We talk about the recent peace deals in the Middle East, in particular the deals between Israel and UAE and Bahrain. We also discuss the Hayes Production code and how that is similar to a recent dust up with JK Rowling. We end by talking about John Barton, a California dad who said CPS took his three year old son under dubious circumstances and it appears his son may be being abused in care.
Finally we talk about the new recordings in the Rucki case; they shed light on how the local Fox affiliate reporter Trish Van Pilsum scored an interview with the Rucki girls days after they went missing on April 19, 2013.
My cohort in the Watcher of Weasels, Bookworm room, wrote what I thought was an excellent introduction, but it was the whole post. She did, however, give me carte blanche to use that intro and turn it into a full commentary. So, alas...
Reading the news today about, among other things, the Gulf oil spill, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Euro collapse, Iran, Israel, Turkey, the economy, the border, and illegal immigration, I’ve had two phrases that stuck in my brain and refuse to leave. The first is Janet Napolitano’s near-deathless bit of bureaucratese, “man-caused disasters,” one that she and her minions created to obscure the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is the common denominator binding together those mass killings around the world that involve guns, airplanes, tractors, rocket launches, beheadings, beatings, hangings, etc.
The second phrase is Obama’s statement, one with which I fully agree, that “elections have consequences.”
Combine those two phrases — “elections have consequences” and “man-caused disaster” — and you end up with this, the ultimate man-caused disaster:
This man caused disaster wasted no time. The chief of staff boldly proclaimed that we can't let a crisis go to waste, and the man caused disaster wasted no time. Not two months into his term, this man caused disaster spent $787 billion. That was supposed to keep our unemployment rate below 8% but of course it's hit 10% and hovers near there since. This man caused disaster told us we must spend this money. After all, the solution to a crisis in which families and banks took on too much debt could only be solved by the government taking on too much debt. Voila. Now, the government does have too much debt. This man caused disaster didn't create debts and deficits. Instead, the man caused disaster created debts and deficits 2.0. Now, we have deficits way north of $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. Our debt is nearing in on 100% of our GDP and Moody's is threatening to cut our bond ratings. They're only threatening but these threats haven't changed the mind of this man caused disaster. So, sometime in the next few months, a year, or a few years those threats will be a reality. Then, this man caused disaster will cause a disaster to anyone that wants to borrow for a car, a house, a credit card, or even a student loan.
So far, the only man caused disaster of this man caused disaster's notorious health care bill will be the man caused disaster at the ballot box for Democrats this November. Soon, though, everyone will feel the effects of this man caused disaster. We recently learned that about half of those that have health insurance will lose it. We've learned that health care costs will increase 20% more than they would have without the bill, and we've learned that about 15% of hospitals will go out of business trying to comply with this man caused disaster all caused by the man caused disaster known as Obamacare.
The border is so porous that Phoenix now only trails Mexico City in kidnappings. The state of Arizona is so desperate that they passed their own law to enforce federal immigration laws. The key difference will be that Arizona will actually enforce this law. How does the man caused disaster respond? He won't enforce any immigration laws until we all agree to grant amnesty to up to 20 million folks that entered the country illegally. Oh, and, he'll sue the state of Arizona for having the gall to do the job he refuses to do.
This man caused disaster spent the entire campaign telling Americans that Afghanistan was the good war (as opposed to Iraq which would then be the bad war) So, he escalated the war in Afghanistan. The man caused disaster couldn't leave well enough alone and so as he was announcing an increase in troops he also announced an end to the war. The analysts say this second pronouncement is for "domestic consumption" but our Afghan partner, Hamid Karzai, didn't get the memo. He seems to think that this pronouncement could be a man caused disaster to his own neck. So, he's hedging his bet and he's playing footsy with our enemies all while pledging allegiance to us. Since the closest this man caused disaster came to war policy was an especially rowdy night at the local coffee shop in Hyde Park, he may not realize that it's much more difficult to win a war when our partner is simultaneously partnering up with our enemies.
Of course, our so called ally in Afghanistan must feel in good company. After all, lots of our allies must feel like enemies by the way they're treated by this man caused disaster. Our only true ally in the Middle East, and the only true Democracy, has been disrespected, strong armed, threatened, all while the same man caused disaster has reached to most of her enemies with deference due a nobel laureate. Then again, Israel is in good company. Alvaro Uribe may wind up being Colombia's George Washington, but in the view of this man caused disaster, he takes a second seat to leftist Daniel Ortega. Then, there's the Brits. They've been our partners in war and peace since they were our enemies in war and peace. Churchill, Thatcher, and Blair partnered with FDR, Reagan and Bush to free Western Europe, then Eastern Europe and finally Afghanistan and Iraq from tyranny. Those accomplishments are insignificant in the mind of this man caused disaster. First, he sent the bust of Churchill back, then he gave Gordon Brown some DVD's that didn't work, but finally he sided with a leftist over Britain in a dispute over the Falkland Islands.
Meanwhile, our enemies are stronger and more ferocious. North Korea was feeling bold and so they shot up a South Korean ship. Iran laughs every time a limp Security Council resolution against it is passed, and soon China will own everyone's debt. The answer from this man made disaster appears to be to ask for more limp Security Council resolutions and to borrow even more from China.
Then, there's the ultimate man caused disaster, the oil spill. No one blames the man caused disaster for causing this man caused disaster. Instead, this man caused disaster made that man caused disaster exponentially worse. How much worse...no one knows. Maybe, if this man caused disaster had scratched the numerous White House concerts, fundraisers, and golf outings, the other man caused disaster would have been under more control. Instead, the oil spews, the pelicans choke, and millions watch their livelihoods evaporate. One man caused disaster meets another man caused disaster.
