony of Europe, or it could put Islam in its place, and reform in order to try to keep up with Europe. And there is also a fundamental reason why that brand of reform has not come to the rest of the Muslim world. It is because they never had to learn that same lesson.
While the Ottoman Empire had once threatened Europe when both were getting by on the remnants of skills and knowledge from the Roman days, but as Europe progressed, the conquerors of Byzantium could not keep up. And so the Ottoman Empire became the Sick Man of Europe, and the nations of Europe fought major wars over who would have first dibs on carving up its territory. The last of those conflicts was World War I. And so Turkey was faced with a decision. To try and compete with Europe by becoming like the Europeans, or becoming just another colony.
But while Turkey modernized, the Muslim nations of the Middle East instead followed a completely different paradigm. And they succeeded for two reasons. Oil. And the willingness of First and Second World powers to pander to them. Where Turkey had to learn to do things the hard way, to separate mosque from state and try to build modern institutions, a bunch of backward desert sheiks were lucky enough to take control of barren regions where infidel geologists found oil. Those sheiks were also lucky enough to stumble into a perfect era of infidel infighting that allowed them to play Americans against the Europeans against the Russians. Not long after the sheiks had more money than they could count, which meant that they didn't need to modernize, instead they could buy all the American and European technology they wanted, and even import actual Americans and Europeans to do the work for them.
Of course the Saudi, Emirati or Kuwaiti way was none too feasible for Muslim countries without a whole lot of oil under their feet-- but that didn't matter. Because money bought them a whole lot of cultural warfare. While US troops guarded the fat sheiks from any neighbors who were investing their money into building a military-- the Saudis spent their money on foreign investments and on building up the Islamic takeover of Europe and America. Where post-war terrorism by Muslims had begun as Soviet proxy attacks on Britain, America and Israel-- it discarded its red Marxist outer shell to reveal its green Islamist interior. Not long after the the USSR fell, Middle Eastern terrorism was swiftly taking on a wholly Islamist coloration. A coloration heavily funded by oil money.
The Saudi model showed that modernization did not require modern thinking. It showed that Muslim countries could still be Islamist, and still have all the benefits of modern living. All it took was money. While Turkey was busy being Europe's backward cousin, the Saudis were gorging themselves on Western delicacies, importing foreign architects and landscape planners, models, entertainers and huge numbers of slaves from Southeast Asia. In doing so they made their larger point, which is that Western civilization was a commodity that could be bought, and that it was possible to have it all, the raw meat of Islam and the fruits of the West on one plate. Western civilization was for sale.
Turkey had reformed because civilization had proven to be the strong horse, and Islam the weak horse. When the balance shifted, civilization was revealed as the weak force, and Islam as the strong force. And not only did we not try to turn the tide, our governments affirmed this with everything they did, both in their domestic policies toward Muslim immigrants, and their foreign policy toward Muslim nations. Call it appeasement or dhimmism, what they did not only devalued them individually and nationally, it devalued the very idea that civilization was superior to medieval barbarism, and destroyed the very forces that might have modernized the Muslim world.
A generation later, the tide of Muslim immigrants to Europe learned the same lesson as well. After some initial fuss about integration, they could also combine Islamism and Western civilization. It was possible for them to be doctors, dentists, lords and engineers-- while at the same time believing they had a duty to force their new hosts to bow to the god of Islam, first seen by Mohammed on a three day bender in the desert. And if they had any qualms about it, their local petrodollar mosques were sure to fix that. And if not them, then their children.
Turkish guest workers saw this all firsthand. Which made the idea that Turkey had to be secular in order for Turks to benefit from the modern world seem all the more absurd. That sort of thinking might have made sense back in the day when Her Majesty's Armies were administering an empire, but not when Islamist preachers were hectoring the masses and jeering at returning soldiers in the heart of her kingdom.
Western civilization had not only shown itself to be for sale, but its secularism and modernity were instead revealed to be weaknesses. Any Muslim in Europe could not help but realize that it was the very lack of principles that made it so ripe for the plucking. The way of Ataturk had ceased to make sense. The way of the House of Saud on the other hand was looking pretty good. Or even the Way of Bin Laden.
European tolerance for Islam eliminated any real reason for Turkey not to become Islamist. As Erdogan has demonstrated, it is possible to run a country that continues to deny genocide, oppresses minorities and has jails filled with political prisoners. That openly supports terrorism and Islamism-- and yet is on track for membership in the European Union. Erdogan does not need to dig up Ataturk and turn him upside down-- the Great Tolerators of Europe were already doing it for him.
Where Ataturk knew that Turkey had to modernize, the Islamist believes that modernity is a sham. That Islamic science has already discovered everything worth discovering and that what the West calls modernity is nothing more than an excuse for wanton immorality and a lack of principles. The modern European Muslim is increasingly coming around to that way of thinking. And thought that way of thinking may be a sham, it is a reasonably successful one, because Europe itself is propping up its underlying assumptions.
Where the Sick Man of Europe had to choose between modernity and Islam-- the modern Muslim need make no such choices. He can listen to Islamist preachers ranting on YouTube, compel patients at his medical office to comply with Islamic laws and have his wife cover her face when she goes outside.
Progress comes from challenges. Challenges demand that you overcome the obstacles holding you back. The Muslim world no longer has challenges. Instead the door has been thrown open for them with no demands or expectations. Islam is not held accountable in the way that other religions are. Muslims are not held accountable for one of the world's largest and longest ongoing killing sprees. Muslim countries are not held accountable for everything from the genocide of millions to barbaric acts of torture and mutilation.
This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Nothing is expected from Muslims, which only helps the Islamists make the case that Western civilization is hopelessly decadent and weak, and that imitation it would be a mistake. All the fawning praise directed at the "Religion of Peace" feeds that cycle, reaffirming the Islamists' arrogance and sense of destiny as those they think of as enemies foolishly give way to them. That is the attitude Hitler had as he realized that the nations that seemed overwhelmingly powerful were not going to stop him. It is the same attitude you can easily see among Islamists, whose sense of cultural invulnerability is running at an all time high.