A team of U.S. geologists and Pentagon officials has discovered vast mineral wealth in Afghanistan, conceivably enough to turn the scarred and impoverished country into one of the world's most lucrative mining centers, a senior military official told Fox News on Monday.
"There is stunning potential here," Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, told the New York Times in a report published Monday. "There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant."
Anyone that has seen Blood Diamonds knows that a vast amount of natural resources doesn't necessarily lead to wealth and prosperity. That said, Afghanistan has had nothing but poppy and it's in desperate need of natural resources that can be turned into wealth.
A door has been closed. But amid the roar, the creak of an opening window was faintly audible. This window, a gigantic deposit of natural gas called Leviathan, 6.5 times the size of Tel Aviv, was found, roughly 100 nautical miles from where the flotilla fiasco took place and well within Israel's extended territorial waters. This discovery may provide Israel with security in terms of its supply of electricity, turn it into an important natural gas exporter and provide a shot in the arm of some $300 billion over the life of the field - one-and-a-half times the national GDP - to the Israeli economy, already one of the most resilient in the world.
At the beginning of 2009, Israel made a major natural gas discovery that immediately made it a player in the natural gas market. This may be twice the size of that discovery. With Israel a major exporter of natural gas, the geopolitical environment in the Middle East.
Helen Thomas, who I used to consider a close friend and who I used to respect, has showed herself to be an anti-Semitic bigot, this is not about her disagreement about her criticisms of Israel. She has a right to criticize Israel and that is not the same as being an anti-Semite.
...
If she had asked all Blacks to go back to Africa, what would White House Correspondents Association position be as to whether she deserved White House press room credentials - much less a privileged honorary seat?
Thomas tried to walk her explosive statement caught on videotape back with this statement...
I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians.They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.
But that hasn't quieted the firestorm. Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League responded like this.
Helen Thomas’s statement of regret does not go far enough. Her remarks were outrageous, offensive and inappropriate, especially since she uttered them on a day the White House had set aside to celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments of American Jews during Jewish America Heritage Month.
Her suggestion that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany is bigoted and shows a profound ignorance of history. We believe Thomas needs to make a more forceful and sincere apology for the pain her remarks have caused.
So far, Thomas' employers, the Hearst Newspapers, have been silent but that won't last long.
UPDATE: The Hearst Newspapers have just announced that Helen Thomas is retiring.
That video has made an obscure website the talk of the media world. The only thing shocking about this video is that Thomas has been treated with respect for so long. She once told President Bush that he wanted to go to war. She's made all sorts of peculiar claims.
The next action comes from her employer, the Hearst Newspaper Company. Will they sanction Thomas? Will she be allowed to continue in a job that she is clearly no longer qualified for, if she ever was?
Everyone seems to have reverted to form with regards to Israel's raid on the flotilla. It took the anti Israeli forces less than a day to protest.
He called for a "thorough investigation."
Tuesday afternoon outside the Israeli consulate, the second such protest in as many days. The demonstration is in response to an Israeli raid on an international civilian aid mission to Gaza in which at nine people were killed and dozens more injured. Several Bay Area activists were part of the Freedom Flotilla, a six-ship fleet that set sail last week from Greece to bring medical equipment and other supplies to the Gaza Strip.
The condemnation has been near and wide. The Turks, the French, and the Spanish have been leading the charge along with the usual suspects in the Middle East. It took Ban Ki Moon just a couple hours more than the protesters. The list of usual suspects of pundits has also come to condemn Israel's actions.
Most important, the event is likely to force the international community, including the United States, to open a dialogue with Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that rules Gaza. The blockade of Gaza can no longer be sustained politically. Today, Egypt opened the border with Gaza for passage of aid and people, and world pressure on Israel to undo the blockade is likely to be overwhelming. In that, the Free Gaza Movement and its allies have succeeded, though at the cost of many dead and wounded.
Protests are building worldwide, and even Israeli apologists are admitting that the attack on the flotilla was a catastrophic blunder.
Martin Indyk, the head of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and a longtime ally of Israel, told the New York Times that it’s now the responsibility of the United States to extricate Israel from the mess it’s created in Gaza, and he proposed what is likely to be a workable solution: the lifting of the Israeli blockade, a ceasefire by Hamas, and the exchange of political prisoners held on either side. (Hamas hold Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier.)
What you have not heard is the truth from the mainstream media.
Here is the truth:Israel cannot allow ships to go directly to Gaza for security reasons. Innocent Israeli families are threatened daily with missile attacks launched from Gaza, and Israel must make sure weapons are not being smuggled into Gaza in "humanitarian" cargoes.
The effort to destroy the Jewish state has many fronts. One front is in Iran, where the maniacal regime that has repeatedly promised to “wipe Israel off the map” marches inexorably toward a nuclear bomb. Another is in Gaza, from which Hamas has lobbed 10,000 missiles into Israeli cities. Yet another front, the most insidious, is comprised of the propaganda arm of the Palestinian movement. And this front thrives for only one reason — the complicity of the world press and the so-called “international community.”
I doubt either side waited to finish hearing the news to decide that their side was right. The truth to most folks is nothing more than a by product in all this. Here's what's clear to me. Most of those that today condemn Israel take a lot longer time, if they ever do, to condemn Hamas' rockets into Israel. They rarely, if ever, make Israel's enemies to account for their international crimes.
Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, and, ironically enough, it is the country that gives Muslims the most rights in the Middle East. The blockade and embargo were put into effect in order to protect its citizens from a series of rocket attacks that all originated from Gaza. Those inconvenient facts seem to be missed by those quick to rush to condemn Israel now. The Israelis weren't itching for a fight on that flotilla. Instead, their soldiers were attacked and they defended themselves.
That said, all those rushing to defend Israel as though it is faultless in this situation also miss a very important point. These were commandos on that ship. They are the best of the best. Ten civilians died. That's a royal military screw up. Period!!! To say anything else is to ignore facts. These soldiers are trained to make sure that exactly these sorts of situations are diffused without death on either side. That's why only a few can become commandos. That didn't happen and that's a screw up.
Were the folks on the ship savages? Probably. Were they tied to terrorists? Almost certainly. Is the world outrage totally hypocritical. Almost certainly. Boo hoo. None of that matters. Now, Israel's enemies revel in righteous indignation and they do it because this military operation was royally screwed up.
Whatever you think of Israel's right to defend herself, you also must expect that the best of the best can and will finish this operation without any bloodshed. They must do it because 1) they're the best of the best and 2) because when there's bloodshed this happens.
This video shows the confrontation between Israeli commandos and the so called activists was very complicated, despite near universal condemnation. There are some lingering questions. What were the planners thinking sending these commandos into what appears to be something akin to a suicide mission. Some of these guys didn't even reach the ground before being attacked.
Netanyahu, Barak and Ya'alon have neither vision nor charisma, but they once seemed to have good judgment. The sole promise made by their cabinet was not to make hasty decisions like the one that led its predecessor into the Second Lebanon War. It was supposed to handle Israel's strategic interests with utmost seriousness and responsibility. On the night of May 30th the cabinet broke its promise, demonstrating extreme, unforgivable lack of judgment in the face of the Palestinian flotilla.
Pro-Palestinian activists sent another boat to challenge Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip on Tuesday and Egypt declared it was temporarily opening a crossing into the Palestinian territory after a raid on an aid flotilla that ended with Israeli soldiers killing nine activists.
The raid provoked ferocious international condemnation of Israel, raised questions at home, and appeared likely to increase pressure to end the blockade that has deepened the poverty of the 1.5 million Palestinians in the strip.
Israeli commandos on Monday stormed six ships carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists on an aid mission to the blockaded Gaza Strip, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens after encountering unexpected resistance as the forces boarded the vessels.
The operation in international waters off the Gaza coast was a nightmare scenario for Israel that looked certain to further damage its international standing, strain already tense relations with Turkey -- the unofficial sponsor of the mission -- and draw unwanted attention to Gaza's plight.
The tough Israeli response drew condemnations from Turkey, France and the U.N.'s Mideast envoy, while Greece suspended a military exercise with Israel and postponed a visit by Israel's air force chief.
This incident occurred hours ago. It's unclear how bad this will be but it looks bad. More coverage here.
Officials estimated that passengers will show slight resistance, and possibly minor violence; for that reason, the operation’s commander decided to bring the helicopter directly above the top deck. The first rope that soldiers used in order to descend down to the ship was wrested away by activists, most of them Turks, and tied to an antenna with the hopes of bringing the chopper down. However, Flotilla 13 fighters decided to carry on.
Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.
However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons.
You've probably never heard of Anat Kamm. Few people have. But for nearly four months, the 23-year-old Israeli journalist has been under house arrest in Tel Aviv for allegedly stealing and leaking secret Israeli defense ministry documents to a journalist from Ha'aretz, one of Israel's leading dailies.
Kamm would love to tell her side of the story, her friends and associates tell me. So would her lawyers. So, too, would Dov Alfon, the chief editor of Ha'aretz, a liberal paper, and Uri Blau, the reporter to whom Kamm allegedly leaked the documents she was said to have copied while she was completing her military service.
But they cannot talk or write about the espionage case. In an extremely rare action, an Israeli court has ordered the Israeli media not to publish or broadcast a word about Kamm, the allegations against her, or the investigation that has led Blau, the Ha'aretz reporter involved, to flee to London. For almost four months, Blau has been in self-imposed exile there to avoid answering questions about how and from whom he obtained the confidential defense department documents that are said to have resulted in a spate of stories alleging personal and institutional misconduct on the part of the Israeli Defense Forces, the hallowed IDF, and some of its senior officials.
In a nation that prides itself on its vibrant discourse and a free press, this is stunning, depressing news.
There are parts of this story that we still don't know however the Israeli government's insistence that many parts of this story not be told and enforcing a gag order to do it are troubling to say the least.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday he would not restrict construction in east Jerusalem, a step requested by the U.S., but would upgrade upcoming indirect talks with the Palestinians to include the main issues dividing them.
Netanyahu originally had wanted to put off a discussion of issues like the status of contested east Jerusalem, final borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees until direct talks are launched.
It was not clear what Netanyahu's declared refusal to budge on east Jerusalem -- the territory that lies at the crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- would mean for future relations with Washington and the rest of the international community.
Netanyahu's moves go nowhere near the U.S. demand to cancel a major new housing project at the heart of the row, but apparently he has offered enough to prompt U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to call them "useful and productive" and dispatch an envoy back to the region this week.
U.S.-Israeli relations have hit a 35-year low over a contentious east Jerusalem building project that threatens to derail peacemaking efforts with the Palestinians, Israel's envoy to Washington was quoted as saying Monday.