Build a mosque near Ground Zero, and you prove that the West does not even value the graves of its martyred dead. Set off a bomb in a crowded cafe and snicker as the governments of the dead rush to assure you that they hold no ill will toward the same ideology responsible. Cover your wife from head to toe on pain of death and watch feminist organizations assure the public that it is the feminist thing to do. To Muslims, Western civilization has gone from a bogeyman to a pathetic joke. Which meant that the Islamization of Muslim countries that had made some concession to Western civilization was a foregone conclusion.
Paradoxically enough it was European tolerance that helped Islamize Turkey, as it has helped Islamize its own resident Muslims. Its tolerance has only fed intolerance. By acting like the conquered, they have only attracted conquerors. By failing to challenge Islam, they discredited their nations and their way of life in the eyes of men faced with a choice between honorable barbarism and dishonorable accommodation to civilization's burdens. And the children of those men are murdering them in the streets of their own cities today.**
Posted: 28 Jul 2010 11:21 PM PDT BY SULTAN
It is sadly unsurprising that Prime Minister Cameron's highly publicized trip to Turkey went with no mention of that country's continued denial of the Armenian Genocide, and its suppression of Kurdish and Armenian minorities. Indeed when Turkish leader Erdogan discussed his threats of ethnically cleansing Armenians in the UK, Gordon Brown made no more comment on the matter than if Erdogan had been discussing his favorite television programs.
It is in keeping with that conspiracy of silence, that Cameron made no mention of the thousands of political prisoners in Turkish jails, there often for merely expressing an opinion at odds with the state, for singing a folk song, or delivering an official speech in Kurdish. Naturally Cameron did not think to raise the issue of Leyla Zana, the first Kurdish woman elected to the Turkish parliament and a winner of the Sakharov Prize, who is still in jail today. Cameron could have at least raised the subject of Aysel Tuğluk, a member of the Turkish Human Rights Association, who was illegally stripped of her parliamentary immunity and sent to jail for handing out leaflets in the Kurdish language, and is now due to be sent to jail yet again.
But rather than standing up for human rights, Cameron instead pandered to the radical Islamists who were his hosts, by feeding their appetite for hate directed at Israel. And it did not begin or end with Israel.
Instead Cameron sold out the rest of Europe, declaring that he was "angry" at how long the negotiations to bring Turkey into the EU were taking, and declaring himself the "strongest possible advocate for EU membership". He slammed France and implicitly Germany, for refusing to rush forward to support bringing Turkey into the EU. Cameron sided with Turkey, over France and Germany, betraying allies for enemies. And worse was yet to come.
Not only did Cameron ignore Turkey's ongoing occupation of Cyprus, but he signed a strategic agreement with Turkey that calls for ending the "isolation" of the Turkish Cypriots by upholding their "right to representation" in the European Parliament, and promoting political and cultural contacts with the Turkish Cypriots. What that means is that Cameron committed himself to supporting Dervis Eroglu from the radical National Unity Party, which calls for Turkish annexation of occupied Cyprus. The strategic agreement signed by Cameron, moves the UK closer to recognizing the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, which currently only Turkey itself recognizes.
Again Cameron makes no criticism whatsoever of Turkey's illegal occupation of Cyprus. He does not mention the fact that he signed an agreement promoting the flow of goods from occupied Cyprus to the UK, while Turkey refuses to accept goods from Greek Cyprus. Of course not. No more than his predecessor was willing to.
Did Cameron do any of this out of principle? Nonsense. Cameron knows as well as anyone about Turkey's state of domestic terror, its persecution of the political opposition, and how unworkable Turkish membership in the EU would be. Instead like Brown before him, Cameron pandered to the Turkish thug-in-chief for a few pounds, hoping to boost British exports to Turkey. In the hope of a few million pounds, Cameron betrayed fellow European nations, signed off on Turkey's occupation of Cyprus, ignored the thousands of political prisoners in Turkish jails, and whitewashed Turkey's real record on Islamic terrorism. And while he and his businessmen friends beamed and shook hands with Turkey's chief terrorist-- others were left to stand up against the violence and brutality of the Turkish regime on their own.
In his rambling speech, Cameron praised Turkey for fighting against terrorism. The reality however is that the only "terrorism" that Turkey fights against, is Kurdish guerrillas, from its large Kurdish minority who want to have their own state, or at least some basic human rights. And when Cameron shook hands with Erdogan, he was shaking hands with a man whose patron, Yassin Qadi, funneled millions of dollars to Al Queda, and whose own advisor, Cuneyt Zapsu, donated 300,000 dollars to Al Queda. Al Queda operates its magazine freely in Istanbul, which is convenient because Erdogan claims there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism.
If Turkey, as Cameron says, is guarding the flank of Europe... then who in G-d's name is guarding Europe from Turkey? Certainly not Cameron.
Cameron's despicable toadying to Turkey's Thug-in-Chief was one long collection of lies. In his speech, he claimed that "Europe will draw fresh vigour and purpose from a Turkey that embraces human rights and democracy". Turkey's democracy is such that its opposition is routinely jailed. Its human rights has sent 12 year olds to prison for singing folk songs. It has no concept of democracy or human rights. Its 10,000 political prisoners could testify to that. Almost a 1000 of them opposition politicians.
The sham continued as Cameron congratulated Turkey on "its efforts to achieve the ambition of zero problems with all its neighbours, including Iraq". This after Turkish troops repeatedly invaded Iraq just just last month, murdering a 15 year old girl, among others. The Iraqi government protested, to no effect. Cameron, who is supposed to be committed to guaranteeing Iraq's security, instead shamelessly praises the invaders. The only casualties he mentions are those of the Turkish invading forces, not their victims. Never their victims.
And so it goes. Cameron babbles on about Turkey's religious tolerance, while the level of hateful incitement spirals out of control. He talks about the true tolerant Islam, to a man who was at one point imprisoned for his own Islamic radicalism. He takes up arms against all those damned obstructionists who are preventing a lovely regime like Erdogan's Turkey from joining the EU. He vows to fight them everywhere, like a latter day Churchill, proclaiming not, "There will always be an England", but rather, "There will always be a Turkey in the EU".
If there was any Turk in that room who had the slightest respect for England before Cameron began to speak, it was sure to have vanished in a whiff of contempt. Cameron's speech reminds one of English socialists visiting the Soviet Union and heaping praise on Stalin and the wonderful revolution, before going off to collect their blood money. And now Cameron has done them one better, demanding that a radical Islamist regime share open borders with the EU.
In a speech given while Erdogan prepares to round up political opponents before the election on fraudulent charges of "inciting" Kurdish riots-- Cameron made only one criticism of human rights. Not of Turkey of course. Or of Erdogan, who has jailed about as many of his opponents as Saddam Hussein. No, Cameron courageously blasted Israel, for standing up to Erdogan's IHH thugs, after they beat and stabbed Israeli soldiers inspecting their flotilla carrying aid to Hamas run Gaza.
Cameron blasted the response of Israeli soldiers who fired back after they Turkish Islamist thugs tried to murder them, as "completely unacceptable" and called Gaza, a "prison camp". He demanded a "swift, transparent and rigorous" inquiry. No such demand was of course issued to his hosts for their 10,000 political prisoners, their illegal invasion of Iraq and murder of civilians-- or that Armenian genocide matter. Of course no inquiries are demanded there.
Let us be clear what Cameron has done. He has sold out Europe and the free world by signing on the dotted of an agreement which explicitly trades English support for EU membership for increased exports. This is about money, pure and simple. There are no principles of any kind here. And what does Europe get out of all this? Here is a brief preview of coming attractions;*
*
Anti-Kurdish Protests in Turkey
'Allah Wants This War'
By Maximilian Popp in Istanbul
The mood in Turkey is becoming increasingly jingoistic as thousands take to the streets, calling for war against the Kurdish rebel organization PKK and an invasion of northern Iraq. But Baghdad has promised to curb the Kurds.
Anger drives them on to the streets, anger provoked by the images of dead soldiers shown on Turkish television. Thousands of demonstrators walk along Istiklal Caddesi, or Independence Avenue, Istanbul's longest shopping street. They are calling for war: War against the Kurds, against the PKK, against Iraq. "We have waited long enough," reads one poster. "Allah wants this war," is the message on another.
Thousands across Turkey want their government to take action against the PKK.
AFP
Thousands across Turkey want their government to take action against the PKK.
People have been protesting throughout the country since Sunday evening, after it was revealed that rebels from the Kurdish separatist organization the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) had killed 12 Turkish soldiers in eastern Turkey. It is mainly young people who take to the streets, with Turkish flags in their hands, whistles in their mouths and hatred in their eyes.
"We have waited long enough," says Erkan, a young car mechanic from Istanbul. "It's time to strike." His face is pale and his right hand is clenched in a fist. "We are all Turks, we are all soldiers!" he calls. Many of the demonstrators sympathize with the right-wing youth organization the Gray Wolves. Their message to the Kurds is clear: Admit you are Turkish, or die.
REPRINTS
Find out how you can reprint this SPIEGEL ONLINE article.
The PKK, which has bases in the mountains of northern Iraq, has been fighting for decades for an independent Kurdistan. But the attacks of recent weeks were the heaviest in a long time. Last
Wednesday , the Turkish parliament approved -- by an overwhelming majority -- a measure which clears the way for a military incursion into northern Iraq.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is still hesitating, though, not least after the personal intervention of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But Erdogan said Tuesday that Turkey couldn't wait indefinitely for the Iraqi government to act against the PKK. "We cannot wait forever," he said during a visit to the UK for talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. "We have to make our own decisions."
Brown said Britain was working with Turkey on "all efforts that are necessary so that terrorists cannot move from Iraq into Turkey." The UK, like the US, is keen to stop Turkey invading northern Iraq, fearing the destabilization of the region.
'Nobody Wants War. But --'
Diplomatic efforts continued elsewhere Tuesday as Turkish forces massed on the Iraqi border. Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met with Turkish leaders in Baghdad to press them to crack down on the PKK. "We ... don't wish our historical and friendly ties with Iraq to be ruined because of a terrorist organization," he said at a news conference after meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.
Zebari, for his part, said Baghdad would "actively help Turkey to overcome this menace." But Babacan rejected any offer of a ceasefire by the PKK. A ceasefire is only "possible between states and regular forces," he said. "The problem here is that we're dealing with a terrorist organization."
Aside from international diplomacy, though, many demonstrators in the streets are calling for war -- now. Even among liberal Turks and university students, the mood is edgy. Many believe Turkey has allowed itself to be provoked by the PKK for long enough. "Erdogan shouldn't allow himself to be pressured any longer, we need to invade Iraq," says 23-year-old political studies student Ayla. "The Kurdish problem cannot be resolved through diplomacy alone."
In the cafeteria of Istanbul's Bilgi University, one of the country's most prestigious schools , students hand out Turkish flags and black ribbons. "We want to express our sympathy for the dead soldiers," says Gözde, one of the campaign's initiators, and hits the table with her fist. "I ask myself how many Turks still need to die before our government finally does something about it."
"Nobody wants war," adds fellow student Metin. "But if that's the price of security, we have no other choice."
There are still voices of reason warning against a military attack, however. The northern region of Iraq inhabited by Kurds is the only largely peaceful area in the war-torn country. "If the Turkish army crosses the border, northern Iraq will fall into a maelstrom of violence," says Dursun Tüyloglu, a lecturer in politics at Bilgi University.
According to Tüyloglu, over the last few years, the Turkish government has started to give extra support to the country's economically weak eastern part. As a result, during the most recent parliamentary elections, more than half of the Kurds there voted for Erdogan's ruling AKP party. "The PKK is losing its grassroots support in Turkey, and they know it," he says. "That's why they are bombing their way back into the spotlight."
In his opinion, every time a soldier is killed, the pressure on Erdogan's government increases.
'War Would Make Everything Worse"
Turkish actor Ozan Ayhan is sure of one thing: "A war in Iraq would only profit the PKK." The terrorists can't be beaten with weapons, he says. "We have to appeal to moderate Kurds."
The reverse is true for now -- the mood in Turkey is overheated. On Sunday evening the street demonstrators in Istanbul wanted to storm a Kurdish neighborhood called Talabasi. The police managed to hold them back.