Ambassador Michael Oren's remarks clashed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's assurances that the political turmoil resulting from the settlement
announcement, which the Obama administration slammed as "an insult," was under
control.
"Israel's ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975 ... a crisis of historic proportions," the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper quoted Oren as saying to Israeli diplomats in a phone briefing over the weekend.
This spat has showed just how far relationships have deteriorated. Without taking sides, it's remarkable that such a disagreement would be characterized as a crisis.
Joe Biden was in the region when some yet unnamed bureaucrat in the interior department announced the approval for zoning of new construction of apartment buildings in a contentious part of Jerusalem.
That lead to a public rebuke by Biden. It then lead to a screaming match by phone by Hillary Clinton and her counterpart which was then leaked to the press and hyperanalyzed.
Now, the entire relationship appears on the brink. Yet, unconfirmed reports have the U.S. demanding this of Israel.
They also reported that the U.S. wants Israel to make a significant confidence-building gesture toward the Palestinians. Suggestions included releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails; turning over additional areas of the West Bank to Palestinian control; removing some of the roadblocks hampering the movement of Palestinians and goods in the West Bank; and easing the blockade on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, media reported.
That's a request that Israel is unlikely to accept. Relations between the two nations have been contentious since the U.S. made a pet project out of ending their (Israel's) expansion of settlements. Obama's approval was once down in the single digits in Israel. The Israeli Ambassador is calling this " Worst crisis with US since '75"
Israel’s ambassador to Washington Michael Oren convened Foreign Ministry consuls for an emergency briefing, and told them the crisis between Israel and the US is the worst since 1975, Army Radio reported.
Oren was referring to a crisis that evolved when Israel refused to sign a treaty to withdraw forces from Sinai in 1975.
In an unusual move, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) made a public call on the White House to tone down the rhetoric. The lobby said statements made by senior officials in US President Barack Obama’s administration were “very worrying.”
The comparison in crises is interesting. The last included a war and this includes a zoning approval. That's how far we've come.
Mideast envoy George Mitchell has threatened that the U.S. could freeze aid to Israel if the country fails to advance peace talks, YNetNews.com reported.
Mitchell said the U.S. can legally cut its support for aid to Israel and that all options must remain open, YNet reports, though he clarified on PBS that the U.S. wants to put pressure on both sides in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
The remarks come on the eve of his trip to Israel, aiming to bolster a peace process that failed to get back off the ground during the first year of the Obama administration...
Try and put this into perspective. The Israelis are going to be forced to negotiate with folks that have no use for peace with them. Now, the Obama administration is telling them that unless there is progress, their own aid will be cut.
So, Israel is bullied into negotiating with people that have no use for peace with them. Now, they're bullied into making progress.
I know that Obama wants to be an objective arbitor in all this. Some of us have a problem with that, however this isn't objective at all. All the pressure is being applied to the Israelis. None of the pressure is being applied to the Palestinians. That's not objective. That's favoring the Palestinians.
Gilat Shalit was captured in a cross border raid by Hamas in 2006. Now, that naked act of aggression appears to be about to pay off for the terrorist group.
Israel's cabinet has handed its response to a proposed prisoner exchange deal with Hamas to a German mediator, following lengthy debate between ministers.
No details of the Israeli response, which could see hundreds of Palestinian prisoners swapped for an Israeli soldier held in the Gaza Strip, were immediately available on Tuesday.
Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier at the centre of the exchange, was captured in a cross-border raid by Palestinian fighters in June 2006 and has been held by Hamas ever since.
If you're a believer in Pavlov's theories, like me, then you can see that such an exchange will do more harm than good. In fact, I am of the opinion that Shalit was captured, in part at least, because the Israelis had agreed to similar exchanges in previous years.
This morning the president, along with the leaders of France and Britain, "stunned" the world with this news.
President Obama, along with the leaders of Britain and France, demanded Friday that Iran immediately allow international weapons monitors to inspect a nuclear facility the Islamic Republic acknowledges it has been secretly building for years.
Obama, joined by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the opening of the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, warned Iran that it will be "held accountable" to an impatient world community if it does not fully disclose its nuclear ambitions.
So, it appears that Iran has had a secret nuclear plant and has been developing uranium there for years. I say the news was "shocking" because you'd have to have been really gullible to believe that Iran had disclosed its nuclear ambitions fully.
This is, according to President Obama, the third violation of UN resolutions related its nuclear ambitions. What's also not surprising was that all three leaders said that Iran "must be held accountable" and that this a moment of truth, yet again.
The language following this announcement was frankly no different from what we heard from President Bush over and over again regarding Iran. The former president proceeded to do little but talk tough toward Iran. He was able to orchestrate a few meaningless sanctions and did little beyond that.
Any sanctions that go through the UN would face a roadblock with both Russia and China. Earlier in the week some said that there was a breakthrough with Russia when its "leader" Dmitri Medvedev said that sanctions toward Iran were "inevitable". Some called this the first sign that the president's outreach was working. Now, that will have its first test. Most astute observers of Russia know that Vladimir Putin is the real leader of Russia, and it's unclear what Putin will do.
Garry Kasparov, the main opposition leader in Russia, believes that Putin makes every move with a desire to artificially raise oil prices. That's dropped precipitously since its highs about two years ago. A confrontation between Iran and the rest of the world would certainly push oil prices up in the short term, and so it's unclear that sanctions would benefit Putin.