Emrah, 26, grew up in Diyarbakir, a Kurdish stronghold in southern Anatolia. He studied economics in Mersin and wants to find work in Istanbul. "I'm afraid," he says. "I don't know what's going on in this country." Lately he's suffered more and more abuse: "People who were my friends just a few months ago won't talk to me anymore."
Emrah had a job interview at a bank last week. When he said he came from Diyarbakir and was Kurdish, he received a withering look. "I work hard, but no one is giving me a chance," he says.
He lights a cigarette and pulls on it in hurried drags. "War would just make everything worse."
With material from the Associated Press and Reuters.*
It is mainly young people who take to the streets, with Turkish flags in their hands, whistles in their mouths and hatred in their eyes.
"We have waited long enough," reads one poster. "Allah wants this war," is the message on another.
**European tolerance Islamized Turkey. The pandering of unprincipled leaders like Cameron will take it to the brink and beyond.
How European Tolerance Islamized Turkey
There was a time when Turkey was a modern example to the rest of the Muslim world. And there was one fundamental reason for that. It was because Turkey realized that it could either be a backward Muslim colony of Europe, or it could put Islam in its place, and reform in order to try to keep up with Europe. And there is also a fundamental reason why that brand of reform has not come to the rest of the Muslim world. It is because they never had to learn that same lesson.
While the Ottoman Empire had once threatened Europe when both were getting by on the remnants of skills and knowledge from the Roman days, but as Europe progressed, the conquerors of Byzantium could not keep up. And so the Ottoman Empire became the Sick Man of Europe, and the nations of Europe fought major wars over who would have first dibs on carving up its territory. The last of those conflicts was World War I. And so Turkey was faced with a decision. To try and compete with Europe by becoming like the Europeans, or becoming just another colony.
But while Turkey modernized, the Muslim nations of the Middle East instead followed a completely different paradigm. And they succeeded for two reasons. Oil. And the willingness of First and Second World powers to pander to them. Where Turkey had to learn to do things the hard way, to separate mosque from state and try to build modern institutions, a bunch of backward desert sheiks were lucky enough to take control of barren regions where infidel geologists found oil. Those sheiks were also lucky enough to stumble into a perfect era of infidel infighting that allowed them to play Americans against the Europeans against the Russians. Not long after the sheiks had more money than they could count, which meant that they didn't need to modernize, instead they could buy all the American and European technology they wanted, and even import actual Americans and Europeans to do the work for them.
Of course the Saudi, Emirati or Kuwaiti way was none too feasible for Muslim countries without a whole lot of oil under their feet-- but that didn't matter. Because money bought them a whole lot of cultural warfare. While US troops guarded the fat sheiks from any neighbors who were investing their money into building a military-- the Saudis spent their money on foreign investments and on building up the Islamic takeover of Europe and America. Where post-war terrorism by Muslims had begun as Soviet proxy attacks on Britain, America and Israel-- it discarded its red Marxist outer shell to reveal its green Islamist interior. Not long after the the USSR fell, Middle Eastern terrorism was swiftly taking on a wholly Islamist coloration. A coloration heavily funded by oil money.
The Saudi model showed that modernization did not require modern thinking. It showed that Muslim countries could still be Islamist, and still have all the benefits of modern living. All it took was money. While Turkey was busy being Europe's backward cousin, the Saudis were gorging themselves on Western delicacies, importing foreign architects and landscape planners, models, entertainers and huge numbers of slaves from Southeast Asia. In doing so they made their larger point, which is that Western civilization was a commodity that could be bought, and that it was possible to have it all, the raw meat of Islam and the fruits of the West on one plate. Western civilization was for sale.
Turkey had reformed because civilization had proven to be the strong horse, and Islam the weak horse. When the balance shifted, civilization was revealed as the weak force, and Islam as the strong force. And not only did we not try to turn the tide, our governments affirmed this with everything they did, both in their domestic policies toward Muslim immigrants, and their foreign policy toward Muslim nations. Call it appeasement or dhimmism, what they did not only devalued them individually and nationally, it devalued the very idea that civilization was superior to medieval barbarism, and destroyed the very forces that might have modernized the Muslim world.
A generation later, the tide of Muslim immigrants to Europe learned the same lesson as well. After some initial fuss about integration, they could also combine Islamism and Western civilization. It was possible for them to be doctors, dentists, lords and engineers-- while at the same time believing they had a duty to force their new hosts to bow to the god of Islam, first seen by Mohammed on a three day bender in the desert. And if they had any qualms about it, their local petrodollar mosques were sure to fix that. And if not them, then their children.
Turkish guest workers saw this all firsthand. Which made the idea that Turkey had to be secular in order for Turks to benefit from the modern world seem all the more absurd. That sort of thinking might have made sense back in the day when Her Majesty's Armies were administering an empire, but not when Islamist preachers were hectoring the masses and jeering at returning soldiers in the heart of her kingdom.
Western civilization had not only shown itself to be for sale, but its secularism and modernity were instead revealed to be weaknesses. Any Muslim in Europe could not help but realize that it was the very lack of principles that made it so ripe for the plucking. The way of Ataturk had ceased to make sense. The way of the House of Saud on the other hand was looking pretty good. Or even the Way of Bin Laden.
European tolerance for Islam eliminated any real reason for Turkey not to become Islamist. As Erdogan has demonstrated, it is possible to run a country that continues to deny genocide, oppresses minorities and has jails filled with political prisoners. That openly supports terrorism and Islamism-- and yet is on track for membership in the European Union. Erdogan does not need to dig up Ataturk and turn him upside down-- the Great Tolerators of Europe were already doing it for him.
Where Ataturk knew that Turkey had to modernize, the Islamist believes that modernity is a sham. That Islamic science has already discovered everything worth discovering and that what the West calls modernity is nothing more than an excuse for wanton immorality and a lack of principles. The modern European Muslim is increasingly coming around to that way of thinking. And thought that way of thinking may be a sham, it is a reasonably successful one, because Europe itself is propping up its underlying assumptions.
Where the Sick Man of Europe had to choose between modernity and Islam-- the modern Muslim need make no such choices. He can listen to Islamist preachers ranting on YouTube, compel patients at his medical office to comply with Islamic laws and have his wife cover her face when she goes outside.
Progress comes from challenges. Challenges demand that you overcome the obstacles holding you back. The Muslim world no longer has challenges. Instead the door has been thrown open for them with no demands or expectations. Islam is not held accountable in the way that other religions are. Muslims are not held accountable for one of the world's largest and longest ongoing killing sprees. Muslim countries are not held accountable for everything from the genocide of millions to barbaric acts of torture and mutilation.
This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Nothing is expected from Muslims, which only helps the Islamists make the case that Western civilization is hopelessly decadent and weak, and that imitation it would be a mistake. All the fawning praise directed at the "Religion of Peace" feeds that cycle, reaffirming the Islamists' arrogance and sense of destiny as those they think of as enemies foolishly give way to them. That is the attitude Hitler had as he realized that the nations that seemed overwhelmingly powerful were not going to stop him. It is the same attitude you can easily see among Islamists, whose sense of cultural invulnerability is running at an all time high.
Build a mosque near Ground Zero, and you prove that the West does not even value the graves of its martyred dead. Set off a bomb in a crowded cafe and snicker as the governments of the dead rush to assure you that they hold no ill will toward the same ideology responsible. Cover your wife from head to toe on pain of death and watch feminist organizations assure the public that it is the feminist thing to do. To Muslims, Western civilization has gone from a bogeyman to a pathetic joke. Which meant that the Islamization of Muslim countries that had made some concession to Western civilization was a foregone conclusion.
Paradoxically enough it was European tolerance that helped Islamize Turkey, as it has helped Islamize its own resident Muslims. Its tolerance has only fed intolerance. By acting like the conquered, they have only attracted conquerors. By failing to challenge Islam, they discredited their nations and their way of life in the eyes of men faced with a choice between honorable barbarism and dishonorable accommodation to civilization's burdens. And the children of those men are murdering them in the streets of their own cities today.**
911MOSQUE: letter to the editor & MORE
SEE: PITTS by LANG
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/99142819.html
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
OUGHT ALL AMERICAN VICTIMS BE TREATED EQUALLY?
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Dozens of Americans murdered in Israel missing from US State Dept. award offers
The US State Department maintains a website called Rewards for Justice, which offers rewards for the arrest and conviction of persons involved in terror attacks against American citizens around the World. The page that deals with our region is called Violence in Opposition to Middle East Peace Negotiations. It hasn't been updated since 2003. And it's missing an awful lot of victims.
Dozens of names are missing from the list, according to a compilation on the Jewish Virtual Library list of American victims of terror. It is not known if the families of the victims have contacted the State Dept.
Among the missing names are Nachshon Wachsman, who was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas terrorists in 1994; Dov Driben, an American Israeli who was killed at his farm in 1996; and Eish Kodesh Gilmore, an American Israeli who was killed while guarding the National Insurance Institute in Jerusalem in 2000.
The State Dept. list concludes with a suicide bombing in May 2003 and does not include at least seven subsequent terrorist attacks that have killed or wounded American citizens. The attacks include the 2006 murder of Florida teenager Daniel Wultz at a Tel Aviv food stand; the bombing of an American convoy in Gaza in October 2003; and the September 2003 suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed David Applebaum and his daughter Nava, originally from Cleveland.
Also missing are the names of several wounded in the 2002 suicide bombing at Sbarro's Restaurant in Jerusalem.
Gilmore actually is included.
Dozens of Americans murdered in Israel missing from US State Dept. award offers
The US State Department maintains a website called Rewards for Justice, which offers rewards for the arrest and conviction of persons involved in terror attacks against American citizens around the World. The page that deals with our region is called Violence in Opposition to Middle East Peace Negotiations. It hasn't been updated since 2003. And it's missing an awful lot of victims.
Dozens of names are missing from the list, according to a compilation on the Jewish Virtual Library list of American victims of terror. It is not known if the families of the victims have contacted the State Dept.
Among the missing names are Nachshon Wachsman, who was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas terrorists in 1994; Dov Driben, an American Israeli who was killed at his farm in 1996; and Eish Kodesh Gilmore, an American Israeli who was killed while guarding the National Insurance Institute in Jerusalem in 2000.
The State Dept. list concludes with a suicide bombing in May 2003 and does not include at least seven subsequent terrorist attacks that have killed or wounded American citizens. The attacks include the 2006 murder of Florida teenager Daniel Wultz at a Tel Aviv food stand; the bombing of an American convoy in Gaza in October 2003; and the September 2003 suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed David Applebaum and his daughter Nava, originally from Cleveland.
Also missing are the names of several wounded in the 2002 suicide bombing at Sbarro's Restaurant in Jerusalem.
Gilmore actually is included.
KILL THE BABIES!
BY A READER:
I thought up the following pro-life slogans which anyone is free to reprint:
"Unborn babies should have the right to keep and bear arms - and legs and ears and eyes etc.!" and "Unborn babies should have the same right to be born alive that abortionists had!"
I thought up the following pro-life slogans which anyone is free to reprint:
"Unborn babies should have the right to keep and bear arms - and legs and ears and eyes etc.!" and "Unborn babies should have the same right to be born alive that abortionists had!"
TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT J STREET
Was J-list in the service of J-Street?
11:58 AM 08/03/2010
Even in Israel, the Daily Caller’s “Journolist” exposé has received its share of attention. The Jeremiah Wright and Sarah Palin email threads were less interesting to Israelis than the Journolist discussion of whether to report on the Islamist background of the Ft. Hood Texas shooter. The Israeli press didn’t get into the details of Spencer Ackerman’s thuggery of attacking conservative pundits as “racists” and his aggressive call “to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. … In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window….”
Pro-Israel consumers of the news as well as the many members of various pro-Israel media watchdogs such as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA) and HonestReporting, would undoubtedly want to see the publication of the Journolist discussions on Israel, Netanyahu’s election, Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, and the Goldstone Report.
Will those threads confirm their deeply held suspicions of media bias against Israel?
The evidence so far indicates that many members of Journolist support the Middle East policies of a Washington organization named J Street. The supposedly “pro-Israel” J Street is a relatively new leftist lobby, PAC and educational foundation that calls itself “Obama’s blocking back” and takes positions critical or outrightly opposed to Israeli defense policy, the Netanyahu-led government, the Cast Lead operation, sanctions against Iran, and the interdiction of the Turkish IHH flotilla en route to Gaza. Indeed, a survey of a couple dozen purported members of the J-List shows many of them to be vocal fans of the upstart J Street lobby.