I expect the world to talk tough for a few weeks. I expect some meaningless sanctions and then everyone will forget about it for the time being. Israel, however, has no such options. So, maybe, the threat of a regional war in the Middle East will force some to act. We'll all have to wait and see.
The speech given earlier today by Benjamin Netanyahu to the United Nations was one of the best I've heard a politician given in all the years I've been following politics. While I have no doubt the speech will be universally lauded for its excellence, the question remains just how much of a difference it will make. That remains an open question. Netanyahu delivered a powerful indictment over holocaust denial, Iranian aggression, and the UN's utter apathy in the face of it all.
Netanyahu began by countering the absurd and vicious assertions by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust didn't happen. Netanyahu actually pulled out a copy of Hitler's final solution as proof that the Holocaust happened. If that wasn't enough, he then recounted how most of his wife's family died in the Holocaust. By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, the UN legitimizes him and his hateful rhetoric. Netanyahu congratulated all those nation that left before and during Ahmadinejad's speech as standing up for humanity and moral clarity. To all who stayed, he delivered this pithy thought.
To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. ... Have you no shame? Have you no decency.
Netanyahu detailed Iran's aggressive behavior toward Israel including calling for its destruction, supporting Hamas and supporting Hezbollah. Netanyahu pointed out that Iran is not merely a threat to Israel but to the rest of the world. He pointed out that all throughout history tyrants that targeted Jews eventually targeted the rest of the world.
Netanyahu went through the history of the creation of Israel. He pointed out that the words of Isaiah are printed on the entrance of the United Nations. Netanyahu pointed out that Isaiah, himself a Jew, said those from Judea in what is now Israel. That was all part of Netanyahu's reminder of the UN that Jews didn't just happen to find their way to Israel in 1948 but have historic ties to that land for several thousand years.
He pointed out that in 1947 the UN issued a charter that would create two states, one a Jewish state and the other an Arab state. He pointed out that the Jewish people accepted this charter while the Arabs rejected it and then attacked the newly formed Israeli nation in 1948.
Netanyahu left his most blunt and direct attack for UN's current policy. In righteous indignation, he condemned the UN's recent condemnation of Israel for its offensive in Gaza last January.
What a travesty, Israel justly defended itself against terror. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?
Netanyahu pointed out that Hamas has used Gaza as the launching point for rocket attacks on nearby Israeli cities for the last eight years. In fact, Netanyahu made a historical comparison. He said only once in history had one nation targeted the civilian population of another and that was Germany's carpet bombing of London. By that logic, Netanyahu said, the UN would have written a report of condemnation of FDR and Winston Churchill had they been around in the early 1940's.
Netanyahu pointed out that the UN has never once written a report condemning Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran for their systematic targeting of civilians. They've never written one report condemning those three for launching attacks from schools, homes, and Mosques. Never once has the UN written a report of condemnation for any of the three hiding among civilians all while launching rockets haphazardly into Israeli civilian population.
In the irony of ironies, he called for two states living peacefully side by side just as the camera moved to a rep of Palestine leaving the hall. At one point, a representative of Nigeria could be seen with arms crossed leaning back in his seat, body language that indicates deep distrust and disfavor.
He called this a moment of truth and the jury being out on the UN. Will the UN continue to draw a moral equivalence between the democratic nation of Israel and the terrorists of Hamas?
Netanyahu's speech was powerful because it identified several simple truths. Ahmadinejad is a madman and a Holocaust denier, and yet, the UN, and the world community for that matter, refuses to confront him. If he gets nuclear weapons, that will be devastating for the world. Yet, the UN which is supposed to confront such evil fails to confront him all the while using every opportunity to condemn Israel.
While this speech was powerful, I don't know that it will ultimately make much of a difference. In my final senior speech in front of my fraternity, I called out all the racists in my fraternity, and there were many. Here's how I concluded my speech.
One last thing, when I first arrived here, many of you made comments about me being Jewish. At first, I figured it wasn't that big a deal because you weren't that mature, but since its been four years and you still haven't gotten over it. The only thing I can see is that to you I'm just another K%^E, just like Macias is just another S^&C, and Arnold's just another Ni$$er.
I became a bit of a rock star in the fraternity for the next week. Many of my frat brothers were genuinely sorry for what they had said. That said, none ultimately stopped being racist and most were ultimately left unchanged by the speech. If someone is weak and rotten that's how they'll be. That's how I see the UN and while this was a great speech I don't think that many in the UN will now see the light.
It's probably not going to be anything that good but President Obama has secured a Middle East coup.
A day after U.S. special envoy George Mitchell left Israel with no deal on a resumption of peace talks in the region, the White House announced Saturday that President Barack Obama will meet Tuesday in New York with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. That meeting will be immediately preceded by separate meetings between Obama and each leader, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
The announcement changed the Mideast headline from “stalemate” to “breakthrough” as the Obama administration enters a week in which foreign policy takes center stage, with the president appearing at both the opening of the United Nations General Assembly and the G20 economic meetings in Pittsburgh.
Now, getting the two sides to the table is the easy part. The issues here are so complicated that it's very unlikely that anything will come of this meeting. Now, before everyone runs out and condemns Obama even before the meeting, let's all remember that these issues have been out there as long as Israel has been around, and before. No one has been able to resolve them and I simply expect President Obama to be as effective as all his predecessors.
Just look at the issues. Obama wants Netanyahu to stop building settlements. Netanyahu wants some sort assurances for peace. Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas has very limited power. That's about as complex a symbiotic relationship as there is. Netanyahu would be a fool to commit to anything. After all, Abbas could promise anything but he has no power over Hamas.