That shouldn’t be too surprising considering that an Englishman named Daniel Levy, one of J Street’s founders, is listed on the J-List rosters. So is Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films who sits on J Street’s Advisory Council.
Spencer Ackerman, the designer of the “call-them-racists-and-throw-them-through-a-window” strategy, proudly described J Street’s birth thus:
“Beginning today, a band of liberal Jews intends to transform the terms of the American debate over Israel — among the most delicate, controversial and combustible topics in politics. Two young, leading liberal Jews — Jeremy Ben-Ami and Daniel Levy — plan to unveil the first-ever…”
On YouTube, Ackerman can be heard at a J Street event decrying the “injustice visited by Israeli Jews on Palestinians for 40 years.”
Brooklyn College professor Eric Alterman, and Journolist member, praised J Street in a New York Times op-ed and a Le Monde Diplomatique podcast interview.
J-List member Marc Ambinder promoted J Street from his editor’s perch at Atlantic.
Time Magazine’s Joe Klein wrote,
“J Street [is]… a liberal Israel-advocacy group that has been under vicious assault from right-wing Jewish extremists.
“[J Street’s director Jeremy] Ben-Ami seems perfectly mainstream reasonable to me. You wonder what the fuss has been all about.”
The Journolist’s Matthew Yglesias thought so highly of J Street that the organization lists at least four of his articles on their press links. In 2008 he wrote, “Here’s an exciting development — J Street, a new, progressive, Israel- and Mideast-focused organization has launched.”
Penn State blogger Michael Berube wrote of J Street, “It ain’t perfect, but this whole J Street thing seems to be a start. More of them and less of AIPAC, please.”
The Washington Monthly’s David Drum praised the launch of J Street in 2008, “Well, the journey of a thousand miles etc. etc. Good luck to ‘em. God knows AIPAC could use the competition.”
Ezra Klein was the founder of the Journolist listserv. Of all of J Street’s sycophants, it’s difficult to find a bigger one. “I’m glad to welcome J Street to Washington,” Klein wrote. “With 1/100th AIPAC’s budget, the organization is not likely, as some are hoping, to prove a quick counterweight to the existent Israel Lobby I’ve added myself to J Street’s list, and I think you should too.” He followed that with an Op-Ed in Ha’aretz entitled, “Israel is well-served by J Street.”
Writing in the Boston Globe about “The New American Jew on Israel,” J-Lister Jesse Singal lashed out at the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s refusal to meet with a J Street congressional delegation that included a boycott-supporting U.S. church group. In fact, the Foreign Ministry offered to meet with the congressmen, but the uncompromising, confrontational, press-seeking response was in effect “all of us or none of us.”
Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reported at length and glowingly about a J Street poll on American Jewry. He ignored the disturbing fact that the self-serving poll was conducted by a firm owned by J Street’s founding vice president. Stein also reported disapprovingly on the “targeting” of two “progressive” foreign policy groups, J Street and the National Iranian American Council. “Like NIAC,” Stein complained, “much of the attacks on J Street have been through guilt by association.”
Another J-Lister is Michael Tomasky of the British Guardian. In October 2009, Tomasky published two paeans to J Street after attending its national conference in Washington. But, one may — or even should — ask, what’s wrong with this J-List/J Street confluence of opinion? Isn’t it likely that like-minded people have similar opinions?
The problem with the J-Listers is the evidence that some do not hesitate to promote their biases in the media while censoring and distorting the opinions of their opponents. The Journolist includes some of Washington’s best political reporters, but while praising J Street, not a single one has investigated the organization’s funding, the identity of its organizational decision-makers, the ties to George Soros and his various organizations, the motives of the Saudi power-brokers, officers of a pro-Iranian lobby, and members of Washington’s Arab lobby who contribute to J Street. Add to that list the recent contribution from the producer of the anti-American, anti-Semitic Turkish film, Valley of the Wolves.
J Street’s critics do not call for the examination of the leadership or funding of any other organizations on the American left such as the Israel Policy Forum. The IPF’s leadership and funding are visible and not hidden, but J Street’s leadership, board, and funders are shrouded in mystery.
Evidence suggests that the Journolist group actually mobilized to protect J Street. After the publication of an article of mine in Pajamas Media raising questions about J Street, Spencer Ackerman (of divert-attention-by-yelling-racist and throw-them-through-a-window infamy) launched a broadside against me. True to his thuggish prescription, he screamed “racist,” and threatened me physically in his blog.
The yappings of a pissant like Ackerman are inconsequential, but within a day, 10 more writers and bloggers – at least half of them known J-Listers — joined in to what looked like a lynching. [See “Did I Get Journolisted?” by this author.] And it appears that they succeeded in deterring other reporters and editors from investigating numerous questions about the supposedly “pro-Israel” J Street.
A left-wing – or right-wing – press grouping armed with a political agenda can evolve into a dangerous cabal against democratic values. Similarly, a well-heeled Washington-based lobby that hides its leadership’s identity while seeking to weaken the strong U.S.-Israel relationship is a danger to Israel and Middle East stability. When the two groups work in tandem, watch out.
Lenny Ben David served as a senior diplomat in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Today he is a public affairs consultant. He blogs at www.lennybendavid.com.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/03/was-j-list-in-the-service-of-j-street-2/print/#ixzz0w9MhCeZJ
11:58 AM 08/03/2010
Even in Israel, the Daily Caller’s “Journolist” exposé has received its share of attention. The Jeremiah Wright and Sarah Palin email threads were less interesting to Israelis than the Journolist discussion of whether to report on the Islamist background of the Ft. Hood Texas shooter. The Israeli press didn’t get into the details of Spencer Ackerman’s thuggery of attacking conservative pundits as “racists” and his aggressive call “to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. … In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window….”
Pro-Israel consumers of the news as well as the many members of various pro-Israel media watchdogs such as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA) and HonestReporting, would undoubtedly want to see the publication of the Journolist discussions on Israel, Netanyahu’s election, Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, and the Goldstone Report.
Will those threads confirm their deeply held suspicions of media bias against Israel?
The evidence so far indicates that many members of Journolist support the Middle East policies of a Washington organization named J Street. The supposedly “pro-Israel” J Street is a relatively new leftist lobby, PAC and educational foundation that calls itself “Obama’s blocking back” and takes positions critical or outrightly opposed to Israeli defense policy, the Netanyahu-led government, the Cast Lead operation, sanctions against Iran, and the interdiction of the Turkish IHH flotilla en route to Gaza. Indeed, a survey of a couple dozen purported members of the J-List shows many of them to be vocal fans of the upstart J Street lobby.
That shouldn’t be too surprising considering that an Englishman named Daniel Levy, one of J Street’s founders, is listed on the J-List rosters. So is Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films who sits on J Street’s Advisory Council.
Spencer Ackerman, the designer of the “call-them-racists-and-throw-them-through-a-window” strategy, proudly described J Street’s birth thus:
“Beginning today, a band of liberal Jews intends to transform the terms of the American debate over Israel — among the most delicate, controversial and combustible topics in politics. Two young, leading liberal Jews — Jeremy Ben-Ami and Daniel Levy — plan to unveil the first-ever…”
On YouTube, Ackerman can be heard at a J Street event decrying the “injustice visited by Israeli Jews on Palestinians for 40 years.”
Brooklyn College professor Eric Alterman, and Journolist member, praised J Street in a New York Times op-ed and a Le Monde Diplomatique podcast interview.
J-List member Marc Ambinder promoted J Street from his editor’s perch at Atlantic.
Time Magazine’s Joe Klein wrote,
“J Street [is]… a liberal Israel-advocacy group that has been under vicious assault from right-wing Jewish extremists.
“[J Street’s director Jeremy] Ben-Ami seems perfectly mainstream reasonable to me. You wonder what the fuss has been all about.”
The Journolist’s Matthew Yglesias thought so highly of J Street that the organization lists at least four of his articles on their press links. In 2008 he wrote, “Here’s an exciting development — J Street, a new, progressive, Israel- and Mideast-focused organization has launched.”
Penn State blogger Michael Berube wrote of J Street, “It ain’t perfect, but this whole J Street thing seems to be a start. More of them and less of AIPAC, please.”
The Washington Monthly’s David Drum praised the launch of J Street in 2008, “Well, the journey of a thousand miles etc. etc. Good luck to ‘em. God knows AIPAC could use the competition.”
Ezra Klein was the founder of the Journolist listserv. Of all of J Street’s sycophants, it’s difficult to find a bigger one. “I’m glad to welcome J Street to Washington,” Klein wrote. “With 1/100th AIPAC’s budget, the organization is not likely, as some are hoping, to prove a quick counterweight to the existent Israel Lobby I’ve added myself to J Street’s list, and I think you should too.” He followed that with an Op-Ed in Ha’aretz entitled, “Israel is well-served by J Street.”
Writing in the Boston Globe about “The New American Jew on Israel,” J-Lister Jesse Singal lashed out at the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s refusal to meet with a J Street congressional delegation that included a boycott-supporting U.S. church group. In fact, the Foreign Ministry offered to meet with the congressmen, but the uncompromising, confrontational, press-seeking response was in effect “all of us or none of us.”
Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reported at length and glowingly about a J Street poll on American Jewry. He ignored the disturbing fact that the self-serving poll was conducted by a firm owned by J Street’s founding vice president. Stein also reported disapprovingly on the “targeting” of two “progressive” foreign policy groups, J Street and the National Iranian American Council. “Like NIAC,” Stein complained, “much of the attacks on J Street have been through guilt by association.”
Another J-Lister is Michael Tomasky of the British Guardian. In October 2009, Tomasky published two paeans to J Street after attending its national conference in Washington. But, one may — or even should — ask, what’s wrong with this J-List/J Street confluence of opinion? Isn’t it likely that like-minded people have similar opinions?
The problem with the J-Listers is the evidence that some do not hesitate to promote their biases in the media while censoring and distorting the opinions of their opponents. The Journolist includes some of Washington’s best political reporters, but while praising J Street, not a single one has investigated the organization’s funding, the identity of its organizational decision-makers, the ties to George Soros and his various organizations, the motives of the Saudi power-brokers, officers of a pro-Iranian lobby, and members of Washington’s Arab lobby who contribute to J Street. Add to that list the recent contribution from the producer of the anti-American, anti-Semitic Turkish film, Valley of the Wolves.
J Street’s critics do not call for the examination of the leadership or funding of any other organizations on the American left such as the Israel Policy Forum. The IPF’s leadership and funding are visible and not hidden, but J Street’s leadership, board, and funders are shrouded in mystery.
Evidence suggests that the Journolist group actually mobilized to protect J Street. After the publication of an article of mine in Pajamas Media raising questions about J Street, Spencer Ackerman (of divert-attention-by-yelling-racist and throw-them-through-a-window infamy) launched a broadside against me. True to his thuggish prescription, he screamed “racist,” and threatened me physically in his blog.
The yappings of a pissant like Ackerman are inconsequential, but within a day, 10 more writers and bloggers – at least half of them known J-Listers — joined in to what looked like a lynching. [See “Did I Get Journolisted?” by this author.] And it appears that they succeeded in deterring other reporters and editors from investigating numerous questions about the supposedly “pro-Israel” J Street.
A left-wing – or right-wing – press grouping armed with a political agenda can evolve into a dangerous cabal against democratic values. Similarly, a well-heeled Washington-based lobby that hides its leadership’s identity while seeking to weaken the strong U.S.-Israel relationship is a danger to Israel and Middle East stability. When the two groups work in tandem, watch out.
Lenny Ben David served as a senior diplomat in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Today he is a public affairs consultant. He blogs at www.lennybendavid.com.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/03/was-j-list-in-the-service-of-j-street-2/print/#ixzz0w9MhCeZJ
WHAT TO DO ABOUT ILLEGALS?
Who Makes the Laws, Anyway?
Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online, August 6th, 2010
Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Homeland Security Department suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow several categories of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and, indeed, for some to be granted permanent residency. Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves.
Regardless of your feelings on the substance of the immigration issue, this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law; they don’t change it. That’s the legislators’ job.