Meanwhile, a major premise of the Obama doctrine is on the line. President Obama insists that if you bring the parties to the table, then geopolitical issues can be resolved. Now, here's the first test. He's now going to have Palestine sitting across the table from Israel. It's the first of many meetings hopefully.
In my opinion, however, face to face chats resolve nothing in these very complicated scenarios. The Palestinian people are fractured. One side simply wants to destroy Israel. The other side, Abbas, claims to want negotiations. Meanwhile, Israel can't seem to figure out how to achieve peace with enemies surrounding it. In that climate, you can talk for the next three lifetimes and nothing will be resolved. President Obama disagrees. We will all soon enough see.
Reagan didn't sit down with Gorbachev until the arms race had broken the Soviet Union. In that, he was negotiating from a position of power. In this negotiation, no one has any power. There is simply chaos. That's a recipe for confusion and a negotiation without a purpose. This appears to be the sort of sit down in which nothing will be decided except all sides will agree to sit down again. That's fine, however many issues need to be resolved that can't be resolved by these sitdowns. Until they are, these sort of sit downs seem to be useless.
In the hoopla over health care reform, this geopolitical story went largely unnoticed.
Israeli President Shimon Peres said Wednesday that the Kremlin has promised to reconsider the planned delivery of powerful air defense missiles to Iran.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made the pledge during their talks Tuesday in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Peres said.
"President Medvedev gave a promise he will reconsider the sales of S-300s because it affects the delicate balance which exists in the Middle East," Peres told reporters via video link from Sochi.
The most important unreported business and geopolitical story of the year was this one.
On Jan. 18, just hours after a cease-fire began in the Gaza Strip, Israel announced the discovery of a major natural gas field off its northern Mediterranean coast.
The news sent the Tel Aviv stock market sharply higher on Sunday as the size of the find appeared to eclipse the negative impact of the recession the country is now facing. Shares of the Israeli partners in the Tamar-1 drilling site jumped between 42% and 124%, though profit-taking pulled some down on Jan. 19. Even the Israeli shekel joined in, climbing by up to 1.6% against the dollar on Monday before settling the day up a half-point.
The discovery of this natural gas pipeline immediately made Israel a player in the natural gas market. It's an open secret that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to create a pseudo OPEC cartel in natural gas.
Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent chills through Western Europe when he discussed the possibility of forming a gas-producers' association with countries like Libya and Iran. "A gas OPEC is an interesting idea. We will think about it," he said. "We are not going to set up a cartel. But it would be correct to co-ordinate our activities with an eye to the solution of the main goal of unconditionally and securely supplying the main consumers of energy resources."
Uh-oh!
Here is a government that already uses its control of vital energy supplies as a weapon against its neighbors proposing to join forces with a charter member of the Axis of Evil—the better to intimidate rival nations all over the world.
Everyone is well aware that Iran is moving quickly towards developin nuclear weapons and has threatened to destroy Israel. What hasn't been reported as much is a series of high level meetings between Israeli officials and Russian officials. The latest of which I just cited.
It continues to be more and more clear that Israel has no confidence that the U.S. will do anything to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The Israelis can attack Iran before that happens but they would clearly like to find a better way to resolve this.
That's where Russia enters this geopolitical chess match. Iran's nuclear weapons development depends in very large part on Russia's support. That's because most of the equipment and weaponry comes from Russia. With the discovery of the natural gas pipeline in Israel, Israel becomes a major player in the natural gas market. They would be a very natural part, pardon the pun, of a natural gas cartel headed by Russia. Russia has no interest in Iran attaining nuclear weapons per se. They would gladly cut Iran off if it meant securing Israel's place in their cartel. This latest meeting appears to have been a step toward Russia cutting Iran off and thus cutting off their nuclear weapons program.
Israel cannot have Iran get a nuclear weapon. They have no confidence that the Obama administration will help them in this cause. As such, that country is now reaching out to other geo political players to ally themselves. Russia has much more influence on Iran than the U.S. anyway. So, it appears the geo political balance of power is changing with little scrutiny. Israel is moving away from their alliance with the U.S. and moving toward an alliance with Russia.
Russia increases its influence in the world, and with Israel in their back pocket, they are one step closer toward creating a natural gas cartel. Meanwhile, in its quest to reach out to Iran, the U.S. is pushing away its long term ally Israel. Israel also has plenty of business dealings with China, another country with influence over Iran. Of course, if Israel were to ally itself with China and Russia, that would end any hope that the U.S. could influence Israel into a peace agreement with the Palestinians. It would also create a formidable alliance that would challenge the U.S. both militarily and economically. It appears that it is unfolding with little notice.
Dick Morris cites a poll of Jewish Democrats and their views of Obama's policies towards Israel. Here is a summary. Jewish Democrats reject nearly in wholesale every specific policy that Obama has produced vis a vis Israel. They reject his tough policies on settlements. They reject his policy toward Iran. They reject his view that a Palestinian state is key for peace. In fact, by a 52-20 margin Jewish Democrats believe that.
the Arabs will never live in peace with Israel and that giving them a nation of their own will just make them stronger
Only half believe that Obama is pro Israel while the other half believe he is anti Israel or neutral. Yet, despite this wholesale rejection of the individual parts of Obama's Israel policy, Jewish Democrats by 58-16 believe that Obama is doing a good job of promoting peace in the Middle East. Beyond this, 92% of all Jewish Democrats approve of the job Obama is doing overall. Yet, here is how Morris concludes the sum total of this survey.