When questioned, the White House downplayed the toxic memo, leaving the impression that it was nothing more than ruminations emanating from the bowels of Homeland Security. But the administration is engaged in an even more significant power play elsewhere.
A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate carbon emissions if it could demonstrate that they threaten human health and the environment. The Obama EPA made precisely that finding, thereby granting itself a huge expansion of power and, noted the Washington Post, sending “a message to Congress.”
It was not a terribly subtle message: Enact cap-and-trade legislation — taxing and heavily regulating carbon-based energy — or the EPA will do so unilaterally. As Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch noted, such a finding “is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving.”
Well, Congress didn’t. Despite the “regulatory cudgel” (to again quote the Post) the administration has been waving, the Senate has repeatedly refused to acquiesce. Good for the Senate. But what to do when the executive is passively aggressive rather than actively so? Take border security. Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) reports that President Obama told him about pressure from the political left and its concern that if the border is secured, Republicans will have no incentive to support comprehensive reform (i.e., amnesty). Indeed, Homeland Security’s abandonment of the “virtual fence” on the southern border, combined with its lack of interest in completing the real fence that today covers only one-third of the border, gives the distinct impression that serious border enforcement is not a high administration priority absent some Republican quid pro quo on comprehensive reform.
But border enforcement is not something to be manipulated in return for legislative favors. It is, as the administration vociferously argued in court in the Arizona case, the federal executive’s constitutional responsibility. Its job is to faithfully execute the laws. Non-execution is a dereliction of duty.
This contagion of executive willfulness is not confined to the federal government or to Democrats. In Virginia, the Republican attorney general has just issued a ruling allowing police to ask about one’s immigration status when stopped for some other reason (e.g., a traffic violation). Heretofore, police could inquire only upon arrest and imprisonment.
Whatever your views about the result, the process is suspect. If police latitude regarding the interrogation of possible illegal immigrants is to be expanded, that’s an issue for the legislature, not the executive. How did we get here? I blame Henry Paulson. (Such a versatile sentence.) The gold standard of executive overreach was achieved the day he summoned the heads of the country’s nine largest banks and informed them that henceforth the federal government was their business partner. The banks were under no legal obligation to obey. But they know the capacity of the federal government, when crossed, to cause you trouble, endless trouble. They complied. So did BP when the president summoned its top executives to the White House to demand a $20 billion federally administered escrow fund for damages. Existing law capped damages at $75 million. BP, like the banks, understood the power of the U.S. government. Twenty billion it was.
Again, you can be pleased with the result (I was) and still be troubled by how we got there. Everyone wants energy in the executive (as Alexander Hamilton called it). But not lawlessness. In the modern welfare state, government has the power to regulate your life. That’s bad enough. But at least there is one restraint on this bloated power: the separation of powers. Such constraints on your life must first be approved by both houses of Congress. That’s called the consent of the governed. The constitutional order is meant to subject you to the will of the people’s representatives, not to the whim of a chief executive or the imagination of a loophole-seeking bureaucrat.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010, the Washington Post Writers Group.
Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online, August 6th, 2010
Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Homeland Security Department suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow several categories of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and, indeed, for some to be granted permanent residency. Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves.
Regardless of your feelings on the substance of the immigration issue, this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law; they don’t change it. That’s the legislators’ job.
When questioned, the White House downplayed the toxic memo, leaving the impression that it was nothing more than ruminations emanating from the bowels of Homeland Security. But the administration is engaged in an even more significant power play elsewhere.
A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate carbon emissions if it could demonstrate that they threaten human health and the environment. The Obama EPA made precisely that finding, thereby granting itself a huge expansion of power and, noted the Washington Post, sending “a message to Congress.”
It was not a terribly subtle message: Enact cap-and-trade legislation — taxing and heavily regulating carbon-based energy — or the EPA will do so unilaterally. As Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch noted, such a finding “is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving.”
Well, Congress didn’t. Despite the “regulatory cudgel” (to again quote the Post) the administration has been waving, the Senate has repeatedly refused to acquiesce. Good for the Senate. But what to do when the executive is passively aggressive rather than actively so? Take border security. Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) reports that President Obama told him about pressure from the political left and its concern that if the border is secured, Republicans will have no incentive to support comprehensive reform (i.e., amnesty). Indeed, Homeland Security’s abandonment of the “virtual fence” on the southern border, combined with its lack of interest in completing the real fence that today covers only one-third of the border, gives the distinct impression that serious border enforcement is not a high administration priority absent some Republican quid pro quo on comprehensive reform.
But border enforcement is not something to be manipulated in return for legislative favors. It is, as the administration vociferously argued in court in the Arizona case, the federal executive’s constitutional responsibility. Its job is to faithfully execute the laws. Non-execution is a dereliction of duty.
This contagion of executive willfulness is not confined to the federal government or to Democrats. In Virginia, the Republican attorney general has just issued a ruling allowing police to ask about one’s immigration status when stopped for some other reason (e.g., a traffic violation). Heretofore, police could inquire only upon arrest and imprisonment.
Whatever your views about the result, the process is suspect. If police latitude regarding the interrogation of possible illegal immigrants is to be expanded, that’s an issue for the legislature, not the executive. How did we get here? I blame Henry Paulson. (Such a versatile sentence.) The gold standard of executive overreach was achieved the day he summoned the heads of the country’s nine largest banks and informed them that henceforth the federal government was their business partner. The banks were under no legal obligation to obey. But they know the capacity of the federal government, when crossed, to cause you trouble, endless trouble. They complied. So did BP when the president summoned its top executives to the White House to demand a $20 billion federally administered escrow fund for damages. Existing law capped damages at $75 million. BP, like the banks, understood the power of the U.S. government. Twenty billion it was.
Again, you can be pleased with the result (I was) and still be troubled by how we got there. Everyone wants energy in the executive (as Alexander Hamilton called it). But not lawlessness. In the modern welfare state, government has the power to regulate your life. That’s bad enough. But at least there is one restraint on this bloated power: the separation of powers. Such constraints on your life must first be approved by both houses of Congress. That’s called the consent of the governed. The constitutional order is meant to subject you to the will of the people’s representatives, not to the whim of a chief executive or the imagination of a loophole-seeking bureaucrat.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010, the Washington Post Writers Group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)