The fervency of their support for Israel suggests that Obama may suffer real political damage among a core Democratic constituency if he continues policies that differ so fundamentally from those of the Israeli government.
Now, if you have been reading my work for a while, you know that I find Morris to be one of the most astute political observers around. That said, I totally reject his conclusion here. In fact, this poll further proves my original point about Jews and the Democratic party. The Jewish people have ceded their vote to the Democrats and they aren't nearly as pro Israel as one may think. Of course, Jews are pro Israel, however, try and put this poll into perspective. On the one hand, Jews reject each and every specific policy coming out of the administration. They overwhelming affirm their support for Israel. Yet, they overwhelmingly support Obama's Middle East policies as a whole and even more support his job overall.
In fact, this goes to show that 1) Jews have sold themselves out to the Democrats on the issue of abortion and 2) that this sell out also sells out Israel. In fact, at this point, I would say the issue of Israel is more important to the Evangelical vote than it is to the Jewish vote. In reality, the Jews have nearly given Obama carte blanche vis a vis Israel according to this poll. Obama is their guy and so they overwhelmingly support his overall policy even though there's no part of the policy, specifically, that they support. The Jewish people in America have decided that abortion is more important to them than Israel and as a result, they have sold their votes to a party much less friendly to Israel than they claim to want.
The timing is uncanny. In the last week, two liberals strongly defended Obama's policies toward Israel. Yet, their defenses are diametrically apart from each other. As such, at best, one is terribly wrong. At worst, both are wrong. In my opinion, both are delusional.
The first comes from Israeli defender, Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz acknowledges what most of us that follow events surrounding Israel already know...Obama's policies are troublesome to most that are concerned with safety and prosperity of that nation. Dershowitz defends them in two ways. First, he acknowledges that Obama has been much tougher than his predecessors on the issue of settlements. Dershowitz points out that while Obama's rhetoric has been sharper on settlements, the policy is not necessarily any different. Furthermore, just because you are against settlement expansion doesn't mean you don't have the safety of Israel as a top priority. Now, I agree with Dershowitz on the second point. Settlement expansion is not some sort of litmus test on Israel. On the other hand, he makes a quantum leap on the first point.
There is a massive difference between Obama's policies and prior policies on settlements. Prior presidents allowed for "natural growth" whereas Obama doesn't even allow for that. Dershowitz makes this seem as though it is a minor point. It isn't. Without natural growth, this means that the population in settlements couldn't grow. That means for every child born someone would have to leave. If there is no natural growth, there are no settlements period. Furthermore, past presidents have demanded a lot more of both the Palestinians and the Arab world in general. This president saves most of his criticism for Obama himself.
On the issue of Iran, Dershowitze is even more murky. First, he acknowledges that so far Obama's policies have been problematic.
The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But prior to the current unrest in the Islamic Republic, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frightened many supporters of Israel in May by appearing to link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli actions with regard to the settlements.
This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran -- which would endanger the entire world -- should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.
The current turmoil in Iran may strengthen the Obama administration as it seeks to use diplomacy, sanctions and other nonmilitary means to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But if these tactics fail, the military option, undesirable and dangerous as it is, must not be taken off the table. If the Obama administration were to shift toward learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempt to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets as a last resort, that would be troubling indeed. Thankfully, the Obama administration's point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.
After Dershowitz lays out what he himself considers a disturbing trend, Dershowitz defends that Obama administration by pointing out that Dennis Ross is their point man on Iran. As such, none of us have anythin to fear because Ross is both a veteran of the region and pro Israel.
That's just looney. The Obama's policy toward Iran has just been plain inexplicable. They have maintained a position of outreach. They have been even handed in their response to the protests. The administration to do this day maintains that talks with the current regime are still possible. Their linkage of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons to the Palestinian/Israeli crisis is so disturbing that Dershowitz himself characterizes it as "disturbing". Yet, after listing out all the reasons to be troubled, all Dershowitz has to say in defense is that Dennis Ross is the point man and thus we need not worry. Is Dershowitz kidding?
The reality is that Obama's policies have so far been decidedly anti Israel. While it's far too early to make a final judgment on Obama's Israeli policy, it's not too early to say that so far it has been nothing short of anti Israel. It's no surprise that a recent Israeli poll gave Obama single digit support in that nation.
The other analyst is Matt Yglesias. He supports Obama's Israeli policy because he sees it as sufficiently anti Israel.
There was no sign of this change in the post-election transition process. Hillary Clinton, who as senator from New York had staked out extremely pro-Israel positions, was made secretary of state. Robert Gates, George W Bush’s secretary of defence, was kept in place. As these secretaries began staffing their offices, many foreign policy hands who had supported Obama began to fear that they were being frozen out. People who’d spent more than a year working to put him in the White House began complaining to me that there seemed to be room on the president’s national security team for all kinds of people except his own supporters.
It now seems that while Obama was alarming some of his fans, he was also lulling his opponents into a false sense of complacency. In the past couple of months, he has adopted a tough stance against Binyamin Netanyahu’s government and his approach has flummoxed the pro-Israel lobby.The first major sign of change came at a meeting of the lobby’s flagship organisation, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), on 5 May. The annual gathering attracts big-name politicians from across the political spectrum and this year’s session was no exception. But the message from some of the most influential Democrats did more than attempt even-handedness.
“Israel must work toward a two-state solution,” said Vice-President Joe Biden, “not build settlements, dismantle outposts, and allow Palestinians freedom of movement, access to economic opportunity and increased security responsibilities.” Senator John Kerry went further, hailing the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as an important step and arguing that “nothing will do more to show Israel’s commitment to making peace than freezing new settlement activity”.
Yglesias goes on to, in detail, describe how Obama's tough stance toward Israel caught the Israelis off guard, put Netanyahu on the defensive, forced him to soften his tone, and how all of this will soon lead to peace (which presumably Yglesias blames Israel for a lack of) Most of Yglesias' analysis is impossible to confirm. How do you confirm if Israelis were caught off guard? How do you confirm if this put the Israelis on the defensive? All of it is nonsense regardless. That's because after this analysis, Yglesias is forced to acknowledge this.
The new approach has yet to have much of an impact on the ground in the occupied territories, but it has pushed Netanyahu to seek to soften his image in the US with a conciliatory-sounding speech. And Obama’s administration understands that words rather than deeds are what is needed from Israel. Republicans, led by Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, are trying to use the issue against Obama, helped by leaders such as Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, an umbrella group that purports to speak for Jewish Americans. And yet, on 16 June, the Union of Reform Judaism, the largest organisation of synagogues in America, adopted a resolution backing Obama, condemning the “destructive impact of the settlements” in the occupied territories and calling on Israel to freeze settlement activity unconditionally.
In other words, nothing has changed but Netanyahu sounds more conciliatory. Yglesias is delusional because he believes that Israel has no options. He thinks that if the U.S. is tougher with Israel, the tiny nation will be forced to capitulate.
That's just not accurate. All nations have options. If the Israelis are convinced that they are dealing with a president that doesn't have their best interest at heart, the Israelis will look to ally themselves with another nation of relatively equal strength (obviously no one is as strong as America but there are options). One such option is Russia. Israel discovered a major source of natural gas in January. Russia is looking to create an OPEC style cartel in natural gas. Russia would be more than happy to ally itself with Israel if it means a partner in this OPEC style cartel. Israel would have no choice but to ally itself with Russia if they are convinced the U.S. doesn't have its best interest at heart. The problem with treating your ally like an enemy is then your ally will seek new allies. The left should not be under the impression that Israel would ever capitulate and threaten its own safetly simply because we have a president that suddenly talks tough to them.
Later today, the president will travel to Russia as part of a week trip through Europe and Africa. He'll stop at the Vatican, meet with the other leaders of the G8, and travel to Ghana.
President Obama is scheduled to leave Washington tonight on a week-long trip that will help determine whether his personal popularity and fresh policy approaches can yield concrete results on difficult issues including arms control, missile defense and nuclear nonproliferation.
After seeking support for U.S. policies from allies in Europe and appealing for a new relationship with the Muslim world in Cairo on previous trips, Obama arrives in Moscow tomorrow for his first foray into high-profile, nuts-and-bolts negotiations with the leader of a nation that might be deemed an unfriendly rival.
On Wednesday, Obama will travel to L'Aquila, Italy, where he will meet with leaders of the world's major industrial powers. Climate change and the continued shaky global economy are expected to dominate the agenda. He is also to meet with Pope Benedict XVI.
The president is wise to understand Russia's motive in the region and in the world. Russia is looking to increase its reach both in the region and the world. Russia currently supplies Europe with about 75% of it energy needs. Russia is also a major player in the natural gas market. In fact, Russia may even be angling to lead a group of nations to create an OPEC like cartel in natural gas. In all these ways, Russia will once again become a major player in the world's geopolitics.
Russia is also looking to exert as much control over its former republics as possible. That was put on display last summer when Russia invaded Georgia. Finally, much of Russia's economic wealth is dependent on artificially high oil prices, and in fact, Putin opponent, Garry Kasparov, believes that Putin's entire geopolitical agenda is based on maintaining this artificially high oil prices.
There will be several issues on the agenda between Russian leaders and President Obama: nuclear non proliferation, missile defense, and NATO membership for many former Georgian satellites.
President Obama would be wise to keep all of this in mind as ne negotiates with the Russians. Nuclear non proliferation is his pet issue but from the view of Vladimir Putin, he would gladly give up his nuclear stock pile if it meant the U.S. backing away from a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Missile defense in Eastern Europe make most of the former Russian satellites a lot more secure from the influence of Russia. The same goes for NATO membership of many of these satellites. Putin frankly sees the potential of a natural gas cartel as a significantly more promising way of exerting force than his nuclear stock pile. As such, Russia would gladly sign onto any nuclear non proliferation agreement if it means that the U.S. backs off missile defense and NATO membership for the Ukraine, Georgia and other former Russian satellites. Any such agreement would NOT be in our best interest, nor our friends.
There's more. Israel recently discovered a major natural gas discovery. Israel is now instantaneously a player in the natural gas market. With relations between the U.S. and Israel frosting, Russia could use this as an opportunity to try and include them in any such OPEC style cartel. In fact, the recent visit by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, of Russian descent, could be a sign of warming relations between the two nations. Russia can and will use the growing rift between the U.S. and Israel to their advantage.
Vladimir Putin knows that President Obama is desperate to achieve nuclear non proliferation. Putin is desperate to increase the scope of influence by Russia in the world. Putin could easily puppeteer Obama into an agreement that gives Putin exactly what he wants. Russia has several agendas in the world. They are not America's allies. They must be viewed as threats and rivals and all potential agreements must carefully be viewed with all of this in mind.
Please note. I welcome any and all comments from any political perspective. I will not stand or approve any swearing, and personal attacks will likely also not be approved.
